asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will arrange to have all benefits, such as dental and optical benefits, at present applicable to insured persons extended to dependants, in view of the high contributions now being paid.

Extension of dental and optical benefits on the lines suggested by the Deputy is not contemplated.

In view of the fact that the social welfare contributions plus pay related benefit and health charges are now approximately £5 per insured worker per week and as a result of the massive increases that took place some time ago that brought £40 million into Richie Ryan's——

A relevant question, please, Deputy.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say that, as of right, the wife and children of an insured worker should have optical and dental benefits similar to what he has?

Since the Deputy has raised the issue I would inform him that the element of the social insurance stamp which goes towards dental and optical treatment amounts to less than one new penny. Therefore, the Exchequer meets practically the whole cost of that service.

My point is that the benefits for which an insured worker is eligible should be extended to his wife and family. That is why I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have the regulations in this regard changed.

As I have told the Deputy, a change in the law is not contemplated at present.

I am calling Question No. 21.

To use the Parliamentary Secretary's terminology, those people should have this service as a right.

The Deputy is indulging in repetition.

What I said was that, as of right, people should know the benefits to which they are entitled, should know that these benefits are theirs as of right. They are not entitled to the benefit referred to under the existing law.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept from me that only the other day I received a letter from a woman, the wife of a working man, who told me that she was suffering from severe toothache but since she could not avail of the dental benefit to which her husband was entitled, there was nothing for her but to grin and bear the pain? Is it not an anomalous situation that these benefits would not apply to the wives and children of insured persons? Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why a change in the situation is not contemplated?

Fianna Fáil did not do much about the situation in 16 years of office.

We are talking about progress.

An extension on the lines suggested would cost approximately £6 million.

Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary agrees that change is desirable but the £6 million is not available.

For years I have been advocating many desirable changes.

The Parliamentary Secretary was in Opposition then.

Since moving to this side of the House, many of the improvements I suggested have been implemented and with a continuance of the present Government, the service suggested here will be included eventually.

That is what I wanted the Parliamentary Secretary to say.