asked the Minister for Labour if he is aware that married men will suffer a financial loss if employed on the social employment scheme; if he has any plans to amend the regulations to rectify this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

As indicated in Building on Reality 1985-1987, the social employment scheme is aimed at the large number of productive and energetic persons who have been unemployed for an extended period.

Due to the present constraints on public finances it is essential that that scheme be as far as possible self-financing and this was a prime consideration when setting the wage of participants at £70 for an average 2½ day week. For comparison purposes, the maximum rate of unemployment assistance at present for a married person with no child dependants is £60.15 per week.

It is a feature of the scheme, of course, that participants are allowed to undertake other work during the periods in which they are not engaged on the scheme. Statistics recently compiled by my Department show that approximately 26 per cent of SES participants are married and more than half of these have child dependants.

I am currently reviewing the scheme including the wage rates of married persons.

Is the Minister aware of another area of financial loss for people participating in the social employment scheme, the loss of the right to go to the community welfare service for assistance to pay bills and that at least one health authority refuse to allow them to keep their medical cards? What action is being taken in these two areas?

I am aware of the points raised and those matters are part of the review of the scheme which I am currently undertaking and to which I referred in the last part of my reply.

Will the Minister accept that there is a disincentive in relation to married men and that many married men would participate in the scheme were it not for this disincentive?

I accept that for some married men there is a disincentive.

In the review of the social employment scheme will the Minister consider the position of people who are on benefit as well? I know of a case where a person has been unemployed for two years but is still in benefit because he spent a year on a horticulture course. Perhaps such cases could be taken into consideration. This person was offered a job under the social employment scheme and could not take up this employment because he was not eligible.

The Deputy pointed out some matters which are currently being reviewed. The scheme was originally targeted at the long term unemployed in receipt of unemployment assistance. The point raised by the Deputy is one of the factors at which we are looking.

Will the Minister give consideration to another category, people who may have been out of work on disability benefit who will not qualify for this scheme?

Yes.

Will the Minister say whether women are now entitled to apply under the social employment scheme and whether they will be considered and given work?

Women who meet the conditions of the scheme are eligible to benefit. I gather the Deputy is referring to the position of some married women who have not yet benefited from the introduction of the equality legislation which my colleague, Deputy Desmond, is to introduce.

Question No. 7.