I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is hardly necessary for me to say that the Bill which I am now submitting for the approval of the Dáil follows closely on lines of the White Paper on social security issued from my Department in October, 1949. Since the Paper was published I have heard various comments on the scheme and have read others. As was to be expected, some of the comments were favourable and others unfavourable. There have been, too, a number of unfriendly, I might even say, hostile critics. I have no objection to criticism and, in fact, I welcome it, particularly if it is sound and constructive. It is then doubly welcome. Little of the adverse criticism which the scheme has received warrants serious attention but, at the same time, I think it well to deal with some of the criticism.
Amongst the arguments it has been advanced that the scheme should have been fashioned on vocational lines. To that argument I would reply that we are not living in the clouds. We are dealing with an urgent practical problem, not with one that can wait until all ancillary problems of vocationalism have been solved.
It has also been said by some of the critics that the scheme has a tendency to destroy the solidarity of family life by relieving the head of the household of his responsibilities towards his family. Those critics say that the danger to family life of which they speak can be avoided by the provision of a living wage. My answer to those critics is that there would, of course, be no necessity for a scheme of social security if a living wage were a reality. But my ideas of a living wage differ from the ideas of some of those gentlemen who speak so glibly about it. My conception of a living wage is that it would be such as would provide a decent house and maintenance for a man and his family. It should be sufficient to enable him to meet the hazards to which working men and women are subject, to ensure that in periods of adversity there will be either a reserve of funds or an income to the home which, while possibly not enough to preserve the same standards as obtained when full wages were coming in, should, nevertheless, help to soften the worst effects of cessation of wages. If the critics will consult the Papal Encyclicals they will find that I am only repeating what has already been said there. But the day of the living wage has not yet arrived and, as practical people, we have to deal with the situation as it exists to-day. It will, I think, be generally accepted that where an individual is unable by his own efforts to make provision against economic hazards it is the duty of the State to come to his assistance, and by help and encouragement enable him to face the future with some degree of confidence.
The sick or unemployed man, the widow with helpless children, the aged worker, no longer able to hold his place in industry, cannot afford to wait until society produces a pattern of life where it would not be necessary to make provision, while working, against the hazards that affect them. Sickness and unemployment, particularly where prolonged, have a devastating effect in the homes of many of our people and often involve the sale or pawning of household effects which have been assembled, often by struggle and sacrifice, during periods of employment. It is at times like these that the ordinary worker realises how slender are his resources and how helpless he would be if he had to face these hazards unaided.
Recognition of these facts inspired the introduction of legislation 40 years ago, to provide some sustenance for workers against the risks mentioned. It is because these risks are still present that it is necessary to make similar provision to-day, and essential also that the benefits provided be augmented and brought into line with present-day needs. The views of theorists, living in cuckoo-land, many provide material for academic discussion or amusement but their airy views provide little consolation for the sick or unemployed man, nor do they shelter the widow or orphan from the economic blizzard which follows the death of the father or husband.
To see the question of social security in its proper perspective it is necessary to glance at the historical background. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897 may, perhaps, be accepted as the first social legislation which incorporated the ideas generally accepted to-day. That Act, while it does not bear comparison with present Acts, was the first Act to which the principle of social insurance was applied, but beyond that, it is of little relevance to the Bill at present before the House. At this juncture I might be permitted to mention that it is my intention to remedy the shortcomings of the existing Workmen's Compensation Acts and to bring them into line with the present Bill.
The National Insurance Act of 1911 may be regarded as the origin of social legislation as we know it to-day. It dealt with national health and unemployment insurance. On the national health side, insurance was compulsory for practically all persons over the age of 16 years employed under a contract of service. In the case of manual workers the Act applied, irrespective of the rate of remuneration, but in the case of non-manual workers it applied only where the remuneration. The salary more than £160 per annum. The salary limit of £160 was raised to £250 in 1920 and to £500 in 1947, changes which did little more than reflect changes in the value of money.
On the unemployment side, the scope of the Act was restricted to a small number of organised trades such as the building trade and shipbuilding. The unemployment part of the 1911 Act was repealed in 1920, when a separate Act dealing only with unemployment insurance was passed. The scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act was extended by the 1920 Act and put on the same basis as national health insurance, with the important exclusion of persons employed in agriculture and private domestic service. The system of financing by means of contributions from the insured person, the employer and the State, had its origin in the 1911 Act. The same system of contribution is being followed in the present Bill. The contributions and benefits under the existing schemes have been increased from time to time and other changes have been made, but it may be accepted that the general framework of the 1911 Act remains unaltered and in the normal process of progress and development is being used as the framework of the new scheme.
It will be seen, therefore, that to suggest that the new scheme is a step on the road towards totalitarianism is completely unjustified and wholly misleading. Such a suggestion, if meant seriously, should have been made in 1911 and totalitarianism, as we understand it, had not even been heard of at that time.
At this stage I would like to direct attention to the fact that apart from extensions and increases of existing benefits, the chief benefits of the new scheme are retirement pensions and death grants. In so far as the existing benefits are concerned, the moral philosophers have accepted them without question since the principle of State insurance was first applied to this country in 1911. Those who object to the new scheme must be inspired either by economic considerations or, on ethical grounds, by the extension of the benefits in the form of retirement pensions and death grants. Do they suggest that we have been living in sin for the past 40 years because we provided benefit for the sick and disabled? In this connection, I would venture to suggest that if it is unmoral for working men to have retirement pensions, the provision of pensions for certain other sections of the community is equally unmoral. No intelligent person, however, accepts that view. It should not be forgotten either that the worker pays his weekly contribution towards the cost of his retirement pension. All those who get pensions as a result of employment are not required to do so.
The code of social legislation which exists to-day is not a co-ordinated one. We have, in fact, a haphazard and disjointed pattern of social legislation. It suffers from a variety of defects and, in particular, it suffers from the fact that it is neither comprehensive in its concept nor in its application and administration. We have a number of independent Acts of Parliament dealing with different aspects of the same problem. There is no adequate co-ordination and indeed in some instances no co-ordination whatever between one Act and another. They require, where records are necessary, separate records for each scheme. We have also separate stamps for different types of benefit; separate offices from which the various schemes are administered; we have no uniform pattern running through the existing Acts; and we have various rates of benefit applied to closely comparable contingencies. As well as lacking co-ordination, all those schemes are, in my view, inadequate in their coverage and in the extent of the benefits which they provide. Our problem to-day is to integrate and extend the existing insurance schemes so as to weave them into one coherent whole, and, in the process, to simplify administration by such methods as providing one stamp and one record. In the light of the changed circumstances existing to-day we must, in addition, provide better benefits if we are to bring our social legislation into line with modern conditions.
The first question to be considered in connection with the new scheme is the question of finance and the most suitable method of financing the scheme. It is possible in theory to adopt various systems, and by utilising any particular one of them to produce a scheme which might be called a social security scheme. It would be possible, for instance, to evolve a scheme by which all the money required is raised by direct taxation and to set aside a certain sum to provide the cost of a social security scheme or heavy additional taxes could be imposed on certain commodities and ear-marked for financing the scheme. A third method, following generally on our present pattern, is to adopt a scheme whereby the funds are found by requiring the worker to pay, by requiring the employer to pay, and by asking the State to make a contribution in the same way as the worker or the employer.
There would be inherent dangers in the first or second methods I have outlined. Either method would be novel in this country and always open to the danger that changing revenues might create a situation in which the money available would be inadequate for the purpose of meeting charges or might be assigned to meet some other demand regarded at the time as more pressing.
Our people are familiar with the contributory type of arrangement, and to attempt in present circumstances to meet the cost of a scheme by such means as an all-in tax, portion of which would be ear-marked for social security purposes, would be entering into uncharted seas. I therefore decided, in the light of all the circumstances, that it was better to finance the proposed scheme on traditional lines. This enables the worker to pay his portion of the contribution in the knowledge that he is a potential beneficiary, the employer to pay because he should have a deep interest in the welfare of his workers, and the State, acting as the good father of the weakest and most helpless sections of the community, is also enabled to make contributions because of the over-all national advantages which social security confers. This arrangement creates a pool of money which has a definite statutory existence created for the specific purpose of financing social security measures, and for that reason it is most unlikely that it will be exposed to the hazards inherent in the other methods to which I have referred.
The fact that we have decided to collect contributions to finance the scheme from workers, from employers and from the Government is born out of a realisation of the conditions which exist in this country to-day. It may be interesting here, particularly in the light of the amendment which is being moved by the Opposition, to refer to their views in other days, and to their approach to this whole problem. In 1947 a conference took place in this country between representatives of the Department of Social Welfare and representatives of the British Ministry of National Insurance. That was in November, 1947, a few months before the change of Government. At that conference, the secretary to the Department of Social Welfare was instructed by the then Minister for Social Welfare to inform the British representatives that, in his approach to the problem of social security, the Minister had decided that he did not, at that time, intend to cover within the scope of a comprehensive Bill any but the employed classes: in other words, that he did not propose to cover any classes of persons in this country unless they were employed for wages or salary under a contract of service. Deputies will bear that fact in mind in appraising the value of the amendment which is to be moved to this Bill. That, however, is not the only evidence. Speaking in this House on 27th March, 1947, at column 442, Deputy Dr. Ryan, then Minister for Social Welfare, said:—
"I am very much personally in favour of a contributory scheme for all these various items, but, again, it would be a difficult problem to draw up a contributory scheme for the greater part of the population because a big part of the population, as Deputies know, are not working for wages. It is not easy to devise a contributory scheme where people are not wage earners because it is not so easy to collect the contributions that would be due from week to week."
Later, on 28th March, 1947, the then Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Dr. Ryan, used these words when speaking at columns 553-4:—
"Deputy Murphy says he thinks we could bring 90 per cent. of the people into a contributory scheme. I do not think so. At least, I do not think it is easy to bring people into a contributory scheme unless they are wage earners.... But, to return to the point, it is not easy to collect contributions unless from wage earners. I say that as a fact, and if Deputy Murphy, or anybody else, can show me I am wrong I will be delighted, because I should like to see the small farmers and small shopkeepers—between them a very big class—included. It is calculated that there must be nearly 250,000 between these two classes—250,000 who would need provision for their old age. It is a pity we cannot have a comprehensive scheme for them, and, if Deputy Murphy or anybody else can show me how it can be done, I will be very delighted to have it considered for this contributory scheme. If we cannot include them in a contributory scheme we will have to consider what can be done otherwise. That is all."
You can see from that that in March, 1947, prizes were being offered to anybody who could suggest the manner in which non-wage or non-salaryearning classes could be brought into a contributory scheme.
Again at column 554, on 28th March, 1947, Deputy Dr. Ryan, Minister for Social Welfare said:—
"Deputy Murphy said that we need more courageous proposals. I quite agree with him on that and I am afraid that when this comprehensive scheme comes along some Deputies may lose their courage, because there is no doubt that if we provide even for the aged, as Deputies would like to see them provided for, on a contributory basis, it is going to mean a very big contribution from the worker and, as I say, the courage that will be necessary to face that issue when the time arrives will be fairly substantial."
Having regard to the terms of the amendment, it is easy to see where the faulty courage now is. Some people have discovered now that riding two horses is much more convenient than riding one. However, the public will put their own appraisal on the amendment in the light of the speeches of people who could have done the things they now want to do when in office but declined to do them for the very good reasons quoted here.
Again we have Deputy Dr. Ryan at column 553, on the 28th March, 1947, saying:
"We are working towards what has been referred to by every speaker— a comprehensive scheme—but it will be, I am afraid, 12 months or so before it can be presented. I am also very glad to see that every speaker appears to be in favour of a contributory scheme of insurance by which, so far as we can arrange it, people will build up their own insurance fund and insure themselves against sickness, unemployment and so on."
The Minister at the time was distinctly pleased that so many Deputies favoured the contributory scheme which he then favoured and which is enshrined in this Bill.
Again at 2003-4 on the 12th March, 1947. Deputy Dr. Ryan in reply to an interjection by Deputy Pattison said:
"Deputies will have to keep in mind, of course, that to give a very much better old age pension and to give it at a lower age, say, 65, and also to improve these other schemes like national health and unemployment assistance will mean a very big contribution whenever the scheme comes along. It will not be a onesided matter. The contribution will have to be increased considerably."
That did not then deter Deputy Dr. Ryan from proceeding with the scheme, but he was warning people that a heavy contribution would be necessary and appealing to them that superb courage was necessary to meet the impact of the increased contributions. Now, their appeals to courage have been abandoned.
Again Deputy Dr. Ryan, speaking at column 824 on the 22nd October, 1947, said:—
"Certain people will be left who will have to get non-contributory pensions—old age pensions, widows' pensions and non-contributory unemployment benefit in the way of unemployment assistance or whatever it may be."
I quoted these extracts from the point of view of showing that in our approach to this whole matter we were confronted with the stark realism that, in present circumstances, you have, at all events at this stage, to think of a scheme which would cover the employed classes, that is any and every man and woman employed under a contract of service for wages or salary. Our predecessors recognised the same thing. They could scarcely fail to do it in any realistic approach to the problem set in our pattern of life. I do not quarrel with their views on this matter. I think Deputy Dr. Ryan was right in these views. What I do quarrel with is the somersaulting in the approach which has produced this amendment. However, I am satisfied with having put these extracts on record and given the House an opportunity of seeing that there is some truth in the saying that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". That will drawn on the Deputy when he reads the extracts.
The State contribution in the present Bill is in two parts, a weekly contribution equal to that payable by employer and employee, and responsibility for meeting any deficit which may arise. This deficit would be most likely to arise from the fact that the scheme is applied without selectivity, that is to say, persons are admitted to the scheme even though it is clear that because of age or some other reason they are more likely to draw more from the fund than they will pay in. By virtue of underwriting their liability, the State gives the advantage to persons entering at the lowest age of obtaining full benefits in respect of their contributions, and at the same time permits those entering at later ages to get equal benefits without paying a higher rate of contribution.
In connection with any deficit on the scheme, it is explained in the White Paper that a deficit could be met either on a long-term basis or on a short-term basis by making good the deficiency each year with quinquennial reviews. Modern thought is in favour of a short-term basis and that view has been accepted for the purposes of this Bill.
In the drafting of the scheme it was borne in mind that the worker would know he had a statutory right to benefits because he had contributed towards them. It is felt that this fact tends to give him a sense of dignity and independence, a feeling all the time that the fund to which he is contributing is a perpetual fund which will always be available to pay benefits. I think it is better from the worker's point of view that he should assume an independent status and contribute towards the benefits which are being provided. It will be obvious to the workers that they themselves cannot make provision for all eventualities and for that reason, alone, if for no other, there is an obligation to contribute towards the provision of insurance against the unavoidable contingencies of life, an obligation on the worker to pay contributions whilst able to earn so that these benefits may be available for him when he is no longer able to do so.
In examining this question, we approached it from the standpoint of conditions here. We considered first the practicability of embracing in the scheme self-employed classes as well as those who work for wages. There were inherent difficulties in the position as it affected the farmer and self-employed classes.
Let us consider first the case of the farmer. If he were to be included he would have to pay the full contribution, which in the case of the wage earner can be divided between the employer and the employee. Since the small farmer does not work regularly for wages it was obviously extremely difficult to expect that he would pay contributions each week with the regularity of the wage or salary earner. This is particularly obvious if related to the pattern of life of the small farmer in this country. Nobody who approaches that aspect of the problem realistically will fail to see the difficulties. Apart from the question of contributions, there is also the special difficulty of covering a farmer or self-employed person for sickness or unemployment benefit. In many cases they are not necessarily required to give their full time to their self-employed activities. Loss of pay is nearly always involved where the wage earner becomes sick or unemployed, but it does not always follow that the income of a self-employed person disappears when he becomes sick or unemployed. While dealing with this aspect of the matter it is, perhaps, advisable to point out that even if the small farmer is not included in the new scheme he is still eligible for benefit under the old age pensions legislation. His widow and children can still qualify for widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, and in the case of the very small farmer whose means do not exceed the prescribed limit, he can, when unemployed, qualify for unemployment assistance. It will be seen, therefore, that for the three types of hazard against which he would most desire coverage, i.e., old age, death and unemployment, he could get these benefits under our existing legislation without paying any contribution whatever. When it is realised that 75 per cent. of the £7,000,000 paid each year in old age pensions is drawn in rural areas it will be seen that the old age pensions are of more value to the agricultural community than to townspeople. We have endeavoured in Sections 66 and 82 of the Bill to meet to some extent at least the needs of the small farmer.
By virtue of Section 66, farmer members of co-operative societies will be able to come within the scheme. It is intended that such farmers will be brought in on the same basis as voluntary contributors, in other words, that they will be eligible for all the benefits except those of disability and unemployment.
Section 82 provides that a farmer, the poor law valuation of whose land does not exceed £30, may transfer his holding to a son or daughter, secure in the knowledge that if he applies for an old age pension the holding will not be taken into account in the assessment of his means. Heretofore, if a farmer transferred his holding for the purpose of getting the pension his means were assessed on the same basis as if he had not made the transfer. This acted as a deterrent and in many cases farmers retained their farms, even when unable to work them, while their sons left rather than stay on in insecurity. It is calculated that about 86 per cent. of farmers are living on holdings which could be transferred under this section. It is expected that the amendment being made by Section 82 will mean an increased charge on the Exchequer of between £150,000 and £200,000.
We may proceed now to look at the scheme in more detail. One of its main features is that it brings into insurance against unemployment for the first time, agricultural workers, forestry workers and domestic servants. Heretofore such persons had been excluded from the scope of unemployment insurance.
The benefits to be provided under the scheme cover a wide range. They include disability benefit, which will take the place of sickness benefit and disablement benefit; unemployment benefit, widows' and orphans' pensions, retirement pensions payable to men at 65 and to women at 60. There will be an increased maternity benefit from £2 to £5, and there will be a special maternity allowance prior to and subsequent to childbirth. Further, a new benefit in the event of death is payable. This benefit will range from £6 in the case of a child under three to £20 in the case of a person over 18 years of age.
All these benefits are dovetailed into each other. They will be administered by one Department and will involve only one contribution. There will be only one record card. They will confrom to an overall plan in the matter of supervision and general evolution.
As the House is aware, not every person is paid the same wage or salary and, because of that fact, their domestic and financial positions, are necessarily different. We are faced, therefore, with the problem of deciding whether the same contribution should be required from a lowly-paid worker as from a more highly-paid one and, if so, whether it would be wise and expedient to pay the same benefits. We thought, at first, that this matter might be examined from the standpoint of the vocations of the persons concerned to see whether certain groups of workers, called by their vocations, might be given a lower rate of contribution and a lower rate of benefit. We decided, however, that it would be undesirable to have any exclusions on the basis of vocations because even within one vocation you can have a number of wage rates. In any case, it is not easy to describe vocations in law. For example, a man who milks cows in a field to-day is regarded as an agricultural worker and excluded from the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts. But if he puts the bucket of milk into a milkcan and goes round the town and sells the milk he is a non-agricultural worker and comes under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. We finally decided that the best way of dealing with the question was to work on the basis of the wages received. This, we thought, was the best method of determining classifications.
It is, therefore, provided that there will be two classes of persons with two classes of contributions. Those earning over £3 10s. per week will pay a higher rate of contribution, that is, they will pay 3/6 per week for themselves if they are males, and the employer will pay the same amount. If they are females they will pay 2/2 and the employer will pay the same amount. But if they are in the lower wage class, then the man will only pay 2/6 or 1/6, the women 1/2 or 8d., and the employer will pay in that case 3/6 or 4/6 for the man and 2/2 or 2/8 for the woman—in other words, he does not benefit from employing persons at a lower rate of wages. It is only in the cases of disability benefit and unemployment benefit that the lower rate of benefit will be paid to the low wage group. The other benefits will be the same for all contributors.
You may ask why the lower wage group was devised. The answer to that is in two parts—(1) because we felt it would probably be a hardship to require workers to pay the higher rate of contribution having regard to their wage rate, and (2) because we thought that, at the outset, it might be risky, without previous experience of the operations of the scheme, to pay in benefit a sum of money amounting to what a person was receiving while working.
These were the two reasons why the lower wage group was devised, and I think the considerations which prompted us to approach the problem in that way will be obvious to the House. We considered that it would not be advisable to go further than we have done until we had experience and that it was more prudent to travel slowly in the beginning. I think farseeing people will say that it is better to give the scheme a trial on the basis of the two groups and, if experience shows it desirable, we can change over to a completely uniform scheme. In all the circumstances, we felt that it was desirable to begin with the twofold provision of covering specially the man and woman whose wages were below the 70/- level and, at the same time, guarding against possibilities which, if developed on a large scale, might undermine the basis of the scheme. Even though those workers in receipt of less than 70/- per week will pay a lower rate of contribution, they will, as I have already said, receive the same rates of benefit in respect of widows' and orphans' pensions, maternity allowance, retirement pension or death grant, as those who pay the higher rates of contribution. We have come down definitely on the side of having at the outset a high wage group and a low wage group with the understanding that revision can always be made if experience shows this to be prudent. This is not the last Social Welfare Bill, and we can make changes in the light of experience, and when we are satisfied that it is wise and prudent to do so.
The contributions payable under the Bill will include contributions which are being paid at present under our various Acts of Parliament for insurance purposes. If we take for example the ordinary insured worker, the person who is insured for unemployment insurance, national health insurance and widows' and orphans' pensions purposes, his present contribution is 1/11 per week. His contribution under the new scheme will be 3/6 per week, an increase of 1/7. When it is remembered that, in 1949, no less than £44,000,000, or one-eighth of the national income in that year, was spent on drink, tobacco and amusements, and that the amount so spent doubled since 1938, it will hardly be argued that an increase of 1/7 a week is a heavy imposition. Mention of the national income brings to mind the fact that the cost of social security under this scheme in the first year of its existence will amount to approximately 2.87 per cent. of the national income for 1949. This 2.87 per cent. can be broken up as follows:—.92 per cent. of the employees' contribution, 1.13 per cent. of the employers' contribution, and .82 per cent. representing the State's contribution. In view of the wider coverage provided for the worker and the substantially improved benefits being made available, it should be readily recognised that the small additional contribution being asked is a good investment. I would like to reiterate at this point that there is an obligation on every worker to provide for his family against risks from which he cannot protect them out of his own resources; 1/7 is surely not too high a cost to fulfil these high moral obligations.
I would like the House to consider the position as it is to-day. At present an unemployed man with a wife and two children receives from the employment exchange 22/6 a week for himself, 7/6 for his wife and 2/6 for each child. In other words, he receives a total of 35/- per week. Under the new scheme, if he is unemployed he will receive 24/- a week for himself, 12/- for his wife and 7/- for each of two children, making a total of 50/- per week, as against 35/- payable at present.
To-day, if a man with a wife and two children is sick and unable to work, he receives national health insurance benefit of 22/6 per week. If the illness extends over six months, his weekly benefit drops to 15/-.
Under the new scheme, he will receive 50/- per week. There will be no drop after six months. The 50/- per week will continue irrespective of the duration of his illness, so that the worker who becomes ill and is unable, because of the chronic character of his disability, to resume his employment, is assured that this higher rate of benefit will continue so long as he is unable to work.
To-day there is no contributory retirement pension under our social security legislation. There is, of course, a non-contributory old age pension subject to a means test. The introduction of contributory retirement pensions will have the important effect that in future any person who qualifies for retirement pension will obtain it without having to undergo a means test. Under the new scheme when a man reaches 65 years of age and ceases to be employed, he will be entitled to a retirement pension of 24/- a week for himself and 12/- for his wife, making a total of 36/- per week. This will be payable at 65 years of age even though the wife may be under that age. The working spinster, when she reaches 60 years of age, will be entitled in the future to a pension at the rate of 24/- per week.
Maternity benefit which to-day is £2 will be increased under the new scheme to £5 and, in the case of a woman who is working and insurable under the scheme, a maternity allowance will be paid for six weeks before childbirth and six weeks after childbirth, if she ceases to be employed. Further, if the woman is married and is not working and her husband is insured, a special allowance known as an attendance allowance, will be payable for four weeks after the birth of the child. This special allowance will be payable in addition to the grant of £5.
I should like to say a word about the retirement pensions. I think they will be of considerable value to workers whose employers, for a variety of reasons, do not provide pensions for them. I think also they will be of considerable value even where pensions are provided, since, by reason of the fact that there is no means test for retirement pensions, the 24/- per week can be paid in addition to any other income.
Under the new scheme, the discrimination against agricultural workers in the widows' and orphans' pensions scheme, is being removed and it is proposed that the widow of an agricultural worker will get the same rate of widows' and orphans' pension as the widow of any other person. The benefits provided by the former National Health Insurance Society in the form of hospital benefits, dental benefits, optical benefits and certain surgical benefits, will continue under the scheme: continue in all events until such time as a wider scheme of medical benefits, in the national sense, is evolved.
It may be appropriate at this stage to refer to the position of existing old age and blind pensioners. On taking office, this Government quickly demonstrated its desire to improve the lot of this section of the community and, through the medium of the Social Welfare Act, 1948, old age and blind pensions were substantially increased and the means test modified. Those reforms, which affected 160,000 pensioners, did much to improve their position and were warmly welcomed. The improvements referred to cost over £2,000,000 per year; it represented a sound investment in humanity. The Government has had under consideration for some time past, the question of a further improvement in old age and blind pensions and I am happy to avail of this opportunity to announce that the Government has decided to promote legislation to increase old age and blind pensions by a further 2/6 per week. Each pensioner will, in due course, receive this weekly increase, and over 160,000 pensioners will benefit thereby.
