I have given permission to Deputy Woods to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 8 and 9 on today's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate. - Health Contributions.
I am sorry to have to raise this matter on the Adjournment but I was so dissatisfied with the answer — which was not in fact given to me — this afternoon that I asked permission to raise it on the Adjournment. The Minister refrained from giving a reply to the basic question which I asked in No. 8, which was what the extra yield in a full year is expected to be from the 150 per cent increase in health contributions which the Government are committed to in their Coalition programme. In Question No. 9 I asked what the expected yield in a full year would be from this increase in health contributions for each of the following groups, employees, the self-employed and farmers. The Minister gave both answers together and said they would be circulated later. On being questioned he would not disclose any of the figures. In fact the Leader of the Opposition joined in asking him to give the figures.
On my own calculations and without exact information I estimated that this additional charge would amount to approximately £89 million. The Minister mentioned that the current level for employees was £42.6 million. I was taking that figure at £44 million in my round estimate. Coming back then to my own estimate I reach a figure marginally under £87 million. A few minutes ago I received a copy of the answer to the question which the Minister had in his possession at the time and I am particularly disappointed that the Minister did not give us the figures because they are exceptionally clear in the answer to the question. I shall read the answer which is particularly interesting for me because the total figure here in the answer I now have is £87 million. Why could the Minister not give us that figure at the time? Why does he want to hide it? Why did he not want to give it when the press were here? These are questions I have to ask myself and the Minister.
There are only four figures involved in toto. According to the reply, the estimated extra yield in a full calendar year on the basis of the proposed new contribution rate and no upper income ceiling and income levels on which the estimate for 1981 was based breaks down into four heads, the PAYE system, mainly employees; the self-employed, including excepted farmers and the total figure.
The contribution from the PAYE system, mainly employees, the additional money which will come through the Coalition package and which will be charged on the Health Estimate is £76.4 million, this is very much the kind of figure I felt it had to be and my crude calculations were very close to that. The figure for the self-employed is £5.2 million and the figure for farmers is £5.4 million, giving a total of £87 million. This brings out very clearly the point I was trying to get at in the questions I asked. First, the size of the increase which is greater than 150 per cent because it also includes income above £8,500 which was not covered before is £87 million, is an enormous sum taken from the Health Estimates to pay for a whole range of other things outside the health area.
In addition, there is the matter of the way in which the tax will be imposed. There are difficulties in collecting these moneys everywhere except in the PAYE sector. We know in relation to tax generally and to health charges particularly that the PAYE sector is a fairly easy one to collect from. The current charge is 1 per cent and the new charge 2.5 per cent. One can take it that the figure for collection there is valid because the amount of £76.4 million will be accurate to within a very small degree. The collection in the case of the self-employed is somewhat different; it depends on what profits are shown at the end of the day and will probably take somewhat longer to collect. In the case of the farmers the Minister has said that he does not anticipate, certainly in the next year, an increase in the multiplier for farmers. I agree with him. In fact, the multiplier was held at the same level this year because the farming community have had such a difficult period that their ability to pay additional charges became questionable. So, I agree with the Minister in the desirability of maintaining the multiplier as it is. But if you do that you will scarcely get any extra income at this time so that the income will come for the most part from the PAYE sector. Of course there will be people in that sector who cannot afford to pay it but they have no means of expressing their inability to pay.
We have the figures now and I thank the Minister for making them available so clearly at this stage. I can see that they are quite accurate; they are what I would expect. They indicate very clearly that this is, in effect, a bad tax. It is inequitable in its application as the burden will obviously fall principally on employees for a variety of reasons. It is a tax made without a benefit in that sector; there will be no improvement in health services; it is put down in the programme as being intended to offset various other things the Coalition plan to do. It is a very severe tax on the public generally and on the health sector particularly. It is a tax of more than 150 per cent because not only does it apply to incomes up to £8,500 but in addition it applies to incomes above that figure. I have no way of indicating what that additional amount will be without the benefit of time to work it out but it is certainly more than 150 per cent.
I object to the health services being the scapegoat for this Coalition package. From my own experience I know there is great need in the health services for improvement. There is need to improve community-based services, to improve hospital out-patient departments, to improve further psychiatric services and a whole range of other services. Services for the elderly particularly need improvement. There is need for additional funds, large as the funds are that are going into the health services. I agree that they absorb a considerable amount of funds. To impose a tax of this order which in a full year will take an additional £87 million and contribute none of it to the health services themselves I think is a very great mistake.
I was very disappointed that the Minister did not make the figures available at Question Time. It would have avoided us coming back at this stage, because there are just four simple figures and we specifically asked him to give us even one of these figures. I indicated, by way of question, what I felt that figure was. I guessed it was about £89 million but on revision and as a result of another figure which he gave me, I was able to come nearer to the correct figure which is £87 million. That is an extraordinary amount of money to take from the PAYE sector principally. It is an extraordinary amount of money to take for the Coalition package and not to apply any of it to the improvement of the health services. I should like to thank the Chair for giving me an opportunity to bring this matter before the House. I regret I had to do as but following a specific request the Minister was not prepared to give us the figure I sought. It was because of that that I was disappointed.
I should like to express my dismay that the Minister on his first day answering parliamentary questions has not shown any sign of the ordination day zeal one would expect from someone who was put here to answer questions. He appeared reluctant at all stages to impart information. In fact, I got the distinct feeling that the Minister went out of his way to suppress information. At some stage during the putting of supplementary questions he was prepared to undertake the work of the Chair and to make interjections that should have come from the Chair rather than from the Minister. I have looked at the document which was circulated to Deputies and the figure we asked the Minister to disclose is easily discernible at £87 million. That figure was available and easily understood. It showed up clearly on the tabular statement circulated by the Minister but he refused to disclose it despite the well educated shot in the dark by Deputy Woods — he underestimated a little what the total would be rather than overestimated it — and despite a request from the Leader of the Opposition.
There can be only two excuses for this, that the Minister knew the answer but did not wish to give it or that he did not understand his brief. Those excuses do not hold good. The Minister's approach to Question Time has not been helpful to this side of the House and that is why we have raised this matter on the Adjournment. Had the Minister given the information required this matter would not have been raised and if the Minister persists in his attitude this will happen again. The other day Deputy Flanagan exhorted us all — particularly the Chair — to preserve the democratic weapon we have in the parliamentary question and it would be wrong of the Minister to try to disarm us and remove this wonderful weapon from us.
I am at a loss to know how Deputy Woods succeeded in raising this matter on the Adjournment. Was it to revenge his mind on me because I gave him a reply to his questions Nos. 8 and 9 to the effect that I would circulate the information in the Official Report? The Deputy is seeking to bring before the House on the Adjournment a matter to which he has not received a reply. At Question Time I stated that it was my objective as long as I am responsible for answering questions in regard to any problem to give as much information as possible to Deputies from whatever side of the House they come from. I hope to see that through. There was no intention on my part to suppress information but I got the impression that once the information being sought was circulated in the Official Report — it was detailed information in relation to the questions — the Deputy, if dissatisfied, would under the rules of the House raise the matter on the Adjournment when we could have a clear-cut debate.
I do not know what Deputy Power meant when he said I was using the Chair. I have always obeyed the Chair and I understand from the procedure of the House — Deputies Power and Woods should be aware of this — that when the Chair calls the next question it is the duty of the Minister concerned to proceed to the next question or, alternatively, disobey the Chair. I do not know what Deputy Power has in mind. I should like to ask those Deputies to bear in mind that the Coalition package on this matter was an agreed programme and that the increase in health contributions is linked with an overall taxation package involving reductions in other aspects of taxation such as income tax. We cannot quote a figure out of context because it does not give a true picture. This programme was introduced by the Coalition but Deputy Woods carefully selected out of context a figure without taking the full package into consideration. There are problems in relation to quoting a specific figure. There are problems in relation to the level of employment and under our youth development programme we hope more employment will be created. There are problems in relation to the financial year and the calendar year. The discrepancy in the figures referred to by Deputy Woods could arise from certain factors but I can assure the Deputy that once the information is available in the Official Report he will have an opportunity of debating the matter fully on the Adjournment. I do not wish to deprive any Member of that opportunity, even if it inconveniences me. Like other Ministers I do not mind coming back to the House if Deputies are dissatisfied with the information that was given to them. I was amazed that Deputies accused me of the suppression of information because that would not be in accordance with the proceedings of the House. When the detailed information is available in the Official Report Deputies may, if they wish, question me about it.
I should like to ask the Minister to give such figures in future so that supplementaries may be put at the appropriate time. If that is not done Deputies are denied the opportunity of asking questions. I look forward to the Minister giving the full information in future.
It is my understanding of the procedure that once a Minister informs a Deputy he is circulating the information in the Official Report he is not in possession of all the facts. A Minister is not briefed to any great extent when that occurs and Deputy Woods should be aware of that.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 21 July 1981.