asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will abolish the means test for blind pensioners who seek the 5/- increase in their pension, granted from November 1966.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Blind Pensions Means Test.
16.
The items which constitute means are laid down by law and it is not open to me to direct that the means test be relaxed or any item ignored in the calculation of means.
Would the Minister not agree that the cost of living impinges far more heavily on blind pensioners than it does on other types of pensioner and, in the light of that, would he not consider it desirable to abolish the means test and give these unfortunate people the extra 5/-to which they appear to be entitled?
The means test for blind pensioners is less restrictive than it is for other pensioners.
Is the Minister aware that a blind pensioner living in a cottage, the valuation of which is £4, had that assessed as means and was refused the 5/- increase? Does he consider the means test any more favourable towards blind pensioners than towards other pensioners because, if he does, I certainly do not?
The 5/- granted in 1966 was to persons with no means.
Would the Minister not abolish this? It is most unjust.
Is the Minister saying that the means test for blind pensioners is less restrictive than it is for other pensioners?
No. There is no difference with regard to qualification for the 5/-, but the original qualification for a blind pensioner is itself a modification. The same case could be made for all pensioners as far as the means test is concerned.
Would the Minister agree that life for a blind pensioner is far more expensive than it is for the ordinary pensioner because the blind pensioner has to employ help?
The Deputy has already asked that question.
The Minister did not answer it.
In certain cases that may be the case, but it is not the overall pattern.
(Cavan): Is it a fact that occupation of a house, even if it is condemned as unfit for human habitation, will deprive a blind pensioner of the 5/-?
It depends on the circumstances of the case. With regard to this "nil" means test, one cannot have any actual definition of what constitutes no means other than no means. Occupation or ownership of property is means. Every case is treated on its merits.