asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give the reason for the withdrawal of the blind pension of 12/6 a week in the case of Mrs. Rose McKeown, of Annahale, Castleblayney, who was in receipt of a pension since 1944.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Blind Pension.
Mrs. McKeown was granted a pension of 7/- per week in 1943. She applied for a higher rate in 1944 and her circumstances were reinvestigated. It was found that her means—half her husband's income— had increased slightly, and a higher pension was not granted. Arrangements were then made, in accordance with long-established practice, to keep the case under review and reinvestigations were made from time to time. A reinvestigation which took place in October last disclosed that owing to a substantial increase in her husband's earnings Mrs. McKeown's means exceeded the statutory limit of £52 5s. 0d. per annum and her pension was withdrawn.
As it might be inferred from the terms of the Deputy's question that Mrs. McKeown was receiving 12/6 per week from 1944 onwards, I should like to make it clear that she received 7/-per week up to January, 1949, when in consequence of the general increases granted under the Social Welfare Act, 1948, the amount payable to her was automatically raised to 12/6 per week.
Is it not a fact that at the time Mrs. McKeown received this blind pension in 1943 the means test operated? At the present time, when we are led to believe that the means test is practically non-existent, the fact of her husband having earned £92 militates against her continuing to receive it. Surely, if the means test does not exist she should get the pension?
The statements made by the Deputy are not correct. Mrs. McKeown is aged 37 years and her husband, I take it, is approximately the same. There is no family. When she applied for the blind pension in 1943 her husband had no income beyond what he was receiving in the form of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance. In 1944, when she made a claim for an increase, her husband was in receipt of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance only; the position in 1943 and 1944 was that her husband had no normal earnings. Because the income was so low she was allowed the pension. Now the husband is working. She is dependent on him. The husband is maintaining the wife out of his wages, out of an income which he had not in 1943 and 1944.
Is the Minister aware that in 1943 the husband earned £26 from the county council, which brought his earnings to £52 and in 1944 he earned approximately the same?
Be careful now.
This case has already been explained to the Deputy by officials in my Department.
Not to this extent.
I am repeating now the information he received. Mr. McKeown's earnings in 1943, if they may be so described, came from the receipt of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance and they amounted to £42 11s. 0d. That was the stated income of Mr. McKeown in 1943.