Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Mar 1984

Vol. 349 No. 4

Health Contributions (Yearly Reckonable Income) (Variation) Regulations, 1984: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following regulations in draft—

Health Contributions (Yearly Reckonable Income) (Variation) Regulations, 1984

a copy of which regulations in draft was laid before the House on 14 March 1984.

It is provided in subsection (3) of section 9 of the Health Contributions Act, 1979, that the Minister for Health may, by regulations, vary the rate at which health contributions are payable and also the income ceiling up to which contributions are payable. It is also provided in subsection (5) of section 9 of that Act that a draft of any such proposed regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and that the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House. The draft regulations now before the House deal with the income ceiling. It is not proposed to vary the rate figure which has stood at 1 per cent since 6 April 1979.

The income ceiling is at present £11,000. It is proposed to raise this to £12,000 with effect from the commencement of the next contribution year, viz. 6 April 1984. This will result in an increase of £10 a year in the maximum contribution payable. This increase will be collected from most contributors towards the end of the 1984-85 contribution year, that is, in the first quarter of 1985. The estimated additional yield is £2 million a year but in the current financial year ending 31 December 1984, only about £200,000 extra will be realised. The balance of £1.8 million will come in the first quarter of 1985.

The Health Contributions Act, 1979, provides that when setting a new ceiling figure the Minister shall take into account any changes in the average earnings of workers in the transportable goods industries as recorded by the Central Statistics Office since the date by reference to which the ceiling figure was last determined. The latest recorded information on average weekly earnings in those industries relates to June 1983. The average weekly earning figure increased from £129.33 per week in June 1982 to £141.39 by June 1983. This represents an increase of 9.3 per cent and when this is applied to the current ceiling of £11,000, a new ceiling of £12,023 or say £12,000 per annum emerges.

I should mention the new arrangements applying to the collection of health contributions from farmers. At present, health boards are responsible for the collection of these contributions from approximately 100,000 farmers and it had been the practice to use a notional system, rv and a multiplier, to determine farm income for this purpose. In July 1982, the High Court ruled that the use of farm rv and a multiplier to determine farm income was contrary to the Constitution. To deal with this situation, and with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the Minister made regulations which provide for the assessment of farmers' income on a factual basis as in the case of other self-employed persons. In effect this means that farm income is assessed on the basis of the profits or gains from farming activities less any expenses incurred in earning these profits and less any superannuation contributions which may have been paid. Demands based upon factual assessments, including any arrears outstanding, have recently been issued by the health boards to all farmers liable for health contributions.

With regard to collection arrangements in the case of farmers' health contributions the general opinion held was that health boards were not an appropriate agency to collect health contributions, or indeed, the youth employment levy and the 1 per cent income levy, from the farming sector. The situation has now been corrected by the transfer of responsibility for collecting health contributions and levies from farmers to the Revenue Commissioners with effect from 6 April next. Regulations giving effect to this decision have been made.

I have been concerned about the large scale evasion of liability for health contributions by the farming community and other self-employed persons. These contributions form a very important element of the finances available to fund health services expenditure. Any failure to achieve targets for health contribution receipts in these times of financial stringency could only result in a reduction in the extent or quality of the services provided. It is manifestly unfair that a situation should exist whereby persons who have reneged on their obligations in this regard should be able to obtain health services without penalty. Accordingly, I have advised health boards to make full use of every enforcement procedure available to them in the collection of amounts outstanding.

As an added means of ensuring that all persons liable for contributions do in fact discharge their liabilities fully and promptly I propose to introduce regulations in the near future providing for a hospital admission charge of £100 in the case of persons seeking in-patient services in public hospitals who have not discharged their liabilities for health contributions. This charge will be additional to any payments for private or semi-private accommodation. These regulations will come into effect from 1 June 1984 and will apply in respect of arrears as at the end of the previous contribution year, in effect 5 April 1984.

The purpose of the motion today is simply to raise the ceiling level for health contributions from the current figure of £11,000 to a new figure of £12,000. I now ask the House to approve of the regulations before it in draft form.

As the Minister said the motion seeks to raise the level for health contributions from the current figure of £11,000 to £12,000. I should like to know if the level of eligibility for services will be raised also from £11,000 to £12,000. There is nothing in the Minister's statement about that. The Minister referred to the methods of collection and assessment for the farming community. We believe that everybody should pay their health contributions but, because of the position that existed last year, in fairness many farmers would have paid had they known what the contribution was. Following the decision of the High Court, and of the Government, on the abolition of the PLV system as a method of assessment, farmers did not know how much they owed to their health board. Many of them who in previous years had paid their contributions did not pay them last year because they did not have any idea how to calculate what was due.

During the Second Stage debate on the Social Welfare Bill I raised a few points that are probably more relevant to this motion. One dealt with the methods of assessing farmers' incomes. The Department of Health use two different definitions of "farm income". When assessing a farmer's entitlement to a medical card, the expenses taken into account are feed and fertilisers but they do not take into account deductible outlays on capital expenditure, machinery depreciation, bank interest on development loans. When they are calculating farm income for the purpose of the health contribution they allow interest for farming purposes but exclude all forms of depreciation, including capital allowances for machinery and plant, roadways and buildings. I would ask the Minister, in conjunction with his colleagues the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Finance to get together to find a uniform system of assessing farmers' income for the various State benefits and schemes to which they might be entitled.

I welcome the Minister's decision to take from the health boards the responsibility for collecting health contributions, the 1 per cent levy and the employment levy. It should never have been a function of the health board to be acting as revenue collectors for the State. It is only right that this responsibility should be taken from the health boards and transferred to the Department of Finance.

The hospital admission charges need to be seriously considered — this £100 charge for those who have not paid their health contributions. I am concerned to ensure that when a person comes to the doors of the hospital he will not have to pay £100 before he is admitted. This would be a retrograde step. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that nobody will be denied admission to hospital simply because he did not have £100 with him.

I support Deputy O'Hanlon, particularly with regard to the £100 charge on farmers who did not pay their health contributions. It is very important that the Minister makes it quite clear that if a person is brought to hospital following a serious accident he will not be refused admission because he has not paid his health contribution. He should not be required to pay £100 before receiving treatment for his injuries. I do not think anyone would like to see that situation develop.

There are established traditional procedures for the collection of outstanding debts. Surely the Minister like any other businessman, has to comply with the law of the land. It would be a retrograde step if the Minister's suggestion was to be applied in an arbitrary manner at the outpatient departments of our major hospitals. I hope he will make it very clear in his reply that that situation will never arise and that people will never be denied medical treatment, whether urgent or otherwise, because of an outstanding debt.

This £100 charge does not affect the outpatient departments. Nobody will be refused admission to hospital because he has not made his health contribution. Both Deputies are aware that the response from farmers in relation to the contributions has not been good and the idea is to get these contributions to the health board because this forms a big part of income.

As Deputy O'Hanlon said, we are dealing with the ceiling today, not eligibility. The Minister will make an order in relation to eligibility shortly and then it will be laid before the House. The Deputies mentioned capital expenditure. As a farmer I know that if one was allowed to write off capital expenditure against expenses it would be many years before farmers would have to pay any contribution. I would like to thank the Deputies for their contributions.

What I am calling for is a uniform system of assesing farmers' profits.

That would be a very hard thing to find.

In his speech the Minister said:

...I propose to introduce regulations in the near future providing for a hospital admission charge of £100 in the case of persons seeking in-patient services in public hospitals who have not discharged their liabilities for health contributions.

How should that £100 be collected? This seems to imply that unless the £100 is paid the person will not be admitted to hospital.

Whether it is implied or not, I can give the Deputy an assurance that nobody will be refused admission to hospital, irrespective of whether he has paid the £100.

What does that mean?

It is an incentive for farmers to pay the contributions they owe the health boards. We cannot have it two ways. I am sure the Deputies would like to see these contributions paid to the health board.

I am only asking about the method of collection.

We will determine that when an order is made but it will not happen before 1 June 1984.

When will the new regulations be published?

Prior to that date.

I am sorry I was not here for the Minister's reply on eligibility. I wished to query the point that the ceiling for contributions is being raised to £12,000 because last year the ceiling for both contribution and eligibility were £11,000. One would expect therefore that both would be raised to £12,000 this year, but only the ceiling for contributions is being raised. I would also like to refer to the debate which took place in the Seanad. In the past year we have had very severe cutbacks in services.

I must advise the Deputy that the Minister has replied to the debate. The Deputy is late to make a contribution.

May I ask questions?

Acting Chairman

You may ask a couple.

My first question dealt with the ceiling of eligibility and the second relates to the payment of health contributions. The Minister made the point in the Seanad that the PAYE worker paid £64 a year on average for health contributions and the self-employed other than farmers paid £25 a year on average, while farmers paid only £7 a year on average. What proposals has the Minister to raise the levels of contributions from farmers and the self-employed to the average level of £64 a year paid by PAYE workers, in order to avoid health board cutbacks because of shortage of funds arising from the non-payment of these contributions? Could the Minister tell the House what he proposes to do in order to ensure that health contributions are paid by these people at the same level as paid by PAYE workers?

The exclusion of capital allowances should bring the farming community into line with the other people referred to.

Will the money come in?

We have told the health boards to use every means at their disposal to collect any outstanding arrears and as from 6 April this year it will not be the responsibility of the health boards to collect the other levies. It will be the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners. In relation to eligibility, the Minister intends to make an order which will be laid before the House.

Bringing it up to £12,000?

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share