andMr. Clinton asked the Minister for Health if he will state in respect of each health authority the grant over and above the normal and supplementary grants for the current year which will be paid by the State in the year 1967-68; the amount of the consequential deficiency which will have to be met out of the rates; and the increase in the rate in the pound caused thereby.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Health Authority Grants.
55.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
Health Authority |
Amounts by which Exchequer grants (normal 50 per cent. and supplementary) towards recoupment of health expenditure in respect of year 1967-68 exceed grants in respect of year 1966-67 |
Increase in amount to be met from Rates in respect of year 1967-68 as compared with year 1966-67 |
Rate per £ Valuation to cover amount shown in Column (3) |
|
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
|
£000 |
£000 |
s. |
d. |
|
|
Carlow |
10 |
11 |
1 |
2 |
|
Cavan |
59 |
11 |
9 |
|
|
Clare |
63 |
14 |
9 |
|
|
Donegal |
60 |
14 |
9 |
|
|
Galway |
55 |
23 |
9 |
|
|
Kerry |
106 |
14 |
9 |
|
|
Kildare |
24 |
29 |
1 |
6 |
|
Kilkenny |
25 |
25 |
1 |
3 |
|
Laois |
31 |
17 |
1 |
3 |
|
Leitrim |
18 |
6 |
9 |
|
|
Longford |
23 |
7 |
9 |
|
|
Louth |
19 |
21 |
1 |
4 |
|
Mayo |
132 |
14 |
9 |
|
|
Meath |
16 |
30 |
1 |
0 |
|
Monaghan |
16 |
10 |
9 |
|
|
Offaly |
26 |
17 |
1 |
3 |
|
Roscommon |
13 |
12 |
9 |
|
|
Sligo |
23 |
9 |
9 |
|
|
Tipperary (NR) |
13 |
16 |
1 |
0 |
|
Tipperary (SR) |
24 |
26 |
1 |
3 |
|
Westmeath |
15 |
17 |
1 |
0 |
|
Wexford |
48 |
34 |
1 |
6 |
|
Wicklow |
42 |
22 |
1 |
3 |
|
Cork |
270 |
76 |
To be determined by agreement between the parent bodies concerned. |
|
|
Dublin |
614 |
386 |
||
|
Limerick |
144 |
35 |
||
|
Waterford |
80 |
16 |
NOTES: (a) The amounts shown in Columns (2) and (3) have been calculated from estimates of expenditure supplied by Health Authorities (in connection with preparation of the Departmental Estimates now before the Dáil) during October/November, 1966.
(b) The figures shown in Column (4) are not necessarily the increases which will occur in the health rates, as balances brought forward from the accounts of previous years, which will become known only when the local estimates have been completed in each case, may influence significantly the amount to be raised from rates in 1967-68.
56.
asked the Minister for Health the amount of State grant allocated to each health authority in the financial year 1966-67 and the amounts proposed to be allocated in the financial year 1967-68.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
GRANT (including Supplementary Grant) Towards Revenue Expenditure
|
Health Authority |
Grant allocated in respect of 1966-67 |
Grant proposed to be allocated in respect of 1967-68 |
|
£000 |
£000 |
|
|
Carlow |
205 |
215 |
|
Cavan |
375 |
434 |
|
Clare |
464 |
527 |
|
Donegal |
583 |
643 |
|
Galway |
1,162 |
1,217 |
|
Kerry |
704 |
810 |
|
Kildare |
364 |
388 |
|
Kilkenny |
446 |
471 |
|
Laoighis |
294 |
325 |
|
Leitrim |
207 |
225 |
|
Longford |
234 |
257 |
|
Louth |
407 |
426 |
|
Mayo |
735 |
867 |
|
Meath |
425 |
441 |
|
Monaghan |
315 |
331 |
|
Offaly |
330 |
356 |
|
Roscommon |
388 |
401 |
|
Sligo |
323 |
346 |
|
Tipperary (N.R.) |
324 |
337 |
|
Tipperary (S.R.) |
425 |
449 |
|
Westmeath |
349 |
364 |
|
Wexford |
479 |
527 |
|
Wicklow |
368 |
410 |
|
Cork |
2,346 |
2,616 |
|
Dublin |
4,510 |
5,124 |
|
Limerick |
892 |
1,036 |
|
Waterford |
578 |
658 |
|
TOTAL |
18,232 |
20,201 |
NOTE: The above grants are payable in the respective years to the extent of 95 per cent., the balance being paid when final accounts are available.
ster be able to say if he still considers the figures he quoted to me this morning to be correct?
Would the Mini
Yes.
Question No. 57.
Would the Minister be allowed to answer the supplementary question?
It is not easy to answer the question simply. The question which was put was about how much we are allocating for 1967-68?
The Minister gave me——
What the Deputy was asking about this morning referred to the disparity in the proportion being paid by the State. I replied that the national average contribution for 1967-68 is 55.3 per cent and the variations between the lowest and the highest, as far as memory serves me, were 3.3 per cent in respect of the lowest and 2.4 per cent in respect of the highest, so that you have a variation from the average of 55.3 of from 52 to 57 per cent approximately.
That is not the information the Minister gave me this morning. This is the reason I am asking about it. It appeared to me that there seemed to be something peculiar. The Minister quoted a figure which I did not think was correct. I am sure he did not mean it but he gave me misleading information.
I do not know how anybody can get things clearly into Deputy Tully's mind. Entirely from memory, I said that I thought the variation was roughly three per cent. I quoted the figure especially for Deputy Tully's benefit. I told the Deputy that the average State contribution to the local authorities this year was 55.3 per cent but that in pursuance of my desire to give effect to the equalisation proposal in the White Paper, some counties had been given more relatively than others and that the least any county got was over 52 per cent and the most was about 57 per cent, and therefore the variation from the national average was approximately three per cent.
I did not intend to raise this point, but I am doing so in view of the manner in which the Minister has approached it. If this is so, why have the figures which he gave me been erased from the Official Report?
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what Deputy Tully is talking about. I have no idea what imputation he is making against me, but I repudiate the imputation, which is absolutely baseless and, like a lot of other questions which Deputy Tully asks, I will only say two words, nego suppositum.
Before the Minister goes to the next question, let me make this point, that the Official Reporter asked me about this and wanted to have the figures which the Minister gave me this morning taken out of the Report as they were wrong.
I have no knowledge whatsoever about this. If a Reporter went to Deputy Tully, he did so without my knowledge. I can only ask Deputy Tully to accept my word—and I think we know each other for quite some time—that I am telling the truth. If somebody approached Deputy Tully, he did so without my knowledge or approval.
I am prepared to accept the Minister's word. I did not want to raise this matter, but in view of his attitude, he left me no option but to put the facts plainly.
The Deputy has raised something interesting now, an implication against somebody.
If certain implications have been made, obviously somebody is involved, and in fairness the matter should be thoroughly investigated. If there has been an alteration in the Official Report at the behest of some person who is not a Member of the House, the matter takes on a serious aspect.
The alteration has not taken place because I would not agree to it.
If an attempt was made by somebody who is not a Member of the House, it is a matter of great significance and should not be allowed to pass lightly.
No request came from me.
I was informed that it came from the Minister.