Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Nov 1967

Vol. 231 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Health Department Circular.

Mr. Corry

In raising this matter, I must first go back to what happened in this House when we came in after the last general election and passed the Cork City Boundary Bill. This resulted in a decision by the arbitrators that £1½ million would have to be paid in compensation by Cork city to the ratepayers of County Cork. The decision was that this sum would have to be paid at once. But last year we met the Corporation in this matter and we gave them 15 years to pay, with interest at 6½ per cent in the meantime.

It is difficult to get agreement between two contributing bodies like health authorities. In this case, after some difficulty on both sides, we came to the following agreement:

Cork Corporation agree with Cork County Council that, as from the 1st April, 1966, the expenses of Cork Health Authority in any financial year shall be contributed by Cork County Council and Cork Corporation in proportion to the populations of their respective administrative areas in accordance with the recent census of population taken prior to the commencement of the year concerned, as certified by the Director of the Central Statistics Office This agreement is subject to the consent of the Minister for Health.

That was passed by Cork Corporation on 8th February, 1966, and adopted by Cork County Council on 21st February, 1966. As required by section 11 (3) of the Health Authorities Act, 1960, the Minister for Health consented to the terms of this agreement on the 5th April, 1966.

Section 11 (3) states:

The expenses (other than those under the Public Assistance Act, 1939) of a health authority (other than the Dublin Health Authority) established by this Act shall be contributed, by the local authorities who appoint members of the health authority, in such proportions as those authorities may agree upon with the consent of the Minister or, failing such agreement being made within a period of six months (or such longer period as may be approved of by the Minister) after the day of the establishment of the health authority, in such proportions as may be determined by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister.

Agreement was come to between Cork County Council and Cork Corporation as to the basis on which those contributions would be made. The only way in which this can be varied is as follows. Subsection 6 (b) of this section states:

A determination under this section may be varied—

(i) by agreement between the authorities concerned made with the consent of the Minister ...

There is no other agreement but the one.

Today I asked the Minister if he is aware that a circular issued by his Department has been construed by a health authority manager in such a way that it is now proposed to levy £42,000 on the county ratepayers of Cork; and that this seems to contravene section 11 (3) of the Health Authorities Act, 1960; if the construction put on the circular is that intended by his Department; and, if not, if he will make a statement on the matter. I received the statement which said at the end:

I understand that this matter was discussed at a meeting of the health authority held on the 13th instant and that the feeling was that the agreement referred to should not be valid. If this is acceptable to the contributing bodies, that ends the matter.

I suggest it is not a matter for discussion even between the contributing bodies, because any breach of section 11 of the Health Authorities Act is illegal no matter who carries it out. Therefore, on the advice of the Cork County solicitor I am opposing this matter. The vote taken on Monday last was 25 votes to 8 in favour of holding to this agreement, honourably made between these two bodies. I do not mind if the Government come along in the morning and make a contribution to the stealing and robbery enacted in this House in the Cork City Boundary Act. If they gave a grant in the morning of the whole £1½ million to Cork city, it is none of my business. But it certainly is my business when this means is used to extract only half the amount of the compensation to be paid each year. The two committees agreed that they pay £100,000 a year for 15 years and 6½ per cent interest. I will oppose the action of any Minister of this or any other Government who seeks to contravene that by giving half of it, and expecting £42,300 extra out of the county for the benefit of the city. I can guarantee that, so long as I have the honour to represent that county council as its chairman, nothing of that kind will pass through this House or anywhere else. I will not remain for five minutes a member of any Government who endeavour by that means to deprive the ratepayers of Cork County of the compensation that is due to them by the robbery of their territory by Cork city and by this House.

Minister for Health (Mr. S. Flanagan)

I certainly agree with what Deputy Corry says, that it is a difficult matter to get agreement between two contributory bodies in regard to any matter as complicated as the administration of the health services in a huge area like the city and county of Cork. For the year 1967-68 the amount involved was £2,616,000 and this was made up of 50 per cent of the normal statutory recoupment, which was £2,295,000, and a supplementary grant of £321,000. Nevertheless, as Deputy Corry says, agreement was reached between Cork Corporation and Cork County Council, and this agreement provided for recognition of the differences in population as between the county and the city. This was a fair agreement because, due to the increasing population of the city as against the county, the burden would thereby fall to a greater extent on the city than on the county.

When the estimates meeting was held in Cork in January, 1967, that is, prior to the notification by my Department of the health grant that would be given to them, they adopted an estimate on the assumption that the health grant for 1967-68 would be provided on the same basis as for the previous year, namely, that it would be made in full. This erroneous assumption resulted in the figure for the health grant for 1967-68 being £71,000 more than the actual amount received by the health authority from my Department. It then fell to the Cork Health Authority to decide how the £71,000 should be apportioned. They received a circular from me which they appear to have misinterpreted because the circular said, inter alia:

Payment of the grant for 1967-68 of the amount mentioned above is authorised by the Minister on the understanding that it will be applied in such a way as to maintain the health rate to be levied for each of the contributory bodies as near as possible to the rate for the current year.

The literal interpretation of this, the one adopted by the health authority, would result in Cork County Council having to pay £87,000 more and Cork Corporation obtaining a refund of £16,000. This was never intended by me and was, in fact, in breach of the agreement of 1966 made between the two parts of the authority. It arose because, as a result of the previous agreement based on population, the City of Cork was already subsidising the county to some extent.

When this was brought to the attention of the authority they very properly went back to the terms of the agreement of 1966 and amended these figures so as to oblige Cork Corporation to pay £26,000 and Cork County Council £42,000. As a result of this amendment, the county council was better off to the extent of £43,000, and the corporation worse off to the extent also of £43,000. Therefore, Deputy Corry is quite wrong in suggesting that the people of the county of Cork and the council are being asked to bear an additional £43,000.

I cannot agree with him at all that there was anything illegal in the actions that have been taken. On the contrary, the agreement of 1966 has been properly fulfilled now that the necessary adjustments in favour of the county have been made by the authority and the original allocation has not been proceeded with. I would remind Deputy Corry that the provisions of the section in question give the Minister only limited powers. He must, admittedly, consent to the agreement, but where this agreement was concerned there was no difficulty in the then Minister agreeing to it because it favoured the county as against the city, which he thought, in all the circumstances, was fair, provided, of course, that the imbalance did not appear to be unjust. It did not appear to be unfair and, accordingly, he consented to its terms. Had I been present, I would not have been able to see any reason why I should not have consented also. The Minister comes in, admittedly, if there is a request from either one of the authorities concerned to appoint somebody to make a determination. Indeed, it is also provided, although it is not relevant here, that he can do so on his own initiative.

It is clear from what I have said that not merely are the people of Cork county not being asked to subsidise the people of the city, but that on the contrary, the agreement of 1966 under which the city already subsidises the county to some extent—assuming an alteration in the population in the years ahead, namely, a slight growth continuing in the city and a slight decline in the county—would have the effect more and more of favouring the people of the county as against those in the city. Had the original interpretation of the circular issued by the Department in February last been put into operation, then the people of the county would have had to find £87,000 instead of £42,000, and the people of the city would have had a refund of £16,000. As I have said, this appeared to be, and, in fact, was contrary to the terms of the agreement, I think, very properly entered into the previous year. When this was pointed out, the necessary adjustment was made in favour of the people of the county.

It will be clear that had this situation obtained last year as in the previous year, namely, that all increases were being met out of central funds, then this question would not arise at all. Last year the provision in the White Paper and the Government's decision in regard to an expansion of the health services had to be literally applied, and this had the result of increasing the rate to a small extent in practically every county in Ireland.

As the House knows, I slightly varied the amount of the additional supplementary grant—I say "additional supplementary grant" advisedly because there was already a supplementary grant—in such a way that the weaker counties like Monaghan, Donegal, Mayo, et cetera, would have a slightly higher percentage of the subvention than the better-off counties. I do not make any apology to the House for so doing. Indeed, I was merely implementing one of the proposals in the White Paper in this regard.

Other than that, the general picture was that the State paid on average 55 per cent all told of the total cost of the health services. This varied roughly from 53 per cent at the lowest to 58 per cent at the highest. In Cork, out of the figure of £2.6 million, the State percentage contribution fell this figure short, £71,000, and the confusion arose over the interpretation simultaneously of the terms of the 1966 agreement and the circular which was sent out by my Department.

What I want to make quite clear is that while the agreement of 1966 had and has the force of law, the circular issued by my Department did not have the force of law, and was merely admonishing the various health authorities to try to so operate their money as to increase the rate evenly in all areas. What predominated in Cork was the existence of a binding document, the agreement of 1966, which had not been varied and which undoubtedly is valid pursuant to the 1960 Act. It has been confirmed very recently as being just and fair between the county and the city.

I hope I have clarified, first, Deputy Corry's mind in regard to what has happened, and secondly, the minds of the people of the county and city of Cork because I should not like the people of Cork county to accept that what Deputy Corry alleges has happened in fact has happened. As I pointed out, the opposite has happened, and again the city has subsidised the county. May I say I think that is how it ought to be? If an agreement were submitted to me or my Department, which in any way reacted unfavourably upon the people of the county and in favour of the city, it would not have my consent.

The agreement of 1966 appears to me to be fair and just, taking everything into consideration. I am glad the people of the county were relieved by their colleagues in the city of more than £40,000 in respect of the additional money that had to be found.

Mr. Corry

I should like to thank the Minister for his statement. It has cleared the air.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd November, 1967.