asked the Minister for Health the changes, if any, proposed in the limits of eligibility for medical cards, following the removal of the food subsidies.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Medical Cards.
12.
The income guidelines for purposes of eligibility for medical cards were revised in the normal way by the chief executive officers of the health boards with effect from 1 January 1979. This revision took account of changes in the consumer price index up to mid-November 1978.
It would be impractical to revise the guidelines at frequent intervals to take account of movements in the consumer price index.
Is the Minister aware that thousands of people now find themselves outside the eligibility limit for medical cards due to the compensation given to them because of the abolition of food subsidies? The increases they received in the budget took account of the losses they sustained as a result of the abolition of food subsidies, but their actual income has not increased.
Is the Deputy talking about the social welfare increases in the budget?
That is right. The increases took account of the losses resulting from the abolition of food subsidies and by virtue of these increases these people are automatically outside the eligibility limit for medical cards.
Could the Deputy give an instance?
There are social welfare recipients who now find themselves outside the eligibility limit for medical cards. They suffered a drop in income but this was compensated for by increased social welfare benefits and that income has now put them outside the eligibility limit. Their actual income has not increased.
Is the Deputy speaking in terms subsequent to the increased guidelines coming into operation on 1 January?
I am talking about increased guidelines which never took into account the abolition of food subsidies and the compensation given. This is a very serious matter affecting many thousands of people and if I cannot get a satisfactory answer I will seek the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I am trying to get at the nub of the Deputy's complaint.
These people received increases, but merely to compensate for the abolition of food subsidies. Their actual income did not increase, but there was an increase in terms of money which put them outside the eligibility limit for medical cards. Thousands of people are in this situation.
I see the point the Deputy is making, but I am not aware that there is any particular substance in it. The guidelines were increased at the same time. The social welfare allowances were increased in the budget, but they will not come into operation until 1 April so there could not be anybody who is affected by them as yet. In the meantime, increased guidelines have come into operation since January.
These increased guidelines were based on the November CPI figures which do not reflect the abolition of food subsidies.
I am dealing with Deputy O'Connell.
I should not like to interrupt the Minister.
The point Deputy O'Connell is seeking to make is that because social welfare allowances were increased some people have been put above the guidelines. That could not be because the increased social welfare allowances are not yet in operation.
As a result of the abolition of food subsidies, their standard of living has dropped and we have not made provision for that in the new guidelines.
The question of compensation for the phasing out of food subsidies was dealt with fairly comprehensively in the budget in a number of ways. There were increases of 16 per cent and 12 per cent for social welfare recipients. In addition to that, as far as those same people with families were concerned and lower income group earners, the children's allowance increases were intended to compensate for food subsidy reductions.
Would the Minister not agree that the revised rates of eligibility for medical cards came into effect on 1 January and reflected increases in the CPI up to mid-November and those increases in the CPI did not include increases arising from the removal of food subsidies? Therefore there is a case for a further revision to take account of the changes since then as a result of the removal of food subsidies.
The Deputy may put down a separate question.
The Deputy knows that it is a major operation to change the guidelines for medical cards. This operation is carried out once a year and that has always been the practice. Until the new social welfare rates come into operation on 1 April, I cannot say what the specific effect will be in regard to medical card holders.
Would the Minister not agree that food subsidies have not been removed since the early fifties when his party were in office?
Is the Minister not aware that medical card holders who are not social welfare beneficiaries——
I understood Deputy O'Connell was talking about social welfare recipients and their entitlement to medical cards. I dealt with that.
There is only one question on the Order Paper.
And it does not refer at all to social welfare recipients.
Question No. 12 does not refer specifically to social welfare recipients; they are just one group.
The supplementary questions which Deputy O'Connell raised constitute argument.
Is the Minister aware that a husband and wife without children, who are not in receipt of social welfare allowances but who are medical card holders, can now find themselves in a worsening position because of the abolition of food subsidies and the revised guidelines which were brought into effect before the abolition of food subsidies? It appears it will be a full year again before the guidelines are revised. The Minister should leave out the flak about the social welfare recipients——
These are statements. Can we not have some order in this matter?
I am asking the Minister if he is not aware that that category——
These are statements. The Deputy is not asking a question.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister satisfied that the present income limits for medical cards are sufficiently high?
That is a separate question. I am calling Question No. 13.