Perhaps the Minister would like to say something on this.
Health Contributions (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know why any explanation should be made in respect of this section. As I stated in my speech, it increases the weekly contribution from 26p to 33p and in the case of other persons—those under £60 valuation and those with an income of £1,600 per year—it increases the charge from £12 to £15 per year.
As I mentioned on Second Stage, these increases are quite considerable. They represent an increase of 27 per cent or 28 per cent. Normally, increases of that size in any charge would excite a fair amount of public comment and opposition but at this stage the unfortunate Irish people are so used to savage increases in taxation that they are anaesthesised to the whole situation. I do not suppose these increases will attract all that much attention from the general public.
However, it is important to point out to the House that these increased charges which the Minister is imposing on a wider section will not increase or improve the health services in any way. They will not provide any new services or improve existing services. Savage though these increases are, one might be inclined to tolerate them if they could be seen to be directed towards improving the health services but, unfortunately, the position is that this is simply a taxation measure. The credit for the amount of money these increases will raise has been taken fully into account in the budget. The £1.7 million extra that will be obtained this year as a result of the increases has been credited in the budget arithmetic. It is important for the House to realise that these increases will simply meet the budgetary deficit of the Minister for Finance and they will not improve our health services.
Secondly, I want to point out the anomaly that exists with regard to health contributions. At the moment an insured person if he is a manual worker is eligible for limited eligibility services irrespective of his income. On the other hand, if an insured person is a non-manual worker he ceases to have eligibility if his income exceeds £2,250 per annum. It is very difficult to justify that distinction between a manual and a non-manual worker and in these days it is becoming less and less defensible. In particular, it leads to all kinds of peculiar decisions from the point of view of administration by the Departments of Health and Social Welfare as to what is manual and what is non-manual employment. There is an increasing number of insured workers who are quite incensed at being denied these services which are available to people who are working beside them just because their job is classified differently by the appropriate Department. I have put down an amendment to subsection (2) which is designed to ensure that in administering this legislation the Minister will not be able to make any differentiation between members paying these contributions because of the nature of their employment. It has been suggested to me that it is probably unconstitutional to deny limited eligibility benefits to non-manual workers with an income in excess of £2,250 per annum when they are available to manual workers. That is one anomaly that exists in the administration of this legislation.
The second anomaly is the enormous discrepancy between the income limits for these non-manual workers, insured persons, and the self-employed persons. The eligibility income limit for a self-employed person is £1,600 per annum. This can give rise to this sort of situation. A self-employed person with an income of £1,600 per annum, if he has a large enough family and if there are other circumstances obtaining in his situation, could be granted a medical card and, thereby, become eligible for full services, whereas under this legislation he is ineligible for limited services. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to that absurdity which is brought about by the manner in which this legislation is administered at present.
I am conscious of the fact that at this stage we are obtruding on the time which should be allocated to Private Members' Business and, therefore, I do not wish to prolong this discussion on Committee Stage unduly. However, I want to indicate to the Minister that he must rationalise the situation in regard to insured workers and eliminate the difference between manual and non-manual workers. It is unjustifiable and it is unjust. There are a number of different ways in which the anomaly could be removed. It is not my function and, unfortunately the Rules of the House do not permit me to put down an amendment which would result in the removal of the anomaly but I want to press strongly on the Minister the sense of injustice that a large number of people feel because of this artificial distinction.
Anybody who has had any experience of the administration of the legislation must be fully aware of the anomalous sort of situations which arise in the attempts made to distinguish between manual and non-manual. I have already indicated that we are voting against this section and these increases. We think that using health legislation of this sort as a taxation measure and increasing these charges simply to go to meet a deficit which arose in the budget and to raise new charges of this sort which are not designed to improve the health services in any way but are going into the Exchequer to meet the budgetary deficit of the Minister for Finance is wrong in principle. We are opposing this section for that reason but we are also opposing it as an indication of our disapproval of the manner in which the Minister is treating health boards this year. He has made allocations to those health boards which are clearly inadequate to enable the boards to carry on their normal level of services. He has indicated to me that he is not going to increase those allocations and it is obvious to everyone that neither the health boards, the voluntary hospitals nor any of the other institutions engaged in the administration of our health services, will be able to carry on throughout 1976 providing the full level of services they are expected to provide at the level of allocations the Minister has made to them this year. We want to indicate that we disapprove of the entire manner in which the Minister is purporting to finance our health services this year.
The Deputy has stated that he considers these increases to be considerable but, as I explained on Second Reading, they are in accordance with the increases in the national wage agreement and inflation. I do not know much about Deputy Haughey's principles but he has spoken of the principle in this Bill of raising money for the purpose of putting it into the Exchequer. It was made abundantly clear by the then Minister for Health, the late Deputy Childers, that these health contributions were to be regarded as a supplementary method of financing the health services. There will not be improvements. They were intended to provide for improvements. They were intended to add to the finances of the Department of Health for the purposes of administering the health services in general. There was no attempt, and there never has been, to smother this increase, a similar one to that introduced 12 or 14 months ago.
As I said on Second Reading there is an anomaly and that can be dealt with when the new regulations are introduced and they must be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas. There has always been this distinction between manual and non-manual and this was produced, and accepted by, the Fianna Fáil Party. Why their change of mind now I do not know. Deputy Haughey said in the course of his contribution that this differentiation between manual and non-manual was unconstitutional but if that is so I wonder why it was not challenged when the Bill was introduced by my predecessor in 1971.
It is done by regulation; it is not in the original Bill.
What the hell difference does it make? That was the intention of the Minister and he did it by regulation.
The theme song at the moment should be: "Don't Let Life Get You Down".
On a point of order, I want to explain to the Minister that the Bill was not challenged as to its constitutionality when introduced because this is not in the Bill. I did not say that this provision is unconstitutional. I said it had been suggested that it might be unconstitutional. I deliberately stated that I did not know whether it was or not but that it had been suggested to me that it probably is.
Whoever said that should test it.
It is fairly well tested now and the Minister will be well tested before the year is out.
The Minister said farewell to his Department this afternoon; he made his farewell speech.
Do not let life get you down.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 60.
Tá.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerald.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John I.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 by Deputy Haughey out of order.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, and passed.
Before we start the next business I should like to ask if the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs intends to bring before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges the charge brought against him by the Bishop of Limerick over the weekend calling him an agnostic. I suppose he would prefer to be called an agnostic rather than a communist.