Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1965

Vol. 217 No. 3

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill, 1965: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go léitear an Bille an Tarna hUair.

Mr. Corish

Last night I dealt with the matter of home assistance and the attitude of many public assistance authorities in the matter of these payments. I do not propose to repeat myself but I again suggest that while the Minister has no direct responsibility, he has overall responsibility for the alleviation of distress and poverty. I therefore submit he should consider introducing some scheme of national assistance such as they have in Britain. While there is legal responsibility on public assistance authorities to come to the aid of those in need, they do not seem to be aware of or to accept the responsibility put on them by law. They have also a moral responsibility which, in my opinion, they do not discharge to a proper degree.

I should be far better pleased, and have much more confidence in a Minister for Social Welfare, no matter to what Party he belonged, if he tackled this problem and accepted responsibility more fully than has been the case. Unfortunately there still appears to be an assumption that in this country nobody can starve. I do not wish to exaggerate poverty. Suffice it to say that there is poverty. It may not be widespread but if only one person is left in need of assistance, the Minister and the public assistance authorities must have regard for that person's needs.

I dealt with the situation in my Budget speech. At that time I welcomed the proposed increases. I do not wish to repeat what I said then but I again suggest to the Minister that his attitude in giving these increases should be maintained so that in three years or five years we shall not have him pointing to 1965 and to the substantial increase then given. Social welfare benefits and public assistance generally should be kept in step with whatever increases there may be in the cost of living or improvement in the workers' standard of living through increases in wages and salaries under national agreements.

The House recently passed a general motion to the effect that social welfare benefits and public assistance payments should be kept in line with increases in the cost of living and general improvements in living standards of wage-earners. There are objectionable features in some of the proposals of this Bill. Frankly, we in the Labour Party do not like the means test. It seems to me the Minister is the only person who has endeavoured to justify the new means test. Deputies, even from his Party, during the Budget debate expressed dissatisfaction with this retrograde step. There was a feeling when the contributory old age pensions were introduced that the means test, if not abolished, should be modified to a great extent. There is also the factor that many people who saw the announcement in the newspapers assumed, particularly in the case of widows, that the 10/- increase from 1st August next would apply to them. If I heard or read the Minister correctly, it seems to be the position that 30 per cent of the beneficiaries will not get 10/- but only 5/-. That will be a big disappointment to them. As this is an administrative matter, I should like the Minister to comment on it. Will there be a general provision?

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Boland)

The information is available in the Department.

Mr. Corish

Then the Minister anticipated the question. Since the Budget proposals, has there been a general revision of all means and will the increase of 10/- or 5/- be given on the last known means on record?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Corish

That will make it handier for social welfare officers. Not to labour the point, I submit that the Minister should consider in future the payment of these increases from an earlier date than has been the practice heretofore. The same applied when I was Minister for Social Welfare and when others apart from the present Minister filled the position. I suggest we should now make some effort to give the increases much earlier after the Budget announcement. We all appreciate that there is much work to be done in the Department before the increases can be given—legislation has to be passed through the Oireachtas authorising the payments—but it is the feeling of the House that 1st August is far too late. There is the added incentive to pay the increases earlier when we realise we are dealing with people who are more than 70 years of age. Some of them are 80 or 90 years old and they can only look forward to perhaps a week or a month, not knowing when death will occur. It is a bit trying for them to wait for upwards of four months for the payment of these increases.

On the question of the proposed increases, I have heard criticism outside that we are spending far too much money on social welfare, on health and on education. Perhaps the Minister can verify the information I am about to give. I do not put this against him: I give it for the benefit of those who say that too much money is spent on those items. As far as social welfare, health and education are concerned, the proportion of State expenditure has fallen from 19.8 per cent in 1959-60 to 16 per cent in 1965-66. Therefore, the proportion of State expenditure on those items has fallen by 3.8 per cent.

In other years I pointed out that as a proportion of tax revenue, expenditure on social welfare has been falling during the past five or six years. As far as social welfare, health and education are concerned the proportion of tax revenue has fallen by four per cent from 38 per cent in 1959-60. Let nobody get it into his head that we are lashing money around in the fields of social welfare, health and education.

In the Minister's proposals, has the proportion in relation to the Social Insurance Fund been changed by comparison with the position under the 1952 Act, that is, the proportion of one-third contributed by the State, one-third contributed by the employer and one-third contributed by the employee? I am assuming that the proportion is the same unless the Minister can inform us otherwise.

I and my Party believe that the contribution required from the employer should be greater. It is 50 per cent of the cost of the insurance stamp affixed to the card. Under the new proposals, the price of the stamp for the industrial worker will be 14/8d. per week, meaning 7/4d. for the worker. That is a pretty substantial amount of his pay packet and the Minister should consider asking more from the employer as contribution. This may be regarded as a fringe benefit of employment and an employer has a certain amount of responsibility for those whom he employs. I think it was Deputy Declan Costello who, the other day, gave us information to the effect that in most other countries in Western Europe where there is any sort of social welfare scheme, the employer pays the bulk of the contribution. Our employers get away very lightly and we should insist on a bigger contribution from them. So far as I know, a proportion of the full insurance contribution is allowed for the purpose of income tax deductions under PAYE. The Minister should consult with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to ensure that the whole contribution will be allowable.

I also suggest that employment period orders should be scrapped. I do not know how they can be justified, particularly at present. They were introduced on the assumption that in the summer period, from March to October, I think, and in the second period, from June to October, there was plenty of employment in rural areas and that a single man did not need any assistance from the State by way of unemployment assistance. That is very wrong and unfair. In this Bill the Minister is alleviating the case of a man in the rural areas in certain scheduled counties for the purpose of unemployment assistance. I do not know how much that will cost: probably the Minister has given the figure already, but, in view of the fact that there is little employment in rural areas now, the employment period orders which debar single men from unemployment assistance should be scrapped.

In any case, one of the qualifications for unemployment assistance is that the applicant must show evidence that he is seeking employment and anybody who does not want to work in the rural areas can easily be recognised by the social welfare officer, and if it is proved that he is not genuinely seeking work, the deciding officer has, and, subsequently, the appeals officer has, power to deprive him of unemployment assistance.

"Congratulate" is a hefty word to use but I want to thank the Minister for the improvement he has made in the form of a decision recently in respect of the recognition of anonymous letters received in his Department alleging that a man was drawing benefit or assistance and at the same time working. This seems a small thing to most people but I know all the annoyance it can cause. The Minister seems to appreciate what hardship it has caused in that when an anonymous letter is received, the case must be investigated: that may take up to five or six months and in that period the man is deprived of unemployment assistance. The Minister's decision meets the case so far as out criticism of anonymous letters is concerned, and we are grateful to him for it.

Lastly, I want to annoy the Minister again about workmen's compensation. He has behaved very badly in that regard. I am not talking about the new comprehensive scheme he is proposing. That has yet to be introduced. We have not got it this session, although we have been asking for it for the past 12 or 18 months. I do not know if we shall get it in this financial year or next but it will take quite a while to have it approved by the Dáil and Seanad and in the meantime the maximum payment for workmen's compensation is £4 10s. 0d. per week. I do not know how the Minister can justify it. We have spent hours to-day and yesterday discussing part of a Finance Bill which the Minister says will give extra revenue to the State of £50,000. We have had detailed arguments and have spent hours discussing something which, while relatively important, is not at all as important as the payment that should be made to a man disabled during work.

What we have suggested is simple and reasonable: as a temporary measure, the Minister should bring in a short Bill to relieve the plight of these people. That would not take as long to discuss as a small amendment such as we had here today on section 18 of the Finance Bill. We think that Bill should propose that workmen's compensation be increased to a certain amount and provide also for lump sum settlements. That could all be done, if not in five lines, at least in a two-page Bill. It is too late in this session to expect that the Minister would move to do that but if consideration of the new Bill will take months or if its introduction is delayed for another six or 12 months, the Minister should consider for the first business of the Dáil after the summer recess the introduction of a workmen's compensation measure more or less on the lines we suggest.

Mr. Lindsay

I want to make a few brief observations on this measure and on the Estimate we are taking with it. This, of course, as far as the measure is concerned, is the mere perennial effort to match the cost of living increases by giving increases in social welfare benefits. It is also the time when the social conscience, not alone of public representatives but also of persons outside interested in these matters, is aroused and when an examination should take place. I regard social welfare enactments down the years and the recent small increases as nothing more or less than a patchwork system to tide us over in a way that appears to me to be regulated by expediency rather than by any long-term plan.

I want to talk about the means test first. When I think of the whole of the area of the west, north-west and southwest and the means test being applied to small-holders, and even to those with less than a small holding, virtually garden plots, and think, on the other hand, of the phrase, "a man of means" or "a person of means", I certainly realise the social and financial futility of applying a means test to people who have not got, in the meaning of the word "means" as I see it, the wherewithal to live even in moderate comfort.

I notice in this regard that there is a change being brought about in this Bill in the method of assessment of means. I should like to hear a more detailed explanation by the Minister. While the information is given that assessment will be made at £20 per £1 of valuation, I do not think the Minister or anybody on his behalf has given the ceiling for the reteable valuation which will be adopted.

Mr. Boland

There will not be any. The assessment will be made on the basis of £20 per annum for each £1 of reteable valuation and the ceiling will depend on the individual circumstances of the applicant, whether he is married and what family he has. It will depend on the amount of unemployment assistance he would be entitled to, if he had no means.

Mr. Lindsay

The Minister, I take it, on examination, is satisfied that this will be in ease of these people and will also tend towards production. Side by side with that, this change is alleged to be in furtherance of agricultural production. Does that mean that people on small holdings, particularly those who live near an employment exchange, will be asked to come in two, three, four or five times a week to sign on at the local exchange, as heretofore, because, if so, the time wasting element will be continued and the incentive to work at home will be greatly reduced if not completely thwarted?

I notice also that side by side with this new system regarding the reteable valuation the Minister is reserving the right to apply the old system in certain cases. I wonder why that principle is being incorporated in this provision and why the Minister wants to do that. Perhaps he will tell us more clearly and in greater detail what the purpose of the retention of this provision is? I notice also that there is no appeal from the Minister's decision in that regard.

With other speakers from all sides of the House, I want to exhort the Minister to abolish the two employment periods and, in addition, in rural Ireland, not to deprive single men of unemployment assistance during the summer season who have hitherto been deprived at that time. Single people as well as married people must eat. Single people as well as married people must provide for themselves and must have the means of doing so, whether it is summer or winter.

I want to join with Deputy O'Donnell in his plea that the part-time fishermen be included under this system of taking the reteable valuation, without any other means, and that part-time fishing be regarded as part of the small farm activity, as a supplementary occupation to the farming and carried out at a season when the farming business is not too exacting.

The Minister, in reply to Deputy O'Donnell yesterday, said that for the last year there was not any investigation by investigating officers for the purpose of reducing unemployment assistance. I have written many letters to the Department in the last few weeks inquiring as to why the unemployment assistance of certain people was reduced from £x to £x minus £y as a result of investigation. Maybe we are not ad idem in the argument and I should be glad to have the matter clarified.

In the social welfare scheme, particularly in relation to old age pensioners and possibly in certain cases in relation to widows, more cognisance must be taken of the plight of people who live alone and something extra should go with it. Where an old age pensioner, or pensioners, as the case may be, both the father and the mother, live with a married son or daughter, while having no means and getting the full pension, they are nevertheless enjoying certain benefits which are not assessed for the purpose of means but which are still considerable from the point of view of comfort. Not so much in the country where neighbours are very kind to neighbours whether they live alone or not but certainly in the cities and larger urban areas, the plight of the old age pensioner who lives alone is very severe indeed. The time should not be too far off when on the application from there should be an extra question, "Do you live alone?" so that something extra might be provided for a person who lives alone.

I know that in cities, in particular, the home assistance people rally round, as do charitable organisations, but I do not think our old people should be dependent upon charitable organisations when the State has a bounden duty to provide for them.

There is a problem in my constituency which might also affect a constituency like north-west Donegal, and perhaps portion of Galway, in relation to people who have been migratory workers all their lives and, as a result of whatever contributions they have had to pay while working in either England or Scotland, eventually, at the age of 65 are able to return home for good to the home which has been broken for half of the year by reason of economic circumstances forcing them to migrate. They return home for good and they then enjoy either a British old age or contributory pension, or some kind of pension under the British social welfare code. That is taken into consideration when they apply for the old age pension here. It is a considerable source of irritation, particularly in Achill Island and, to some lesser extent, along the coast to the north in the Ballycroy and Erris districts.

It would not cost very much, I think, to ignore this income from Great Britain altogether. I want to be perfectly clear now that all I am talking about here is British pensions that have been earned by the contributions made by migratory workers. I am not talking about people who went away and never came back, except possibly for a short holiday, and ultimately decided to retire and come back home; I am not talking about them at all. I am talking about the man who, either by himself or with other members of his family, had to go away to England or Scotland generally from May to November and work in the potato fields or the beet fields, or in some other agricultural activity. These people are specialists and I know of a few cases in which the fourth generation of English farmers is employing the fourth generation of Irish migratory workers. Not alone has a definite employer-employee relationship grown up but there have also grown up friendship and trust.

In a place like Achill, where the holdings, if they can be called holdings, are very small, people must do something to supplement what they can get from these smallholdings and the few cattle they rear on the commonage. They must go away to work. The State has failed—perhaps "failed" may be too strong a word— to provide employment for these people and, having failed to do so, I think the State should measure up to its responsibility by not taking into account what these people have earned through social welfare contributions during their period abroad each year and let these people see that the State is grateful to them for relieving the economy of responsibility for them by their supplementing their meagre incomes at home by going abroad for part of the year to find work.

I am very interested in this, as, I am sure, are Deputies on both sides of the House who come from these constituencies. I am particularly interested in the Achill area. Apart altogether from any national obligation, I want to point out that the Government Party should have a consistent loyalty to these people in that particular area because of their long and continued support.

It is hard to blame a Government for not being able to do all they would like to do for such a congested area and one which was so heavily populated until of late years. The population is declining. I should not like to press the Minister to incorporate a provision into the Bill to cover this situation but perhaps he would give me a promise now that he will look into the matter and ensure that, by regulation, these pensions will in future be ignored for purposes of the means test. I shall be satisfied with that. Such a regulation would relieve the people in that part of the country of considerable irritation and the deep feeling of ingratitude they bear towards the State, not towards Parties but towards the State itself.

It is illogical, too. These workers go to England for part of every year as migratory labourers and have done so since the Unemployment Assistance Acts were brought in here. They earn what is to them a considerable amount of money. When they return, they can sign on immediately at the labour exchange and they qualify immediately for unemployment assistance. There is no reference to the money earned abroad. Why then should these earnings be taken into account when it comes to old age or to a widow's pension? It is then they need money most. The Minister has correspondence from at least one person in that area. She is the daughter of one of the persons affected. I think she wrote to the Taoiseach some time ago and sent a copy of the letter to the Minister. She sent a copy to me. Her approach is reasonable. It covers the whole problem. I am not confined to that one example. I have several letters and several examples in relation to this.

I should be very much impressed if the Minister and his officials would now approach this matter in a humane manner. It is not something which will cost a great deal of money. Indeed, I believe it is something that will not continue because migration is taking on a different aspect altogether. It is now becoming emigration. My plea is for the migratory labourers and their dependants. The State would do well to do something about this problem. I should be glad to hear the Minister's views on that particular aspect of life in the congested areas of the west and north-west.

Mr. Moore

I always feel that the Minister for Social Welfare has the most unenviable task of any Minister because he has to deal with the most needy section in our community and try to get from the State coffers sufficient money to ensure that the needy amongst us will be looked after. The outlook today generally seems to be to try to get everything possible from the State, irrespective of the condition of the economy as a whole. As I have mentioned before, the great need here is to educate each one of us and the people generally into the realisation that, unless we have a very buoyant economy, our social services will be affected. If there are shortcomings in our economy, needy sections cannot be given all the help and aid we would like to give them.

I agree with Deputy Corish that a sliding scale of pensions would be a good idea and that, if there is an increase in wages generally, then there should be a similar increase in pensions. While agreeing with him in principle, I realise that this is something not easily attained. It may be some years before we reach the stage at which we can guarantee to pensioners that they will be looked after in the same way as the more vocal workers are looked after through the machinery at their disposal in relation to wages. It has been said that the hallmark of any civilisation is the way it treats its aged. I am very glad that this year a big increase has been given in the various pensions and allowances. I compliment the Minister on that. We, on this side of the House, are keeping faith with our social principles under which it is our aim to improve the lot of the needy sections of our community.

I should like now to deal with the treatment of the blind. Any person who has lost his sight cannot be compensated in terms of money. We have a great field to cover here in providing welfare schemes for the blind before we can feel complacent about what we are doing for them. In Dublin, it is true we have some workshops for the blind run on a semi-State basis, but we must have a greater expansion of this kind of activity. Not alone must they be taught the ancient crafts of basket-making and mattress-making, but new methods of employing the blind in operation on the continent should be introduced here. We should take every opportunity of making these people feel a part of the community.

The blind workshops are at present situated in Ballsbridge in my own constituency. Blind people come to these workshops from all over the city, from places such as Finglas and Ballyfermot. At the rush hour every morning and evening, I see them having to take their place in the bus queues, the same as if they were people with full faculties. Perhaps the Minister might consider in collaboration with Dublin Corporation having a housing scheme developed near the workshops so that these people would not have to travel across the city. In the near future, the workshops are to be transferred from Ballsbridge to Rathmines, which is no more easy of access. Again, you will have blind people travelling across the city from places such as Raheny and Coolock. Perhaps next year the Minister might consider some kind of grant or have his officers discuss with the corporation the need for a housing scheme conveniently situated to the workshops.

Another way of helping the blind and aged I have thought of is this. Could not labour and capital in this country get together and earmark, say, five per cent of their productivity increase each year for social welfare purposes? Unless we show the needy that we are not just paying lip service to the principles laid down by the men of 1916 and afterwards, they will become more and more cynical about our present parliamentary set-up. I believe that, if we could get the message across to the people, we would get a tremendous amount of cooperation from all sections. If taxes had to be increased to provide greater benefits, I believe the people would accept them, knowing that the Government and the Oireachtas were in earnest about this matter. It may be said that the people did not mind the recent Budget increases because they went to pay for increased social benefits. That is not true. Several people approached me because the price of the pint was increased, even though I explained that most of it was for social welfare. We did not get any degree of unanimity on this matter.

Is it possible that, instead of having separate social welfare and health services, we could have a unification of the two? In the matter of administration, there is a certain degree of amalgamation. Both health services and social welfare services apply to people in need. Perhaps we could make a big saving in administration if we were to have a scheme whereby one Department would administer all kinds of sickness and social welfare payments.

I compliment the Minister and the Government on their decision to extend the insurance range from £800 to £1,200 a year. Wages will continue to increase in the next decade. Instead of waiting for people to go outside the £1,200 limit, we should have a sliding scale. In the transition period before the Government change the limit, we have people falling out of benefit. Although they can become voluntary contributors, people are human and tend to put off doing this. When they need social welfare benefit, they may find themselves in trouble, even though they have contributed for many years of their lives. I had a case recently of a man who was insured from the time of the British occupation. He paid his contribution for all those years. Then he went over the £800 mark and did not qualify for payment. That man has gone to tremendous trouble to try to get back in. He can do so now under the new figure. The Minister should consider a sliding scale so that such cases will not arise.

I take the liberty of turning from the Bill to mention another case. This concerns a person who is gravely ill but who is not in the social welfare bracket and has to pay for his treatment. He may be the father of a large family, perhaps the only wage earner in the family. He is given no income tax allowance in respect of that illness, but he is given an allowance for loss of salary during that period. However, he has to face doctors' bills and hospital bills. This man should be given some concession on income tax for the period of his illness. It is not a question of getting something for nothing. This man does not want to be ill. The proof that he is ill is that he has to pay hospital expenses. At the same time, he has to pay income tax for that year, apart from the allowance for loss of wages. I put it to the Minister, even though it is not his responsibility, that perhaps he would consider this matter when he comes to prepare his Estimate next year.

Mr. H. Byrne

I agree with what Deputy Moore has said that the handling of this Department is probably one of the most difficult tasks of all because of its complexity and the very wide field it has to cover. As Deputy Moore said, our ability to deal with social welfare as most of us would like to deal with it is strictly related to the state of the national economy. We, as a Party, appreciate the steps that have been taken by the Minister this year to endeavour to have a fairer approach to our social welfare problems. At the same time, we would not like it to be thought that sufficient has been done. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are aware of the difficulties, but we know much remains to be done. Proper attention to social welfare and the provision of the maximum amount of satisfaction can only come about when we reach the stage here that every person qualifying for benefit will have, as a result, a standard of living that will give him at least the normal requirements of life. We have a long way to go before that position is reached. For that reason I thought there was much merit in what Deputy Lindsay said, that special consideration should be given to those of our people who live alone and who are compelled to live on what we give as social welfare benefits.

It is in this direction, in regard to people who live alone, that our social welfare shortcomings are blatantly exposed. We are not unmindful of what Deputy Moore said, that we must also have regard to the state of the national economy. The situation that exists is extraordinary and it is true to say that some of our people are enjoying the highest standard of living in the world. This high standard for such a small country is extraordinary and there is an amazing amount of money available to some people to play with. There is a topsy-turvy situation and a great disparity exists between those at the top and those at the bottom. We will have a long way to go to get away from that situation in which you have the county home so near to the mansion.

However, it would be difficult and complex to try to make that position substantially different. We believe something will have to be done to bring about a more equitable distribution of the national wealth. Deputy Corish gave the percentage figures to show what we were providing from State funds for social welfare benefits and these seemed to indicate that we should have done much more. I think he mentioned that we had been giving 19.8 per cent of the national funds to social welfare and that this figure has dropped to 16 per cent.

The increase of 10/- a week on the old age pensions is very acceptable and is a big improvement on previous years. For that reason this measure received the approbation of the Labour Party. However, I do not think that anybody could say that old age pensioners are now in a position that they can live happily ever after. Nothing could be further from the truth and we have a long way to go before we can fully compensate any man or woman who has given 70 years of service to the State. While we support the measure, we abhor the means test. I am merely mentioning these points to indicate that we as a Party feel that there is much to be done in this field. While I appreciate the efforts made in the current year to try to eliminate at least some of the hardship we intend to pursue matters until we think that a fair situation generally has been created for those who qualify for social welfare benefit.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I observe that section 8 of the Bill provides for a new system of assessing the income from land with a small poor law valuation. From now on, the actual income will not be taken into account but the income will be assessed on the poor law valuation. I approve of this proposal. I notice that it applies to the old congested districts, but in addition, it is being applied under this Bill to the counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Longford. I welcome that particularly because for a considerable time I have been advocating both in the Seanad and here fair play for those counties and that there should be a readjustment of the old congested districts.

I pleaded strongly for that when the Land Bill was going through the Seanad and I was rather shocked when in the statement made by the Minister for Social Welfare at Killorglin some months ago, when he was announcing this legislation, he intimated that it would apply only to the congested districts. Indeed, from the Minister's Budget speech, it appeared that this relief for small farmers would apply only to the old congested districts which were settled away back under a British Act of 1909. Speaking on the Budget Resolutions, I drew attention to this and pleaded for the inclusion of my constituency of Cavan at least in the benefits which it was proposed to confer on farmers by this new legislation. I hope I will be pardoned if I say that I feel that my pleading on this has borne fruit. I hope that this is only the beginning of fair play and fair treatment for the counties of Cavan, Monaghan and Longford, which are every bit as congested and require preferential treatment every bit as much as the areas described as congested areas by the British Act of 1909. I hope, too, that the beneficial provisions in the Land Act which apply to congested districts only will be extended to these counties.

I welcome the increases in the old age pensions which were necessary to keep the bodies and souls of these old people together but I deplore the new means test under which the means of every person who is to get an increase of 10/- a week will be reinvestigated. This means, in effect, that before 1st August the social welfare officer will visit every old age pensioner to ascertain whether or not he qualifies for an increase of 10/-. I notice that the Minister shakes his head. I hope that that shaking of his head means that the social welfare officer will not reinvestigate the means of an applicant for the full increase of 10/- per week but I fear that there does not seem to be any other way out. It seems to me to be a new type of means test. Heretofore, the social welfare officer was not concerned whether an applicant for the old age pension had an income of £1 a year or £51 a year, because in between that bracket he was entitled to the maximum old age pension. Under this Bill he is not going to be entitled to the maximum old age pension if his income exceeds £26 a year. That means that there will be a reinvestigation. As I say, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that such reinvestigation will not be undertaken.

I should like to refer to a question which I put down yesterday and which the Minister for Social Welfare answered. I asked him to extend the dental scheme to the dependants of insured persons. Unfortunately, I was not in the House when the question was answered but the Minister stated that it was not possible to extend the dental scheme to these dependants. I think that is a mistake. The Minister should look into this again and extend it. I am not asking him to extend it to the families of insured persons but to the wives and dependent children of insured persons.

Debate adjourned.