Amendment No. 5 is out of order.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Amendment No. 6 is out of order.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
This provides that the optional contributions paid in error can be refunded. I presume Deputies will be keen to agree to that.
I am not sure why my amendment is linked to this section. I was advised by the Bills Office so I assume it is correct. The purpose of the amendment was to insert a new section.
We are trying to meet the demands in the Deputy's amendment in a different way.
With the contract of service concept?
That is right.
The fishermen feel strongly about the fact that they will now be paying 10 per cent of their reckonable earnings for a new class of insurance cover which limits them to what the self-employed now receive as well as what the Minister now proposes, 13 weeks unemployment benefit plus 12 months disability benefit. They have no optical and dental benefit, no occupational injuries cover and also miss a host of other benefits they would receive if they were still under class A1.
They are now paying 10 per cent for limited cover whereas if they were still employees, as they were before the Griffith judgment, they would be paying 7.5 per cent for full cover. The fishermen are now paying more out of their salaries for less than they received under the previous arrangement. They recognise the Minister has made some concessions because they were even worse off after the Griffith judgment than under the Minister's proposals. However, they are not back to their previous position and are paying more for less. Will the Minister extend the cover other than to unemployment and disability benefits? I ask him to surprise me.
I cannot go too far. This issue was raised by Deputies Doyle and Coughlan and others on Second Stage. One of the issues is treatment benefit. That has a double edge in that it also benefits the spouse. We are all conscious of spouses and would like to do what we can for them. I am examining the possibility of extending the cover to include treatment benefits. I would not want this to be taken as a precedent for other areas because this is a special case. If the other contribution arrangement is introduced, if the fishermen go back under a contract of service and into the A1 category, they will be automatically covered for these and other benefits. We will be looking at this matter; it would require an amendment on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister for travelling another bit of the road. Treatment benefits are extremely important for any worker today. Optical and dental benefits for a family are major costs, particularly for spouses who are not in the work place. I am very much in favour of the dental benefit for the wife who does not work outside the home. Because of their function in life and after bearing several children women's teeth are at risk. One of the great tragedies in rural Ireland is that Irish mothers will do without so their husbands and children can benefit first. The number of women who neglect their teeth because they cannot afford the dental treatment which they need is a tragedy. That has knock-on implications for their overall health. Those who stay at home, the wives — the unsung heroes if the Minister does not mind me so suggesting — not only of share fishermen but of all those in the workplace, rear their families, giving their all, and do without themselves.
It is most important that we extend treatment benefits to the spouses of fishermen, women who neglect their teeth or do without glasses because they cannot afford them. They give their son or daughter glasses in their leaving certificate year rather than have them themselves. Dental and optical benefit for the spouse, usually the wife, is a most important extension. I thank the Minister for considering it and I look forward to his response on Report Stage.
Thank you. I take it that the Deputy agrees to the section.
The Minister has not mentioned my suggestion that Family Income Supplement be also extended to share fishermen. Because share fishermen are now technically self-employed, the lower paid who would have been getting FIS pre the Griffith judgment in 1992 to top up a low pay on many boats now find themselves excluded under the FIS regulations from Family Income Supplement. Could we please, in this or the Social Welfare Bill extend FIS to them?
It is a much broader issue. It is something which I will be looking at in relation to a number of different categories. I take the Deputy's point and will be considering it.
I wish to support Deputy Doyle in her call for the extension of optical and dental benefits to spouses. It is a pity that it is still under consideration and that the brave step has not been taken, as yet, to extend it. I wonder if the Minister is really aware of the desperation which spouses find themselves in in regard to what should be considered their right, that is dental and optical treatment. They cannot afford to avail of private services. Not only are they doing without something but they are also suffering in this regard. Is the Minister aware of the waiting lists for eye examinations? Constituents of mine are waiting up to two years. Before we consider——
Are they fishermen?
(Interruptions.)
I am sure it touches the coast somewhere.
My point is valid because one cannot extend a service to people unless the service actually exists. While I cannot speak for fishermen in my constituency, I am sure their spouses will be in the same position as spouses in my constituency who find themselves waiting two years. Yet, we have private opticians who are prepared to provide the service if only the Minister would give the go ahead. I had representations from them during the week. I think it is appalling that, in general, senior citizens cannot have their eyes tested at a stage of their lives when any deterioration is bad for them.
That is the responsibility of the Minister for Health. I introduced the extension originally to dependent spouses for dental, optical and aural treatments. Our scheme works efficiently and well. It is run by the private sector on behalf of the social security system. Here, we are talking about a small extension to people who would not normally be covered. It is somewhat complicated legally and by way of precedent. However, we are anxious to extend it and hope to be able to do it.
There is one part which we have forgotten about, we seem to be carried away with the fishermen. There is a reference to self-employed people who, under the Social Welfare Act, 1986, opted to pay contributions. They will have to pay contributions for ten years before they qualify for benefits.
This refers to share fishermen.
I thought perhaps that in the Minister's wisdom he would——
There might not have been any owners of boats in that position.
We will get the Deputy in order.
We are way outside fishing limits.
The owners of boats were self-employed since 1986.
(Interruptions.)
Perhaps the Minister would take a global view of the anomalies which exist in the present social welfare code.
That is in the main Act.
Question put and agreed to.