asked the Minister for Health if, in view of his statement of 20th November, 1957, that it seemed unreasonable to him that, as a result of substantially increased expenditure on health services since 1947, less benefits were being derived by the people, he will take immediate steps to have an inquiry held into the operation of the Health Act, 1953, by local authorities.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Operation of Health Act, 1953.
I did not make the remark attributed to me by a daily newspaper of 21st November. I was correctly reported by at least two other daily newspapers as saying, in reply to criticisms, that it was inconceivable that no benefit had been derived by the people from the increased expenditure under the Health Acts. I am quite satisfied that the Health Act, 1953, has benefited the people substantially. I do not consider an inquiry as suggested by the Deputy, to be necessary.
Surely the Minister received enough complaints from his own delegates at the Árd Fheis that the Act was not being administered to the full benefit of the people?
It depends upon what the Deputy's conception of the word "enough" would be. There were a number of complaints, a few complaints, and there always will be, but in general there was not any complaint with the general operation of the Act.
Is the Minister aware that one newspaper quoted him as having said that whilst the amount of money spent on health had increased from £5,000,000 in 1947 to £16,000,000 at the present time, the people had not received benefits in accordance with that colossal increase?
No newspaper reported me in the terms which the Deputy has just recited. One newspaper, mistakenly, used the word "unreasonable" in substitution for the word "inconceivable" which I used. I think it would be inconceivable to any rational person that if the cost has risen so much the general public would not have received the benefit.
The general public read the newspaper.
Better get the right newspaper in future.