asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he will state the total weekly sum now payable to a blind pensioner without means in an urban area in respect of himself and dependent children under the existing Old Age Pensions Acts as amended by Emergency Powers Orders, 1947, in relation to cash supplements (a) if he has five dependent children, and (b) if he has ten dependent children; and, further, if he will state the weekly sum to which a blind pensioner without means in an urban area over 30 years of age will receive if he becomes entitled to receive a pension after 7th January, 1949, under the terms of the Social Welfare Bill, 1948, as introduced on the 20th July, 1948 (a) if he has five dependent children, and (b) if he has ten dependent children.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Blind Pensions.
Under the existing Old Age Pensions Acts and the Social Welfare Schemes (Cash Supplements) Orders, 1947, the weekly sum which could now be granted to a claimant for blind pension without means in an urban area if he has five or ten dependent children is 15/- (10/- basic pension and 5/- cash supplement).
Under the terms of the Social Welfare Bill, 1948, as introduced, the weekly sum payable in either such case would be 17/6.
Some pensioners were formerly in receipt of food vouchers in respect of dependent children, which were substituted by cash supplements under the cash supplements Orders. These Orders, which were made last year, did not, however, make any provision for similar increases, in respect of children, to subsequent claimants.
How much did a blind person who had five children get in cash supplements? That is the question I asked.
The Deputy's question is not framed to get that information.
It is.
It is not. I furnished the Deputy with the information he asked for, namely, that a blind person with five or more dependent children is entitled to 15/- per week, 10/- pension and 5/- cash supplement, and that under the Bill he will get 17/6. I indicated to the Deputy in reply to his question that there were certain pensioners formerly in receipt of food vouchers in respect of dependent children, that these food vouchers were substituted by cash supplement under the cash supplement Order, but that this Order, which was made last year, did not make any provision for a similar increase in respect of children to subsequent claimants, that is, claimants who presented themselves after the Order had been made last year.