(Cavan): The proposal here is to increase the means limitation from £800 to £1,200 in respect of people over 16 years of age who are not insured. I would like the Minister to tell us if, for example, old age pensioners who are residing with married sons on farms of £40, £50, £60, or £70 valuation will come within this provision without the means of the sons being taken into account.
Health and Mental Treatment (Amendment) Bill, 1965: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
Mr. O'Malley
They will.
(Cavan): That is not the position at the moment. At the present time the means of the son is taken into account.
Mr. O'Malley
Such people qualify under section 14.
(Cavan): At the present time the means of the son who owns a farm is taken into account in some counties. Does this propose to change that?
Mr. O'Malley
I am satisfied that the present legislation caters for the cases the Deputy has in mind. If the Deputy knows of any case of refusal to place such a person on the medical register, I would be glad if he would give me particulars of it.
(Cavan): I am aware of a person in receipt of an old age pension who is being asked to pay a hospital account because she is living with an unmarried son who owns a small farm. Is that being changed in this section?
Mr. O'Malley
It is covered by section 14. Subsection (3) of this section proposed a change in this matter where it says that the reference to yearly means includes in addition to the yearly means of the person in question the yearly means of the spouse of such person where the spouse is living with such person. Section 14 should cater for this.
(Cavan): If there was any scope for charging such a person before this, is the Minister satisfied that this subsection does away with that?
Mr. O'Malley
I am.
The Minister says that section 14 should cover such a case but some years ago a recommendation was issued on behalf of the Minister to all county managers requesting them to regard as being automatically entitled to inclusion on the medical register every person in receipt of the full old age pension, but only in some cases was that circular acted upon, and in many instances people who are in receipt of full old age pensions are not included in the medical register. We are concerned here with legislation and it is very little use for the Minister to suggest that we should give him particulars of cases that come to our knowledge and that he will look into them. I know from bitter experience what is the value of the Minister looking into these things, if there is no legislative power to enable the Minister to do something about it. There is no power under existing legislation to enable the Minister to do anything about these things and there is no appeal from the decision of the county manager.
Mr. O'Malley
Does the Deputy mean contributory or non-contributory pensions?
Non-contributory pensions.
Mr. O'Malley
Subsection (3) clarifies the position in one respect. I agree with Deputy O'Higgins when he says there are many cases but that will not last much longer.
Section 15 deals with hospital and specialist services and the Minister says that subsection (3) will effect a change in the instances raised by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I am concerned to see that in relation to people who are in receipt of non-contributory old age pensions, the local authority will not have power to exclude them from the medical register. If such people are not specifically included under this Bill the fact is that they will be charged for hospital and specialist services.
The main function of this section is to increase the means limitation. The Minister gave it as his opinion recently that any person who had a non-contributory pension should be automatically entitled to a medical card but this is not in the legislation. Would it help if the Minister gave a directive to that effect?
Such a directive was issued by me to all the health authorities in 1955. Some of them adopted it and others did not, and there was no power then, and there is no power now, to compel compliance with such a directive. The Minister has asked that he be supplied with instances of non-compliance but we are living in cuckooland if we are content with the assurance that the Minister will look into such cases. There is no use whatever in the Minister looking into them. If the Minister is serious about what he says, let us provide for it in the legislation.
(Cavan): I can tell the Minister that within the past month I applied for a medical card on behalf of a man and his wife, both of whom were in receipt of a non-contributory old age pension, and the card was refused on the ground that they were living with a son who was comfortably well off.
Mr. O'Malley
This Bill will cater for that.
(Cavan): I know of another case in which an old lady was asked to pay a hospital bill, although she was in receipt of an old age pension.
This section does not deal with the people in receipt of medical cards. This deals with the middle income group and it also has to do with self-employed people. If a man is working and living with his son or daughter, he will not be included in the middle income group. Does the Minister propose that such people should be included?
Mr. O'Malley
Yes. The Deputy is perfectly correct. Deputy O'Higgins, as far as I can recollect, issued back in 1956, not a directive but a recommendation. I issued a recommendation some months ago as well to county managers. It is preposterous to be talking about eligibility and so on if we have such cases of old age pensioners being refused medical cards. I hope under the proposals which are coming before the Government next Friday to spell this out in no uncertain manner, if the Government accept my recommendation.
If the Minister finds he can do it in this legislation, will he issue a stronger directive to the county managers? The logic of it is this. These people have been refused medical cards because some other members of the family have a certain level of income. Anybody who has to go through a stringent means test to qualify for an old age pension should be automatically entitled to this, without having their eligibility subject to a means test of the family.
Mr. O'Malley
That is a principle to which I subscribe, but it is all right for me to express opinions without the force of law behind them as to what I can do when some injustices are presented to me. All I can say at this stage is that I appreciate thoroughly what the position is and I hope to present measures or to take steps which will ensure that there is no repetition of this.
And the Minister will include the right of appeal, I hope?
Mr. O'Malley
I would refer Deputy Kyne to the remarks of Deputy Mullen last week when I mentioned appeals. He objected strenuously.
I am the speaker for the Labour Party.
Mr. O'Malley
Of course we are not really dealing with the section. We are dealing with medical cards.
I do not like to act as a sore thumb in this matter but what the Minister has just said does not satisfy me. The question I asked when I came here today was when did the Minister anticipate that further legislation in relation to health matters might be introduced. He had not a clue. What he is saying now in effect is: "Live horse and you will get grass." The fact is that there are at the moment many old age and widow pensioners who are in need of medical attention, who have no means, who have satisfied the social welfare side of the State that they have no means. They are in receipt of the full pension and they cannot get the services of a dispensary doctor. What the Minister is saying is: "I am hopeful that the proposals we are now going to bring to the Government next Friday will be approved by the Government." So what? Eventually they will be included in a White Paper and some time, if these people do not die——
Mr. O'Malley
That is not reasonable.
I am suggesting to the Minister that it is reasonable, now that we are amending the Health and Mental Treatment Acts, to introduce an amendment at this stage. It can be done without difficulty, an amendment to provide that any person who is entitled to the full old age or widow's pension should be entitled to inclusion in the medical register. Why can it not be done? What is the difficulty about doing it? The Minister's Department has been alerted to the need for this for the past nine years. The Department has been aware of the problem for the past nine years. There has been no one who has not been aware of the need for the inclusion of these people—and there are many of them—in the medical register.
Mr. O'Malley
Fortunately, there are not many. I can assure the Deputy of that, but even if there is only one case——
I can assure the Minister that is not so. If the Minister holds out his right hand to the civil servants on his right and if they can produce figures for him of the numbers of old age and widows' pensioners who are not included in the medical register, I shall be very glad to see them. I assure the Minister that in the midlands which I represent, it has been the consistent rule of the county manager not to include such people. This applies in many counties. The Minister says there are not many. How does he know? I would say the honeymoon is now over. The Minister is no longer the new boy, not having had enough time to face up to his responsibilities. I would remind him that his Government were elected last April on an undertaking to bring in social legislation in conformance with a just society.
Mr. O'Malley
In conformance with a just society?
With the idea of a just society. Now at the end of the year not even an old age pensioner can get inclusion in the medical register.
Mr. O'Malley
That is not true. That is a sweeping statement.
An old age pensioner in my constituency and in many other parts of the country cannot, merely on the fact that he is an old age pensioner or she a widow pensioner, be included in the medical register, although ministerial policy has been pointed in that direction for the past nine years. That simple step to improve our health services—goodness knows, it is the tiniest thing—we cannot get from the Minister for Health, and he has no legislative proposal in mind to do that. Apparently, so far as he is concerned, after he has talked to the Government next Friday and if they agree with his point of view, some time, some day in the future, after he has brought this to the White Paper proposal stage, old age or widow pensioners can hope for legislation to have them included in the medical register. If that is an indication of the new deal for sick and poor people in this country, God help Ireland.
Mr. O'Malley
Deputy O'Higgins has been making a Second Reading Speech on this.
I am glad to have been able to do it.
Mr. O'Malley
He did it very well but unfortunately he made many sweeping statements. The Deputy had his recommendations in 1956 urging county managers to grant medical cards automatically to classes such as old age pensioners. With that we are in thorough agreement. The unfortunate thing is that Deputy O'Higgins had the opportunity then in 1956 of ensuring that this was written into legislation. He failed to do so, and there is no point in talking about what has not happened in the past nine years. I hope the only difference between him and me is that I am going to do something about it, and the next question is when. I cannot say when. I am a member of the Government, with collective responsibility. I cannot be jumping up, announcing when I will do this and when I will do that. We are not here dealing with the health services piecemeal. I can do what Deputy Corish suggested. I shall send a further letter to the county managers.
Will the Minister send a copy to every member of every local authority?
Mr. O'Malley
Yes, and to every Member of this House. A county manager who would refuse an old age pensioner, as Deputy O'Higgins said, a medical card is not a county manager at all. I may say that we have done an examination. We have got statistics from various counties and we are satisfied that this mal-interpretation is not so widespread, fortunately. Nevertheless, as long as there is one case of injustice, steps will have to be taken to remedy it. I shall send that directive out to the county managers as quickly as possible.
Will the Minister tell me here and now in this Dáil, which is, under the Constitution, the legislative organ of this State, why do not we do it now? Is it impossible? The Minister says there are only a few cases. If there are only a few, why cannot we here amend the Health Acts by including an amendment to provide for this simple, tiny measure of relief—that the few old age and widow pensioners who will be unjustly treated by county managers shall be entitled to be included in the medical register for this purpose? Ministerial assurances and promises of great things in the future do not cod anyone any more. They will not satisfy the needs and requirements of poor people. Here we are legislating in regard to health and there should be no difficulty about including an amendment at this time. The Minister can do it. If he is sincere, surely he can do it. Surely he will not be sacked from the Government for moving an amendment to provide medical assistance for such people? Can we not proceed on that basis and have the amendment moved?
(Cavan): Take a chance.
Mr. O'Malley
Deputy O'Higgins, with his forensic ability, knows perfectly well he is being naive in this matter. He knows perfectly well this is part and parcel of the general revision of the health services which will be published shortly in the form of a White Paper. I have gone as far as I can. Next week I shall try to get out a circular spelling out in no uncertain manner to the county managers to give medical cards to the categories concerned. Deputy O'Higgins is slaughtering me now for not bringing in an amendment; yet the same problem existed in 1956 and what did he do? He sent out recommendations to the managers.
I was put out of office before I could do it. I was bringing in legislation in 1956 and 1957 to provide free choice of doctor for all persons and the right of appeal from refusal to register.
Mr. O'Malley
It is very easy to say that now.
The Minister can look at the records.
Mr. O'Malley
The Deputy had three and a half years to do that.
I had not three and a half years to do that. I succeeded in getting into effect the Health Act after Fianna Fáil had left, with chaos all round. I got it into operation on 1st April, 1956.
Mr. O'Malley
And a small section could have been written into that Act.
I brought in the voluntary health code and saw it through. I had a great deal to clear up after Fianna Fáil's mistakes. If I were there for three years——
Mr. O'Malley
I have been there only nine months.
If I had been there for nine months, I would have done a lot more than the Minister.
Mr. O'Malley
On this section, the Deputy is arguing a typical senior counsel's case. I go further and say that if he were in my position, he would do a far better job of answering himself than I can do.
(Cavan): I do not understand the Minister's refusal to put in an amendment or his argument that in such a situation he would be dealing with the health code piecemeal. If we are to accept the Minister's assurance—and I do—he says this interpretation should have been put on the section for years and he will issue a directive to the county managers so to interpret it.
That is not within the ambit of this section.
If that is so, why does he not include it in the section?
Mr. O'Malley
The Deputy is referring to section 14.
It is within the ambit of the Bill.
It is not within the ambit of section 1 and it is that section which is now before the House.
I shall move an amendment at the conclusion of the section asking the House to add a section to the Bill which will provide for inclusion in the medical register of all persons in receipt of old age and widows' pensions. We can pass it into law now and the Minister will be saved any embarrassment because the amendment will be moved by a private Member.
Mr. O'Malley
The Labour Party, in their motion discussed recently, touched on the very points Deputy O'Higgins blows in here with now. He has a very vague idea of what the Bill is about.
I know more about health policy and legislation than the Minister ever will.
Mr. O'Malley
We all have to learn.
Do not learn at the expense of the people.
Mr. O'Malley
Deputy O'Higgins came in here for the Central Fund Bill, suddenly found this in front of him and decided to have a few minutes talk about it as a former Minister for Health. The Labour Party brought this to my attention in their motion recently and I gave certain assurances with which they expressed satisfaction. Any reasonable Deputy can see what the position is.
I do not understand why this Bill was delayed so long. I feel sure the Minister appreciates the point I am trying to make. The Minister for Social Welfare, in the Bill through which he increased the social welfare benefits, included a section raising the insurability limit from £800 to £1,200. We thought that the Bill from the Minister for Health would be introduced at the same time because during the past few months—since the Minister for Social Welfare raised the insurability level—people have suffered by not being included in the middle income group for the purpose of daily maintenance in hospitals.
I know the Minister for Health was very liberal in one case to which I drew his attention in that he deemed the person to be in the middle income group, though his salary was more than £800. The Minister for Social Welfare introduced his measure in June and here we are, five months afterwards, in the position where people have to pay more than 10/- per day in hospital fees. I think the Minister should take steps to ensure that any money so paid during the months between the introduction and passing of the Social Welfare Bill and the enactment of this measure should be considered for refunds. It must have been the intention of the Government and the Minister for Health to have that change made long before now. People have been charged more than 10/- per day, up to £1 and 35/-, or whatever the charge is for those deemed to be in the upper income group. I would ask the Minister to consider anything that has been charged over and above 10/-per day to people up to £1,200 per year.
Mr. O'Malley
I might point out to the Deputy that when the Social Welfare Bill became law, it was not automatic that the £1,200 limit would apply. Legislation would have to be introduced.
It should, because section 15 in the original Act described people in the middle income group as including those insured for the purposes of social welfare.
Mr. O'Malley
Yes, but I am also dealing with the category of self-employed, and that would require legislation.
I know it would, but I think we should be a little more generous.
Mr. O'Malley
I gave the statistics last week but I might say that of the patients at present in hospital, statistics on the last available date show that over a 12 month period, 60 per cent of those in the public wards did not pay anything and of the remaining 40 per cent, over half paid less than 5/-a week.
Then there is a very small problem to be met.
Small problems sometimes cause big difficulties. May I inquire if it is proposed in relation to the section to alter the category of persons included within section 15? That is the object, is it not? I take it the object is to give these additional groups of people the same rights as people had under section 15 of the 1953 Health Act?
Mr. O'Malley
Yes; it extends the limit for eligibility from £800 to £1,200.
And as a result of this amendment, they will be entitled to the same rights as persons had under the Health Act of 1953 who came within the definition?
Mr. O'Malley
We go further than that, and if the Deputy will look at subsection (3), he will see that we propose a very important change in the assessment of eligibility.
If this section passes, has provision been made to provide for these people and people already within section 15 of the 1953 Act the dental services set out in section 21 of the Health Act and also the ophthalmic and aural services set out in that section?
Mr. O'Malley
This is surely not relevant on this section.
Yes. As I understand it, this section re-defines and sets out the categories of persons entitled to the services under section 15. Section 21 says that people who come within the definition shall be entitled to dental, ophthalmic and aural services. Does the Minister intend to make regulations to provide these services for these people and the others entitled to them under section 15?
Mr. O'Malley
I appreciate the Deputy's point but I have not heard of this being done, for instance, when the limit was raised from £600 to £800. Possibly that does not satisfy the Deputy.
The point is that we have carried from the Health Act of 1953 a section which says that the health authority shall be under a statutory obligation to provide, say, for all insured persons or all persons within——
Mr. O'Malley
Subject to regulations.
Yes. The regulations were not made before I became Minister. They were not made in my time because I was certain the facilities were not there to permit them to be made. I am concerned to know is there any contemplation to provide these services for the groups we are now bringing into the Health Act or can we say to them that what they will get will be the institutional and specialist services that are already there, without any dental, ophthalmic or aural services?
Mr. O'Malley
The Deputy will appreciate my predicament. The points made by him come within the proposals I am considering.
Is the Minister satisfied that the wording in section 1 (3) makes it clear that it is only the incomes of the person concerned and the spouse that are to be regarded for the purpose of assessing means? Could that be made a little more definite to say that only the means of the person and his spouse alone should be considered?
Mr. O'Malley
Yes. It reads:
... the reference to yearly means includes, in addition to the yearly means of the person in question, the yearly means of the spouse (if any) of such person, where the spouse is resident with such person.
(South Tipperary): I wish to raise a point somewhat different from those already raised. In this Bill we are increasing the number of people in the middle income group. The number up to the present date is 1,600,000 people, to which we are going to add perhaps 266,000. Up to this the lower and middle income groups comprised about 85 per cent of the population and when this Bill becomes operative, these groups will comprise about 95 per cent of the population.
Mr. O'Malley
92 per cent.
(South Tipperary): It is a figure not so easily estimated because not alone have you increased the means from £800 to £1,200 and the valuation from £50 to £60, but there is another aspect more difficult to estimate, that is, the elimination of the income of sons and daughters from the total income evaluation. The work will be carried out by the same medical people as have been doing it heretofore, broadly institutional specialists in various local authority hospitals and what we call voluntary specialists in the city hospitals. It is stated in the explanatory memorandum that the increase from £800 to £1,200 is really only equivalent to an increase to £1,000, taking into account the depreciation in the value of money. I am aware that the Irish Medical Association expressed agreement to the increase from £800 to £1,000 and therefore they are keeping level with the decrease in the value of money. Presumably they would agree to a corresponding increase in valuation, however that would be estimated, but it seems to me that all the Minister is offering to the public is something extra which costs him very little but he is offering it at the expense of the medical profession.
I do not know what representations they have made to him or if they have made any. If they have not done so, they are not doing their job. I do not know what arrangements the Minister has come to with them about this matter. Obviously, we are asking the specialist profession to take on extra work for the same remuneration and to accept what is, in effect, a reduction in their own incomes at a time when we are giving status increases costing £4 million to many of our State employees. I would ask the Minister if he has come to any agreement on these matters. I presume he has taken the situation into consideration.
I raise this matter because some few years ago when the income limit was raised from £600 to £800, it was done on somewhat the same lines as has happened now. First, a social welfare measure was introduced raising the insurance stamp and then this followed as a secondary measure. The same thing is happening now. On the last occasion, when the limit was advanced from £600 to £800, no immediate arrangements were made to compensate the medical consultants who had their income reduced as well. It is true that the various men employed by the local authority hospitals did have some increase in salary and probably some advance was given to the men in the voluntary hospitals. I am not quite clear on what basis they are paid at present. I should like to hear from the Minister what arrangements he has come to in the interests of social justice with the various consultants in the two broad categories, local authority institutions and voluntary institutions, to compensate them for the undoubted loss of income this will mean to them.
Mr. O'Malley
The Deputy must not have read my speech on Second Reading. I pointed out I had a joint meeting with the Irish Medical Association and the Irish Medical Union, of one of which, I am sure, the Deputy is a member himself. I pointed out to them that, when the picture becomes clearer and if they had been adversely affected in their earnings to any substantial extent by what I proposed to do now, I would not be unsympathetic towards arranging some form of compensation by way of adjustment of their remuneration from public funds. I have a written communication from the Irish Medical Association on another matter. The Deputy can rest assured it would be inequitable that any action of mine should make professional people less well off than they were before such a measure was introduced.
I do not think we are achieving very much in view of the fact this has to be discussed again at another time. In passing, however, I should like to say I had a question to the Minister the other day for written answer. Anybody who checks the details given will see that the amount of money involved is so terribly small that the Minister might possibly consider the complete removal of these charges. The amount per county is very small and the total amount appears to be roughly £500,000. If that is so, I do not know what we are arguing about and holding up the extension of treatment to all our people. Apparently, the full 10/- can be collected from only a very small number. The total for the whole country was £161,310 up to 31st March last year in respect of the Health Act and £33,510 in respect of the Mental Treatment Act. Having studied all the figures, the Minister might consider the complete removal of the charges.
(Cavan): Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) proposes to increase the eligibility on a poor law valuation basis from £50 to £60. On Second Reading, I pointed out to the Minister that I thought a poor law valuation test which included buildings was unsatisfactory, for the simple reason that the method of valuing buildings is completely unsatisfactory. You have a position now where one set of buildings may be valued at £3 and certain buildings comparable in all respects may be valued at £10 or £15. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.
I would suggest to the Minister— and before developing it any further I should like to hear his views on it—that he should confine the poor law valuation to the poor law valuation on land, which is fixed and has been fixed for about 100 years and cannot be changed without an Act of Parliament. Buildings are revalued, on no known principle. If you do repairs and are lucky, your buildings are not revalued, but if you are unlucky, your valuation may be doubled or trebled. I should like to have the Minister's views.
Mr. O'Malley
I think Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned this on the last occasion.
(Cavan): I did, but the Minister did not deal with it.
Mr. O'Malley
He suggested that only the valuation of land and not that of buildings be taken into account. It is my view that this would hardly be justifiable. The productivity of a farm and, therefore, the income of the farmer derives from—I am sure the Deputy will agree—and is considerably affected by the quality and type of the buildings on it.
(Cavan): It might or it might not.
Mr. O'Malley
The total valuation of agricultural land is £7 million, the valuation for farm buildings is about £800,000 and other farm buildings about £350,000. Building valuations, therefore, make up only about 14 per cent of the total farm valuations.
(Cavan): That is an argument for ignoring it.
Mr. O'Malley
There might be a case for excluding the valuation of farm dwellings but there would be practical difficulties in doing so. They are not always valued separately from the other buildings, as the Deputy knows better than anybody else.
(Cavan): Hardly ever. I base my argument, not so much on the ground of productivity, as on the ground that it will work a grave injustice. I could tell the Minister of some farmers who extended their buildings extensively perhaps 20 years ago and those buildings have never been revalued, whereas another farmer who extended the buildings perhaps last year or the year before may be unlucky enough to have been listed for revaluation and will be valued out of this section. If all farm buildings were valued on the same basis and were revalued immediately any extension was made to them, then I would not have any real ground for complaint, but, as I say, it is being done on a hit and miss basis at the moment.
I would even go further and say that—I am not attributing any political reason to it—you could have a rate collector who just might overlook some particular person's buildings and not list them for one reason or another. That happens. I would say that a farmer who expended a considerable amount of money on building a dwelling house for himself might run into debt in so doing and might actually be worse off than his neighbour who was prepared to live in the old house and hold the money in the bank. A very good argument can be made on the basis that I have suggested for taking into account the valuation of lands only.
Mr. O'Malley
Of course, to bring that to its logical conclusion we could also talk about the owner of a shop and residence overhead. There might be a high valuation put on that if he modernised the shop front and a person who is running an old shop with a residence overhead who never carried out any improvement would have a low valuation. It is not this section which affects this position; it is the entire inequity of the existing rating system.
(Cavan): I agree.
Mr. O'Malley
Until that is cured or somebody comes up with some realistic suggestion, anomalies remain.
Are the Minister and Deputy Fitzpatrick suggesting a new system of rating and revaluation?
Mr. O'Malley
Until there is an equitable position, it is fatuous to be talking about these things.
(Cavan): The Minister and I are in substantial agreement now, but in the case of the shopkeeper or businessman, his valuation is not the test and will not determine whether or not he is to be entitled to these benefits but the inequitable system of valuation which the Minister agrees is in existence is to be the test in the case of a farmer.
Mr. O'Malley
The shop and house overhead are an indication of the amount the shopkeeper has to pay in rates.
(Cavan): But they are not to be the test in his case as to whether or not he is to get these benefits, but in the case of a farmer, it is the only test that is to be applied and it will work, and is working, grave injustice as between one farmer and another. As I have said, the valuation of land is fixed and cannot be altered without a special Act of this Oireachtas.
Mr. O'Malley
There is one point on which Deputy Dillon might be of assistance to Deputy Fitzpatrick, that is, that I have introduced a lenient or reasonable amount in valuation of £60 under this Bill.
(Cavan): It is more in the right direction.
I am concerned with the Central Fund (Permanent Provision) Bill, on which I will have plenty to say. Do not draw me on this.
(Cavan): I agree with the Minister that that is a move in the right direction and I am thankful for it, but the Minister should have availed of this opportunity to wipe out this inequality, as it is inequality, and differentiation as between two farmers in exactly the same position, whose buildings are comparable in every single respect, and yet the valuation of one is £3 and of the other £15. That is what I object to. The Minister agrees with me that the system of valuation and revaluation is haywire. Why does he not go the whole way with me and make the test on the valuation of land only?
Mr. O'Malley
The wrong man.
(Cavan): Is it a question of the Minister not being the boss?
Mr. O'Malley
In this instance I am not the appropriate Minister.
(Cavan): The Minister is the appropriate Minister to say what he will take into account in fixing this means test.
Mr. O'Malley
That would be an impossible task. Each case in Ireland would have to be considered individually.
(Cavan): It is only a question of saying that the valuation will be £60 on lands only, that lands only will be taken into account. There is not difficulty in that and no other Minister comes into that. That is what I am asking the Minister to do.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
At what stage can we move an oral amendment? I want to move an oral amendment to the Bill to insert a new section:
There shall be included in the medical register kept by each health authority the names of all persons who have been held entitled to the full non-contributory old age or widow's pension.
I am sorry. The Chair could not accept an amendment without prior notice because the Chair would have to be satisfied that the Deputy's amendment did not impose a charge on public funds, which would rule it out of order.
I see. Is it the situation that only the Minister can move this amendment?
The Minister would have to give prior notice also. The Chair would not accept such an amendment at this stage.
We will see about it for Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Next Stage?
Mr. O'Malley
14th December.
Possibly the Minister may have cleared with the Government the question of the old age pension and the widow's pension by then.
Mr. O'Malley
It may well be that I will be able to say a whole lot more than I said today.
It will give the Minister an opportunity.
By then he will have his White Paper and his new scheme and he will have all the other plans. The only trouble will be money to pay for them. I very much doubt if he will have that.
Mr. O'Malley
Does Deputy Dillon relish the position of a shortage of money?
I will tell you plenty about that in about five minutes time and I will fix the responsibility clearly where it belongs.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 14th December, 1965.