asked the Minister for Social Welfare when it is intended to provide dental and optical benefit for the wives of insured workers.

9.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends making dental and optical benefits available to the spouses of insured persons.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.

The provision of dental and optical benefits for the spouses of insured workers is under consideration in my Department but it is too early as yet to say when this can be done. I will, however, be pressing ahead with the matter as quickly as possible.

When he is faced with these questions, when will the Minister discard this mickey mouse approach to this issue? During election after election the Fianna Fáil operators have been saying this will be a priority which can be instituted at a stroke of a pen. Now the Minister comes in here once more with a lot of waffle which is being repeated in the Dublin West by-election campaign. He is being run out of the place, quite rightly. The question is if the Minister would tell the House precisely when he intends to bring legislation before the House without any further waffle. I want the Minister to know that I intend to circulate this reply in the Dublin West constituency. Let us have the Minister's answer to it.

My first task on assuming duty as Minister was to restore the level of services which had been severely cut by my predecessor.

Will the Minister stand on his own feet?

The dental schemes throughout the country had been savaged by the former Government. They were severely cut back. If the Deputy wants to see the figures in relation to the schemes I will show them to him gladly.

It was done in a Fianna Fáil budget.

The Deputy has only to call to one of the health boards and he will see that their estimates were severely cut. My first task on assuming duty was to get some additional funds. From the incoming Government I got funds which enabled me to restore the level of service. Having done so, I am now in a position to proceed and I have invited the Irish Dental Association to meet me to consider various arrangements necessary to implement the provisions of the extension of the dental schemes to the spouses of insured workers. This will involve a number of aspects, particularly the supply of dentists. At their annual general meeting the Irish Dental Association said they will be quite happy to discuss with me the broad development of the scheme. Incidentally, I never said that at a stroke of a pen dentists could be manufactured throughout the country. I am afraid the Deputy is not aware of the realities of the situation. When I was Minister previously I undertook this development and now that I am back in office I have been given a further opportunity.

Is the Minister aware that there are people in Donegal who fall into the category mentioned in Question No. 8 who have been waiting for five or six years for dental treatment? Is he seriously suggesting that Deputy Eileen Desmond as Minister was responsible for the delay? Is he aware that there are children who have moved from national schools to secondary schools, some of them have grown to adult life, who qualified under the scheme but who never got treatment?

The Deputy is mistaken in regard to the scheme. I am asked about a scheme that would provide dental and optical benefits for wives of insured workers. That is not provided under any scheme at present and therefore there could not be any question about it being currently applied in Donegal or anywhere else. The Deputy is confusing the medical card scheme with the suggestion that this scheme be extended.

People have been waiting for dental treatment for five or six years.

10.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for the disparity in the treatment of unmarried mothers, in so far as their allowance is subject to means testing, if the child's father voluntarily gives financial support but is not means tested if such support is as a result of a court order.

Any payments made to an unmarried mother by the child's father as a result of a court order——

Some Deputies sought to ask supplementary questions in relation to the last question.

I am sorry, I have called the next question. I would like to allow 20 supplementary questions but I cannot do that, unfortunately.

There were two questions that the Minister sought to deal with together. There were only two supplementary questions taken. There were several Deputies on this side of the House——

Everyone wants to participate. I have gone on to Question No. 10.

I have allowed the Deputy's point of order.

I would ask the Chair if he would look to this side of the House to see if there are people seeking to ask supplementaries before he asks the Minister to proceed to the next question.

I will run the business here. I have looked over to that side and have allowed numerous supplementaries.

On a point of order, did you not see my hand up?

No. I am sorry, Deputy. I have gone on to Question No. 10.

Any payment made to an unmarried mother by the child's father as a result of a court order, which specifically allocates the money to the child, is disregarded in the assessment of means for the purpose of entitlement to unmarried mother's allowance.

Where a payment made by the father, otherwise than as a result of court proceedings, does not specifically allocate the money to the child, it has been the practice to assess portion of the payment as means of the mother. Following representations from groups representing unmarried mothers I am having this practice reconsidered by my Department with a view to having the entire contribution in such cases disregarded as means for the purpose of unmarried mother's allowances.

(Limerick East): Is the Minister aware that, even when there is agreement that the father should contribute to the child, unmarried mothers are actually availing of free legal aid and going to court to get court orders to maintain the children so that the Minister's Department will disregard this payment in the means tests? Is the Minister aware of the full implications of the anomaly in this scheme whereby the Department takes account of payments made voluntarily by agreement by the father but do not take into account payments made on foot of a court order?

I recognise that in virtually all cases the courts allocate maintenance solely to the child and consequently it is as the Deputy suggests. It is because of this situation that it is proposed to amend the prevailing practice in relation to the assessment of means.

(Limerick-East): What is the exact nature of the commitment that the Minister is giving now? Is he going to have a look at it or is he saying he is going to change the practice?

I am saying that I am having it reconsidered within the Department with a view to having the entire contribution in such cases disregarded for means purposes.

(Limerick East): Has the Minister issued a specific instruction to his Department to disallow payments such as this in means testing for the unmarried mothers' allowance?

Currently I am having the practice reviewed in conjuction with the appeals officers with a view to making that arrangement.

(Limerick East): It is still a bit vague. Has the Minister actually taken the decision to disregard such payments in the future or is he thinking about it? Has the Minister issued an instruction? Where do we stand on it?

It is fairly clear from what I have said that I am having the practice reconsidered in conjunction with the appeals officer with a view to having the entire contribution in such cases disregarded. That makes the position clear enough.

(Limerick-East): Has the Minister any information from the free legal aid centres as to the extent of the problem I am raising where there is agreement and mothers are still processing claims through the courts?

I recognise that in all cases the courts award the payment solely to the children. I am not aware of the actual statistics in relation to the putting of appeals through courts for that reason. But I accept what the Deputy says.

I have allowed five supplementaries. We have arrived at a stage where I will gladly continue if the House agrees to give longer time for Questions. We cannot continue as we are. I would suggest that Deputies bring this to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because a lot more time should be given to the answering of questions.

11.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends examining the anomaly in the administration of social welfare payments where only the wives of those prisoners serving over six months are entitled to prisoners' wives allowance.

The legislation governing the prisoners' wives allowances scheme which was introduced in 1974, provides for payment of an allowance in respect of the wives and children of prisoners who are sentenced to terms of imprisonment of six months or more. I have no proposals to alter this statutory provision.

Wives of prisoners serving short-term sentences who are in need may be eligible for supplementary welfare allowance.

The Deputy is aware that I will be shortly setting up a review group to examine the operation of the Department schemes including the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. I am arranging to have the prisoners' wives allowance scheme reviewed in this context.

Can the Minister say what proportion of prisoners' families are covered by the social welfare payments as they stand?

That is a statistical question for which I do not have the information on file. If the Deputy puts down such a question I will get him the answer. In fact, I will communicate with the Deputy afterwards if he wishes.

Is it the Minister's intention to give the allowance to all prisoners' wives?

It is my intention to have the matter considered in the context of the review which has taken place now. There are practical administrative difficulties if the sentence is short because one is involved in issuing a book and there is a long-term arrangement. So the practicalities would have to be considered.

12.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has any plans to change the present rules whereby social welfare benefits are calculated on the basis of a six-day week whereas the average working week usually covers only five.

An inter-departmental working group is examining the question of changing from a six-day to a five-day week for the purpose of the calculation of social welfare benefits. When the recommendations of this group are available the desirability of changing to a five-day week will be considered.

Would the Minister agree that the present arrangement gives an artificial financial incentive to three-day week working in certain industries because it is possible for people to be paid on the basis of a six-day week if they are working a three-day week whereas they are only paid for five if they are working full time?

I agree that there is an anomaly in that respect. There are also other considerations within the scheme in that there are still industries and sectors where a six-day week is operated. There is also the application of this legislation as it applies at present to the general disability benefit and unemployment benefit and other aspects. So, in that context, it would obviously not be desirable to apply a reduced week to the disability benefit because it would actually increase the cost to the State in that case. It is for these various reasons that an inter-departmental working committee was set up and I would hope that they would have their report available fairly soon.

When will the inter-departmental working group be established and when does the Minister expect to receive their report?

The working group was established on 2 March and has been examining the situation since then. There were some complications particularly in relation to the proposed payment of £9.60 to housewives which created some difficulty. They postponed further consideration until that position was clarified and they went back to work subsequently. I expect that they will be reporting in the very near future.

Would the Minister not agree that there are still six working days in the week?

In some instances there are six. For TDs there appear to be seven working days in the week and they appear to be longer than the normal working hours, if that is what the Deputy is referring to.

I accept what the Deputy says and it is widely recognised, but any consideration would have to be in relation to the legislation more generally, and that is taking place at the moment.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the terms of reference of the review group which he is establishing on the social welfare system.

I am at present considering this matter but I can inform the Deputy that the review group will be examining the operation of the Department schemes as a whole. This will involve assessing the relevance of the schemes to modern needs and the extent to which schemes such as the social welfare allowance schemes meet their original objectives.

I had anticipated a better answer. In reply to a number of questions the Minister said that there were to be reviews. Could he be a little more specific, since the question deals with the nature of the review and he has used reference to a review group as a way out of answering a number of other questions? Is there a review group in existence and, if so, what are they doing?

In my reply I pointed out what the terms of reference would include. For example, it will consider the range and nature of existing services provided by the Department of Social Welfare, having regard to the particular objectives and needs to be served in the light of modern developments. It will consider the need for the removal of anomalies and the rationalisation of services. It will consider the operation of social assistance services, including social assistance allowances provided for deserted wives, unmarried mothers, prisoners wives and single women. It will consider the manner of delivery of the services, including the organisation of the Department and the operation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. These are some of the areas it will cover. The Deputy referred to a number of reviews. Some of these were started by my predecessors and are under way at present. It is normal to tackle problems by setting up review groups or a working party which would provide the basis for future developments. Such groups or working parties in the areas of health and social welfare have come up with conclusions very quickly. The Deputy's comment in that respect was a little unfair.

Would the Minister indicate whether he is giving consideration to the operation of a single means test and whether a person on becoming entitled to one benefit through the single means test would automatically be entitled to a number of other benefits? Will the review group consider the possibility of an independent appeals system in the supplementary welfare area, which is necessary and desirable? Would the Minister admit that the general impression given in the past few days of questioning is that of a Department reviewing everything and producing very little? These reviews are taking a good deal longer than the problems warrant. The Minister is using the term "review" to avoid his responsibilities.

I do not agree. The question of the appeals will be considered in the context of the review.

My question also related to a single means test.

I will see that that is considered.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has initiated a review of the free fuel scheme in order to co-ordinate and improve it on a national scale and to eliminate the possibility of the type of dispute which occurred in the autumn of last year.

I have initiated a review of the free fuel schemes with a view to introducing desirable improvements and avoiding any difficulties in the 1982-83 scheme.

Is the Minister aware that in a number of urban areas superior schemes were in operation before the national schemes was introduced? Certain categories of social welfare beneficiaries were excluded from the national scheme. Would the Minister ensure that where a superior scheme is in operation it will get financial benefit from the Department and not be downgraded?

When I introduced the national scheme there were a number of anomalies. However, I brought it in to cover areas which had no scheme. It was based on the trial pilot schemes which had been carried out in the Eastern Health Board area. Urban schemes still have some benefits which are greater than those in the other scheme. The only question in relation to the anomalies is the cost of removing them. That is one of the areas that will have to be considered by the review group for next winter's fuel scheme.

Is the Minister meeting the community welfare officers or has he sought their experience of the scheme? Is he aware of the dissatisfaction among them at the operation of the scheme and their feeling that their valuable information in this area is being ignored? Is he aware of the urgency for such a review?

I am aware of the urgency of the review to ensure that there are as few problems as possible when the scheme begins in the autumn. I will ensure that the views of the welfare officers are taken into consideration.

Is the Minister aware that a requirement of the scheme is that persons be living alone and that this has caused hardship? I refer to cases where there are two members of a family living together, one an income earner and the other not, where communication between them is very bad and they may not be getting along together. Frequently one of the couple is deprived from benefitting under the scheme because of this regulation, which local community welfare officers and health officials do not agree with. Will the Minister review that aspect?

I will have it considered.

Has the Minister had meetings with the community welfare officers or has he arranged such meetings?

I have not had meetings with the community welfare officers in relation to this, but when I was here previously as Minister we had meetings well in advance of the implementation of the scheme. Discussions have been undertaken by the Department at this stage.

15.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he envisages his Department being involved in a subsidy for tenants as a result of the new rent legislation; if so, if he will indicate how this scheme is to be administered; and whether community welfare officers are to be involved.

Power is being sought in the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1982, to enable me to make regulations, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, for the payment of allowances to tenants of rent controlled dwellings who would otherwise suffer hardship because of increases in their rents when rent control ends. It is intended that the allowance scheme will be administered from the headquarters of my Department and that community welfare officers will not be involved.

Will the Minister expand on "administered from the headquarters"?

I will when arrangements have been made. The legislation is still before the House. In the meantime we are in consultation with the Department of Finance on how the scheme will operate when the Bill becomes law.

Will these payments be available to appropriate tenants as a matter of right? Is the Minister saying that the entire scheme will be administered from Dublin and that there will be no local officers to whom tenants who may have recourse to this scheme could go other than to go to Dublin?

The scheme will be administered from the Department of Social Welfare and not through community welfare officers. The way in which the scheme will be operated has yet to be determined.

Will tenants be entitled to the allowance as a right?

Any tenant who has his or her rent determined will be entitled as a right.

Has any provision been made in the Department's Estimates to cover the amount payable to tenants and, if so, how much?

The Deputy is asking me a question about which I should have had notice. It was not made within my Department's Estimates but provision was made in relation to the Bill before the House by our predecessors for, I think, £6 million. Now we anticipate that it would cost more than this in practice. We will have to consider that as soon as the Bill is passed and we have more information on the numbers of people who will be involved.