The wish to improve our health services is not the prerogative of any one party. Neither should it be. The health of our people is a matter which transcends, or should transcend, partisan loyalties. There is, or there should be, general agreement that health services must be drastically improved so that the sick, the disabled, the infirm and the aged may receive better health services. This is the humanitarian and inescapable obligation of any society which dares to consider itself progressive or which dares to claim, or to believe, that it is Christian. Indeed, the genuineness of any society must be measured by the readiness of that society to pay the cost of providing the very best medical skill and attention, drugs, medicines and equipment to all who need them, without regard to their ability to pay at the time of need.
We, therefore, in Fine Gael, are unable to accept section 31 which gives no relief whatsoever to the large numbers in our community who are at present obliged to pay for health services, health services from which they can draw no benefit whatsoever because the test applied in assessing whether they should pay is the very same test which excludes them from benefit. The test applied is whether a person is a rated occupier and, if the person is a rated occupier, then the State lays it down that that person must pay towards the cost of health services.
The Minister and the Government are proposing to provide that the only statutory obligation on the State to pay for health charges will be to defray one half of that part of the expenditure of a health authority which the Minister considers he should pay and that half of the expenditure of the health authorities today is only 46 per cent of the total cost of health boards. By excluding eight per cent of the cost of health authorities the Government attempt to create the impression that they are paying as much as 56 per cent of the cost of health authorities but that is not so because what they are doing is selecting items they are deeming to be appropriate for State subsidy and if the services performed by the health authorities with their intimate knowledge of the needs of an area are outside the categories acceptable to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance for the time being, they receive no assistance from the State.
Therefore, we reject entirely the suggestion, after a decade or more of general agreement in this country, with the exception of Fianna Fáil, that rates are not a proper system of financing the health services, that Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann should be asked to approve once again the iniquitous proposal that the law should remain as it stand.
Under this Health Bill the State is not proposing to accept responsibility for one penny extra of the cost of the health services. The only comment that we can make is that perhaps they are more honest now than they were in 1966. The 1966 White Paper said that Fianna Fáil had accepted that rates were not a proper system of financing the health services. Having accepted that in a White Paper published at the expense of the taxpayer, they now come in here, having been re-elected to power on the basis of a specific undertaking to relieve the ratepayer, and again put the cost of half of the health service on the rates.
The nub of objections to the health service with its inadequacies and inefficiencies stems from the injustice of imposing half of the burden on a large number of people who are not in a position to derive any benefit from the service. Only one income earner in every seven is paying rates which means that only one in seven contributes to half the cost of the health service. While I am certain that of the number of people at present required to pay rates there are many who should be contributing as much and more towards the provision of health services for the less fortunate, so also I am sure, as the Government's White Paper accepts, and as the various committee inquiries into the rating system have suggested, there are many people at present paying rates on an average of £2 per £ of valuation per year for health services and because they are required to pay these rates, which we know they are required to do without any regard to their ability to pay, they fall into ill-health from undernourishment and inadequate heating and clothing. The Government's inadequate measures to try to provide some relief at the expense of other ratepayers will not clear up many pools of hidden poverty which exist in our community because people are required to pay for health services in relation to the rateable valuation of the property which they occupy.
We find it intolerable that this Health Bill should continue to operate the present system of limiting the State's statutory liability to only half the cost of the health services at a time when, in the Bill, the Government are seeking to get more and more power for the central authority. If the Minister were coming before the House with a specific proposal to give a certain increase in reliefs in the cost of providing health services by providing help from central funds, the State might be justified in getting the additional control they are seeking so that the person who pays the piper could call the tune. What is proposed is that the person who pays the piper will not be allowed to call the tune and such opportunity as people have at the moment is being taken away because under subsection (3) or section 31 we find that the future bill is to be determined not by the health board and not by the local health committees but by the Minister for Local Government who will determine what the expenditure should be. The position in the future will be that the rates will be struck not by any health authority, not by any health board and not by any local authority but by the Minister for Local Government who will determine the bill and notwithstanding that position the Government will strike the total cost of the health services and say that half of it must be paid for by somebody other than the Government of the day.
The effect of this section is to continue an inhuman and inapplicable system under which people with an income of more than £1,200 a year are regarded as being persons in the middle income group who must, because of that, pay for at least portion of their hospitalisation and must pay for all the medical attention required for themselves and their families. It is clear from figures that I received in reply to a Dáil Question within the past month that if the figure of £1,200 was applicable three years ago it should now be £1,600 for the insurable limit because one-third of the people who were within the limit of £1,200 three years ago are now known to be outside the limit and the State has done nothing to bring these people within the insurable category.
Surely this is a time when this sort of thing should be put right, a time when we are determining the percentage responsibility of the ratepayer and the whole community to pay for the health services. At a time of putting through legislation of this kind we should rectify what is known to be wrong. At present we operate 14 different forms of public health service and in these 14 different forms we have 14 different means tests requiring, in most cases, that applicants for the individual services must submit themselves to a new assessment of means. New norms must be applied and new inhuman investigations must be carried out.