Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jul 1971

Vol. 70 No. 17

Health Services (Limited Eligibility) Regulations, 1971: Draft Order.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:—

Health Services (Limited Eligibility) Regulations, 1971

a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 14 July, 1971.

These draft regulations have two purposes. The first, and main purpose is to provide for an increase in the income ceiling for limited eligibility for health services from £1,200 to £1,600 in the case of the self-employed—other than farmers—and persons with private means. This is in line with the recent increase in the income limits of social welfare insurance of non-manual workers. It has been settled practice to follow the social welfare limit for the purposes of limited eligibility for health services.

Secondly, the regulations would substitute a definition of income in accordance with income tax practice for the present definition, which is based on rules set out in the Social Welfare Acts. Those rules were geared towards assessing the need for financial assistance, such as pensions, and took account of the realisable value of a person's property as well as his cash income. It is considered more appropriate to look at visible income, such as is done for income tax purposes, in reckoning eligibility for health services. This change incidentally would facilitate the arrangements under the Health Contributions Bill for the collection of certain health contributions through the agency of the Revenue Commissioners. It will not have any sensible influence on the numbers of persons eligible for services.

I had hoped also to include in these regulations a provision fixing income standards for full eligibility, that is for that category who are entitled to medical cards. After very detailed and careful studies of the matter, I have come to the conclusion that, as circumstances other than the purely financial vary so much as between country and town and between one family and another, I should not at this stage make regulations on such standards but rather leave it to the chief executive officers of the eight health boards to try to achieve the greatest practicable uniformity in their decisions on eligibility. I am arranging for my Department to bring the chief executive officers together with a view to working out a formula for achieving maximum unity of approach. The reduction from 27 to eight in the number of bodies responsible for the operation of the health services should facilitate a reasonable degree of consensus in the matter.

The chief executive officers will have available to them in their discussions the considerable volume of statistical material which was assembled in connection with the Departmental examination of this subject. I would hope that the outcome would be the removal of the inconsistencies which have in the past existed in relation to the issue of medical cards, without substantially altering the total number covered. This should mean more equitable treatment for both the persons seeking the service and for the taxpayers and ratepayers who must meet the cost of it.

I should be grateful for the approval of the House to the proposed regulations.

Any explanation such as this is welcome. I suppose it is an attempt to define "limited eligibility" to make it easier to discuss a Bill we will be dealing with later. The Minister said he intended defining "full eligibility" by regulation, but found there were certain difficulties about that. He is leaving it to the chief executive officers of the health boards to achieve the greatest practical uniformity in their decisions regarding eligibility. There have been discrepancies between counties in the issue of medical cards. The Minister told Deputy Tully in the Dáil that he would bring in regulations for the definition of those entitled to hold the medical card before the recess. I accept that was the Minister's intention. When the Minister and his officials tried to define eligibility for medical cards they found it was not so easy, as most of us know.

I want to refer to one part of the draft regulations that may be in conflict with a certain statement of the Minister on Second Reading of the Health Contributions Bill. I am referring to paragraph 2 of the regulations:—

(b) "Income" for the purposes of subsection (1) (b) shall mean the income of the preceding year ended on 5th April and shall include all income which the person may have received for that year from all sources.

Senator Owens in her speech on the Second Reading of the Bill asked a question what would happen about overtime—would that be taken into consideration as part of the income? The Minister stated, in his reply, at col. 1273, Vol. 70 of the Seanad Official Report:—

Overtime payments will not influence entitlement to middle income service and that has been the case previously.

Is there a conflict here? If we pass these regulations, as drafted here, is this in conflict with the Minister's statement in his reply to Senator Owens? The answer may be that the middle income group and the limited eligibility group are not synonymous. The Minister made this statement at the beginning of his introductory speech:

The purpose of the Bill is to ease the serious burden of health costs on the Exchequer and rates through the introduction of a scheme of regular contributions towards the cost of hospital and other services by those who are eligible for the services and who may be regarded as able to bear the contribution proposed without hardship. These are persons whom the category described in the Health Act, 1970, as having limited eligibility for health services.

In other words, in the Health Contributions Bill the particular people whom the Minister is referring to are those who come within the category of limited eligibility. At the same time in his draft regulations, which he has put before the House, he says that all income, no matter from what source, will be taken into consideration. Again he says, in answer to Senator Owens that:

Overtime payments will not influence entitlement to the middle income service and that has been the case previously.

There is some inconsistency and some discrepancy here.

The overtime question involves only those with social insurance, and they are automatically insured. If they are on overtime it is dealt with through social insurance. The question of income is assessed on self employed people and retired people. Overtime will have to be included in any event in the upper income limit.

I see that the Minister may have an explanation for all that but are there no particular people who would not come into the social service group, who would do overtime and who might come within this category? Is the Minister excluding all people with overtime?

I cannot see that there would be anybody who would be earning overtime who was not in a job.

If I knew the answer I should try to help the Minister. I am only posing the question in case there were.

I do not think it is a complication in relation to these regulations.

I am just pointing it out in case it may arise. I have not at hand any particular example of what I am referring to, therefore I cannot help the Minister in this. I think it is valid that it should be pointed out here. Otherwise the regulations are a help in defining the category to which the Bill which we will be dealing with later will apply.

I am sorry that the Minister is unable to define "full eligibility". I also think that the definition of "limited eligibility" may present difficulty. Those who are just outside the category of full eligibility obviously come into the category of relative eligibility. Therefore, to some extent, the definition of limited eligibility depends upon the definition of full eligibility. I think the Minister should take steps to review occasionally any discrepancies that may occur in the issue of medical cards in different areas of the country, where the chief executive officers of the eight health boards might interpret the conditions governing the issue of medical cards in different ways. Notice should be taken of the discrepancies that have occurred. However, in general, it is good to have this explanatory memorandum and the regulations in force before we proceed to discuss the Health Contributions Bill.

I welcome the Minister's decision to bring about, greater uniformity by bringing together the chief executive officers of the eight health boards so as to achieve, in the Minister's own words, practical uniformity in decisions on eligibility.

I should like the Minister to explain in detail this question of overtime, incen tive bonus, etc. and how it may affect eligibility. When you move the ceiling for limited eligibility from £1,200 to £1,600, does this mean that overtime earnings which might bring the insured person above £1,600 would make that person ineligible? This problem often arises. I agree that in trying to admin ister a health service at present, with due regard for both the person who needs the service and for the taxpayer, there should be some degree of decision in relation to eligibility but a good deal of confusion continues to arise on this question of additional earnings which may be either overtime or may be some sort of incentive bonus which may only apply to one year.

Perhaps I should explain that this would be the arrangement for providing the upper limit of £1,600 in accordance with exactly the same regulations as now apply in the Department of Social Welfare. Whatever the Department of Social Welfare have done in the past in relation to overtime will also apply in relation to the limited eligibility regulation. I understand they generally work on the basis of the rate for the job in assessing the upper limit. The House can be assured that I am not making any alteration. Whatever the Department of Social Welfare did in relation to social welfare limits when they were £1,200 will be done in relation to £1,600. There will be no change in the methods adopted. That is as clear as I can make it.

It is probably as clear as the Minister can make it, but there is still some confusion about the old method. One is continually running up against the problem of different types of earnings such as basic earnings, incentive or percentage earnings and overtime. In giving advice to a person one wonders what return you make and are you making a false return by leaving out overtime, etc.

The matter should have been raised on the Social Welfare Bill, which we propose to follow. The Department of Social Welfare will conduct this operation for us using the same methods as heretofore.

So far as I can see, the published draft regulations are, basically, a copy of subsection (1) of section 46 of the 1970 Act with the substitution of £1,600 for £1,200 and going on to give an actual definition of income for the purposes of subsection (1) (b). The first parts are as were laid down in the 1970 Act.

This involved both the Health Contributions Bill and the whole question of contributions generally. I am a bit disappointed remembering that the Minister for Social Welfare was in the House within the last ten days or so when he announced that, while he had raised the social welfare income limit to £1,600 this year, he hoped in the course of this same year to abolish that income limit completely and to make social welfare contributions obligatory upon all earners of wages and salary. Bearing that in mind I am surprised that the Minister has seen fit at this stage to introduce health eligibility regulations tied in with the £1,600 limit of the Department of Social Welfare, apparently with the intention of operating the regulations basically under the provisions of the social welfare code.

I should like the Minister to tell us whether, when the Minister for Social Welfare extends the social welfare code to cover all wage and salary earners he would also envisage extending the contributions under the Health Act to cover all wage and salary earners from all categories? In other words, in the course of the next 12 months will the Minister introduce an obligatory contributory scheme on all employed persons? If he will not, it is a pity. If he will, it is a pity he did not wait and do the whole job at the same time as the Department of Social Welfare. I am sure the Minister will give his views on this when replying.

It would be better to reply now, so that nobody else need raise this point. The answer is that there was no limit in the social welfare insurance system. We will have to reconsider the whole problem because you have the entire medical profession involved in virtually the ceasing of a great deal of private practice. The whole of the remuneration of consultants is based on a certain amount of private practice. It would add enormously to the cost, so that the matter, at that stage, would have to be reviewed fundamentally before I could make any such change and say that the limited eligibility group now covers every person who is earning up to any limit of revenue. I am sure the House will understand that. It would completely upset the system of medicine we have in this country which involves a mixture of private practice for 10 per cent of the population helped by the Voluntary Health Insurance Board.

An old dog for the hard road. There is no danger of the Minister, so early in the morning, stepping in and telling us what plans he really has for the future health services. I thought we might be able to draw him. The Minister is now telling us that he wishes to introduce regulations with the limits geared to correspond with the existing social welfare code limits, which all sounds fair and reasonable as it stands now. It will not look fair and reasonable in six or nine months if the Minister for Social Welfare scraps his limits completely. Surely at that stage the Minister for Health will have to have another rethink about the contributory system. I agree that to have a contributory system extending over every wage and salary earner would mean a revision of the health services generally, but this will have to come.

Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, would tell us whether these regulations will, in any way, alter subsection (8) of section 46 of the Principal Act, which is the section that permits the CEO in cases of undue hardship to place persons in the limited eligibility category even if they do not fall within the defined limits.

The hardship arrangement continues.

That is fair enough. As long as we have an upper income limit the question of overtime will be a contentious one. It is obvious from what the Minister has said and from what we know of the working of the social welfare code that if somebody is in the limited eligibility category, has paid contributions for a year or 15 months and then it transpires that because of his overtime earnings in the last assessable year he is now above the £1,600 limit, he will be deemed as no longer a person in the limited eligibility category. He is not entitled to benefit. This is the fact of the matter.

Where the confusion lies is rather in the Minister's reply on the Health Contributions Bill. As I understand it it will operate in the same way as the social welfare code. That is to be the system. Just as somebody with full eligibility at the moment because of a change in his position gets better overtime payments will move automatically out of the full eligibility category into the limited one, instead of getting full medical services he will have to pay to get a limited service.

The only other comment I should like to make on the regulations is that I would agree with the Minister that it would be more than desirable that we should be in a position to define the full eligibility categories. There always has been and will continue to be mistrust and misapprehension about the granting of medical cards and about the reason why one person receives a medical card and another does not. In my experience of the administration of that system in the Dublin area, it was done with strict impartiality and fairness. That does not alter the fact that many of the applicants, always the unsuccessful ones, are quite convinced that there is some strange Machiavellian way whereby public representatives and others can manipulate the medical card for those who are not entitled to it.

We all know that is not the case in the Dublin area and I assume throughout the rest of the country. It would be better if we could arrive at a code whereby people would know clearly who was entitled and who was not. I understand the difficulties in doing this, but in relation to other matters, such as the higher education grant scheme there is quite a complicated sliding scale worked out between persons with one child earning a certain amount of money per year and persons with two children earning a certain amount.

The Department will have to work out a fairly complicated sliding scale based on earnings, size of family and average weekly outgoings. I know that in the granting of medical cards the medical history of the family and other factors are taken into account, but there could be a safety clause built into the regulations to cover that. If we are able to define the upper limit for this limited eligibility class—to take the simplest definition, if we are able to say that £1,600 is the upper limit for limited eligibility—then I do not understand how these regulations any more than regulations regarding full eligibility can apply if we do not define the lower limit.

It is no good saying the lower limit of the limited eligibility class is the upper limit of the full eligibility class. If anyone should ask what is the upper limit of the full eligibility class the Minister has the power to say: "We do not know because every case is taken on its merits." There is a whole lot of grey in there between the top of the full eligibility and the bottom of the limited one. It would help generally if we could manage to get a definite standard after which one passes from the full into the limited class. If this were to be done it would remove a lot of the misapprehension and distrust that exist at the moment.

I should like to ask the Minister just one question about these regulations, in relation to farmers. In his explanatory notes he quotes from section 46 of the Health Act, 1970, in which in paragraph (c) of section 1 the limit is placed at £60 rateable valuation in relation to farmers. In the new regulation the limit is exactly the same. I am somewhat puzzled by this. We have an increase in the limit in the case of incomes from £1,200 to £1,600, about 33? per cent. On a pro rata basis surely the limit of rateable valuation for farmers should be increased from £60 to £80 per annum. I wonder why the Minister has left the limit for farmers exactly as it was, whereas he has raised the others quite substantially.

I also should like to ask a question. I noticed in the explanatory notes which were circulated with the draft of the Health Services (Limited Eligibility) Regulations that the Minister made the point that a subsidiary object of the regulations was to change the basis for calculating the yearly means or income of a person claiming eligibility otherwise than an insured person or farmer. He pointed out that at present the basis for such calculations is rule 1 of the rules contained in the 7th Schedule of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. I have looked at these rules and I think I am right in thinking that these rules, particularly rule 1 regarding capital and assessment of value of capital, is one which I remember the late Senator Sheehy Skeffington criticising time after time with great effect.

I should like to inquire if this new method of assessment on the income tax basis liberalises this position somewhat. I should like to know to what extent it is an improvement on the previous treatment of capital, particularly for people of limited private means living on their own, the typical type of elderly person who is so common in parts of the Dublin area. If this assessment system is an improvement, it is very much to be welcomed.

It was with some regret that I learned that the Minister does not feel it is possible to have regulations to decide on the category of people entitled to medical cards. I find this of particular interest in that yesterday the Interim and Final Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for 1968-69 was circulated. I find on pages 119 and 120 a very interesting discussion on this very point, the problems of deciding on eligibility for medical cards. It becomes quite clear in the discussion by the Deputies with the Accounting Officer on the Health Vote that the present position regarding medical cards is very much a mystery. It is also made clear there that up to the present there has been a degree of co-ordination in the Managers Association, the type of co-ordination which the Minister indicates he is going to encourage further through chief executive officers and, with the help of the statistics collected by the Department, that he is considering the possibility of change.

I should like to make the point that, while I welcome this approach to uniformity in that way, it is an approach which may not do much to clear up the mystery where both the public and public representatives are concerned. Whatever about the administrative niceties, it is the public and public representatives who are most involved in this mystery of the issuing of medical cards.

I should like to repeat a request which I have made in discussing health topics on previous occasions. It would be of great interest if, perhaps under the auspices of the Department, we could have published from time to time anonymous case histories of how medical cards are issued in practice so that we would have a range of typical examples giving the full details of the background and income of the people involved. That in its own way would be a contribution towards a better understanding of the system and indeed perhaps a contribution towards the greater uniformity which, by the Minister's decision here today, I gather will continue to be dealt with in an informal way rather than in a formal way.

I should like to add a few words to what Senator Keery has said. When we were speaking on the Health Contributions Bill, I raised the point of the great inconsistency there appeared to be regarding this matter of allocation of medical cards. It is quite understandable that there should be a bigger percentage of medical cards allocated in the western part of the country rather than in the eastern part. Anybody who takes into account the economic circumstances in both parts of the country would understand that. But what is much more difficult to understand and, as Senator Keery says, to explain to the public are the figures.

I had figures for 1970 on the last occasion we discussed this. Yesterday we got figures from the Committee of Public Accounts. Appendix 20 gives percentage of population covered by medical cards at 31st December, 1969. The figure for County Leitrim is 37.2 per cent and for County Roscommon 50.4 per cent. You can imagine my position as a county councillor and public representative because where I live I am surrounded on three sides by County Roscommon. We have 50 per cent of the people there getting medical cards. People come to me who have failed to get medical cards in Leitrim and say: "A man with a higher valuation than I have, in County Roscommon has got a medical card."

These are two separate authorities now under the regional health boards. Roscommon is in one region and Leitrim is in another. They are to have two separate managers and, even though there may be an attempt at consultation and co-ordination, I am rather disappointed that there is not, as other Senators have asked, a norm laid down which would apply to the whole country.

The Minister said: "I am arranging for my Department to bring the chief executive officers together with a view to working out a formula for achieving maximum unity of approach." I should hope that when that would be done this formula would not remain a secret formula and that it would be available to public representatives and to the public so that they would know what their entitlements are. It is very difficult when a person comes to me or to any other public representative and asks us: "Am I entitled to a medical card?" You say: "You may or you may not be. It is at the discretion of the county manager." I repeat that I want to get rid of this thing where you can have great discrepancy in neighbouring counties in the allocation of medical cards. I should also hope that the figures for the various regional boards would be published every year and that the formula should be subject to review so that the Minister could keep an eye on the matter and see that this discrepancy does not remain.

Like Senator Jessop, I am a bit disappointed that the valuation of £60 which has been static for so long and has been in line with the £1,200 income has not been increased in the same way as the £1,200 has been increased to £1,600. In this category there can be quite a number of hardship cases in the matter of hospitalisation due to the fact that you can have a farmer with perhaps £15 valuation on a house and £46 valuation on land a total of £61, which puts him outside the ceiling of eligibility for free hospital treatment or even for paying his £7 a year to avail of the free hospital treatment under the Health Contributions Bill. He may have four or five children. Where you have a family like that there is a greater element of risk for the provision of hospital treatment for those children.

I am sure anyone here who is a member of a local authority, at some time or other during his period of membership, has had people come to him with very sad cases. Perhaps they might have a £70 valuation and they are outside the scope of any help from the local authority to enable them to pay their bills. The result can be very serious for a family of that kind. For that reason it is disappointing that some standard is not set. For example, a single man with a £59 valuation can pay his £7 and be free of all worries of surgeons' or specialists' bills if he is sent to hospital. Perhaps a man with four or five children on a £62 10s or a £61 valuation would not be free of these bills if he or any member of his family happened to be sent to hospital. I know it is very difficult to lay down a code as to how you can operate this, but I feel some allowance should be made, for example, for a wife and for each dependent child, to enable them to come within the ambit of the health contributions legislation.

Like Senator McElgunn, I am very disappointed that some effort or some norm has not been laid down as to the standard of eligibility for medical cards. While I agree that the Minister can bring eight people together, rather than the 27 that we had, and try to lay down a standard of eligibility, I think that—and Senator McElgunn is correct in this—there will be considerable difficulty in this.

My county, for example, which might be described as one of the wealthier counties as it it close to County Dublin, is in with Cavan, Monaghan and Louth. Louth I would describe as one of the wealthier and more developed counties. It will be difficult to see how the Chief executive officer for the North-Eastern Health Board can arrive at a standard when he has to embrace counties that are comparatively wealthy as against counties which are less developed and therefore less wealthy.

I know there are difficulties involved in this and I would appeal to the Minister to get some kind of standard for medical cards as soon as possible. As I said on the Health Contributions Bill, I do not think it is right that anybody who is entitled to a medical card should have to kow-tow to anybody for it. If they are entitled to it they should get it; if they are not entitled to it they should not have it. At the moment, as every Member of this House knows, there are people with medical cards who should not have them. On the other hand, there are people who cannot get medical cards and I believe, and they believe, that they should have them. This is what is happening and I hope and believe that the Minister is making such effort that he will arrive at a standard of eligibility and save every public representative and every official from having to be eternally fighting with their constituents and with the officials of the health boards for a medical card for somebody who may be a borderline case.

Like Senator Jack Fitzgerald, I am disappointed with the ceiling of £60 valuation, but I think we could get over it if we did not include buildings. If we had a valuation of £60 on land, not including buildings, that would be an advantage because you can have a house in rural areas with a valuation of anything up to £15 and that would bring the land valuation down to £45. We should ask the Minister to exclude buildings and make it a valuation of £60.

On the point made by Senators in connection with a uniform ceiling for medical cards, there could be two neighbours, one with a valuation of £45 and the other with £60 valuation. There are many aspects to be considered as regards family hardship. In fairness to the health authorities with whom I have dealt in the past, I should say that they have been considerate. I have never known of a case of anybody being deprived of service because of the lack of money.

There are cases which I consider more important than hospitalisation, cases which concern doctors' fees. You can have a man, despite the fact that he earns £24 or £25 a week or maybe £18 a week, who is debarred even though he has three children. If he is ill and is visited a few times by the doctor he can run up a bill of £12, £14 or £20 in a month. That is something which I think should be considered.

As regards a uniform approach to the issue of medical cards, discretional powers are best and if you have a considerate manager nobody will be deprived of service.

The manager will not pay the doctor.

I should like to make a brief plea in support of Senator Fitzgerald's idea. I would incline to the view that the Minister might perhaps look at the scale for eligibility that is used by the universities in determining the eligibility of candidates for full grants. This, especially where it applies to farmers and people who are at present borderline cases, gives credit for larger families. The classic example of this is where a widow may have a poor law valuation of £61. Her net income is very much smaller than that of an owner of a similar holding where the breadwinner would be able to carry on the operation of day-to-day work himself.

I consider that the present regulations do not deal fairly with all the people. When Senator W. O'Brien suggested that the valuation of buildings might be excluded I though it a very fair appeal. On farms where new houses have been built the average valuation at present is about £24 or £25 for a five-roomed house. This means that the net income on the farm is brought down lower than it has been heretofore. It would appear, therefore, that the Minister is not making an effort in this fairly comprehensive measure to treat all sectors equally.

We have the headlines set in the educational schemes which, while not perfect, are quite an improvement on the vexatious system operated under the Health Acts. Nevertheless, I feel that with these regulations the Minister is doing his best to meet a large and growing problem. I would appeal to him, therefore, to exclude from the Schedule "the buildings thereon" and leave the valuation at £60. If it were possible to scale the valuations as is done in the educational schemes system and for supplementary grants, taking into account the number of children and tying it up with both the income and the valuation, it would be a good thing.

First of all, I shall deal with the question of farmers and farming valuation. There are 176,900 farmers out of some 200,000 farmers— this is based on the 1966 census—who are on £60 valuation. Ninety per cent of all farmers are under £60 valuation. In cases where farmers are over the £60 limit the chief executive officers will, as in the past, deal with hardship cases. If a farmer is over £60 and has a great deal of illness and has a large family, at present some contribution is frequently made towards his hospital expenses. That will continue as before.

I have been asked a number of questions about why we have not altered the valuation limit. One answer is that which I have given here—that 90 per cent of all farmers are under £60 as it is. The other answer is that the limit was raised from £50 in 1966 to £60 at that time.

It is difficult to attempt directly to relate individual farmers' incomes to valuation. Taking total family farm income into account, when the limit was raised to £1,200 the family farm income was £141 million, approximately 20 times the total valuation. By 1970 the ratio of farm incomes to valuations was estimated to have increased to 26 to one and proportionate increase as between 20 times to 26 times would raise the income level of farmers on that basis to £1,560. That is very close to the £1,600 now proposed. I think the present arrangements for farmers are fairly satisfactory, as some Senators have admitted. The hardship arrangement can be brought into force for farmers who are over £60 and who have very heavy hospital bills to face.

Senator Keery regrets the decision not to define the limits for full eligibility. Other Senators have referred to this matter too. As I have said, I find it is better to get the CEOs to examine this rather than try to do it in my office. They have a great deal of information which was collected all over the country to help them and I hope they will be able to do a satisfactory job. I am aware of the difficulties they will face because there are discrepancies at present as between one county and another.

It will be necessary for the CEOs finally to publish their limits. Of course they will take into account the hardship arrangement for those in the full eligibility group, so that there will be what might be described as a grey area in between limited eligibility and full eligibility where the hardship arrangement can operate. I will certainly review the CEOs proposals for full eligibility and see how they operate. I am quite sure there will be a certain amount of trouble and difficulty over this. I do not expect completely smooth running of a consistent set of limits for full eligibility. There are bound to be difficulties that will arise and I will have to meet them when they come to me. Senator McElgunn referred to the contrast between Leitrim and Roscommon. That is typical of a discrepancy which exists between two neighbouring counties. I am certain difficulties will arise and the chief executive officer has to smooth out these inconsistencies in one way or another.

The method of calculating the value of property represents an improvement on what is the case in relation to the social welfare pension means test. I have an example here. Under the social welfare code an investment of £5,000 in a savings bank, under the Seventh Schedule to the Social Welfare Act, excluding the first £25 of capital, one-twentieth of the next £375 and one-tenth of the balance, would result in the total yearly value being assessed at £478.75. We propose a simple income tax assessment. As an example if we take £5,000 at 4½ per cent interest the total yearly value assessed would be £225 instead of £478.75. That is an explanation the Seanad should have and it is an illustration of the change we are making. We are not following the social welfare code in regard to incomes from property for very obvious reasons.

There will be no change in relation to the social welfare method of calculating the upper limit for social welfare insured persons. Whatever they do in relation to overtime and bonuses will continue in so far as the arrangements are made for the limited eligibility group.

Senator Boland asked whether the CEOs would take account of the size of families. Of course we have made it clear to them, whatever their arrangements for providing a consistent set of regulations for full eligibility, that they should relate the income of persons to the number of children they have. That is already the case in the 27 separate health authorities and naturally this arrangement will continue when the CEOs make up their minds on what should be the standard on the full eligibility arrangement.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share