andMr. T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan-Monaghan) asked the Minister for Health the reason staff costs have risen from 41.4 to 69.3 per cent of the expenditure of his Department since 1977; how much of the difference is due to the reclassification of expenditure; and how and why such reclassification took place.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Departmental Staff Costs.
32.
The percentage figures specified in the question relate to public service pay and pension costs, as defined for budgetary purposes.
Prior to 1980 certain pay costs in the health services such as the pay of personnel employed in voluntary hospitals and homes for the mentally handicapped, were not classified as "public service pay". It was decided, however, that since virtually all such pay costs are funded from the Exchequer it would be more appropriate to regard these pay costs as part of overall public service pay. Reclassification accordingly was arranged commencing with the year 1980, and accounts for 19 percentage points of the difference between the percentages referred to in the question.
The remainder of the difference arises from the fact that expenditure on pay has risen more rapidly than non-pay costs since 1977, due mainly to special pay awards for certain categories of health personnel and also because of increases in numbers employed in the health services, approximately 3,900.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister agree that it appears that a much greater percentage of budget is now going to administration rather than to the direct treatment of patients?
The difference would be approximately 9 per cent in that period.
(Cavan-Monaghan): In the wrong direction.
The provision of good, well-qualified staff is vital for the health services, as the Deputy will appreciate.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am talking about administration staff.
This is not for administration but for the provision of nurses, doctors, consultants and so on.
Would the Minister not accept that on the basis of the figures given it would appear that as recently as three and a half years ago, nearly 60 per cent of the total health budget went on direct benefits to patients? While there has been a slight increase in the number of personnel involved, it now appears that only 30.7 per cent of the total budget goes in benefits to patients.
The Deputy did not register my reply.
It registered totally with me, but the Minister's figures are so much at variance with the facts that it is impossible to reconcile them.
The Deputy has not grasped the facts. If we take 1977, the percentage of the total was: for public service pay and pensions 41.4 per cent, and other pay—being the pay for voluntary organisations, homes and so on—19 per cent. The total was 60.4 per cent. Now the total is 69.3 per cent. That is why I told Deputy Fitzpatrick we were talking about a change of approximately 9 per cent.
Would the Minister not agree that £10 million on £60 million is much more than 9 per cent?
I do not know where the Deputy got £10 million. We are talking in terms of percentages not millions, and there is an increase of 9 per cent. The Deputy who asked the question appreciates the information I have given.