Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Nov 1971

Vol. 256 No. 9

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dental Treatment Scheme.

32.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the widespread concern caused by the reported proposed withdrawal of dentists from the scheme of dental treatment of insured workers; if having regard to the considerable suffering and cost which will be imposed on many people as a consequence and the protracted delays to date in negotiating a settlement of the dispute, he will now personally intervene; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I am fully aware of all the factors involved in this dispute and I do not accept the implications in the question, particularly in regard to protracted delay in negotiations. An increase of 15 per cent in the fees payable to dentists for services provided to insured persons under my Department's dental benefit scheme was granted in November, 1970, retrospective to August, 1970. A claim for a further increase, based on a practice costs survey submitted by the Irish Dental Association on 17th May, 1971, has not yet been finalised.

Officials of my Department met again with representatives of the Irish Dental Association, negotiating on behalf of the panel dentists, as recently as Thursday last, 4th instant, in connection with this claim. Progress has been reported and arrangements have been made to hold a further meeting at an early date.

The situation has been somewhat confused by the overlapping of this claim with two other claims from the Irish Dental Association—one in connection with the form of agreement to which each dentist subscribes on becoming a member of the dental panel and the other in regard to the fees payable in respect of certain types of treatment which, at the request of the association, I agreed, in October, 1970, should be paid for on a grant-in-aid basis.

Is the Minister in a position to state whether the proposed withdrawal will be implemented, or is there a hope that it might be withdrawn on receiving an assurance that the negotiations will be brought to an early conclusion? I think the Minister will accept that there is a dreadful backlog in respect of dental treatment and we could not tolerate a situation in which this became immeasurably worse.

I sincerely hope the withdrawal in the dental service will not take place because this is a body with which my Department have had the most cordial and harmonious relations in the past. They are operating a most beneficial scheme, a scheme in which a certain amount of professional dedication was evident and necessary. I do not wish to have any alienation between my Department and the dentists. I paid tribute to the good relations that existed during the years and when I met the dentists I leaned over backwards to meet their demands. While I do not wish to say anything that would in any way affect issues which are in the course of negotiation at the present time, for the benefit of the House I should like to say it is not correct to assume that our dental practitioners operating this scheme are not reasonably well looked after relative to any other dental scheme in the world.

That is rubbish.

Would the Minister not agree that by comparison with other sections of the public service— for instance the doctors—the dentists have a legitimate complaint and grievance? Would the Minister agree that the major reason for the shortage of dentists in the public health service throughout the country is the low payment given to the dentists and that so long as this situation continues we will have a shortage of dentists and a bad situation in relation to dental care?

I do not agree with the Deputy. I think if any Deputy would go to the trouble of looking into the matter he would find that, item for item, our dentists on this scheme are better paid than their counterparts in the United Kingdom.

Can the Minister state the number of dentists in the scheme and if there is the full complement of dentists that should be in the scheme?

That is a separate question.

The Minister should have these figures. If he has not this information he does not know what is happening. The Minister is evading the question.

Barr
Roinn