Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 2

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 43—NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION.

MINISTER for FINANCE

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £182,826 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha a rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Choimisiúin Arachais agus chun Ilsíntiúisí agus Ildeontaisí mar gheall ar chostas Sochar agus Costaisí Riaracháin fé sna hAchtanna um Arachas Sláinte Náisiúnta, 1911 go 1925 (maraon le Deontaisí áirithe i gCabhair).

That a sum not exceeding £182,826 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Insurance Commission and for sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of the cost of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1925 (including certain Grants-in-Aid).

Mr. BURKE

The total amount of the Estimate is £276,174, of which £93,814 is required for central administration, £182,000 for statutory contributions, and £360 for special grants, while under sub-head J an allowance of £1,600 has been made for appropriations-in-aid. The total amount required for the forthcoming financial year is £3,284 less than the amount estimated for in 1925-26. Central administration comprises the sub-heads A to F. The amount estimated for under sub-head A is £5,416 less than the preceeding year. This is due to the fact that provision for a staff greater than that required for the normal work of health insurance in the Saorstát will not be necessary, as the special work in connection with the partition of the Health Insurance Fund between the Saorstát and Northern Ireland, and the separation of the system of insurance in the Saorstát from that in Great Britain will, it is thought, be completed in the current financial year. The provision made under sub-heads A and B includes an amount for salaries and travelling and subsistence allowances of officers in respect of work done on behalf of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce under an arrangement made with the late Ministry of Labour, whereby the duty of securing compliance with the Unemployment Insurance Acts was transferred to the Commission staff. Provision is also made under sub-heads A and B for the salaries and travelling subsistence allowances of six temporary non-compliance officers up to 31st December, 1926, on which date it is proposed to dispense with their services.

A further provision is made in the salary sub-head for the payment of the salaries of a section of the staff which is engaged in the administration of a scheme on behalf of the British Ministry of Pensions for the general practitioner treatment of discharged disabled soldiers resident in the Saorstát. A claim for the amount due under this head, viz., £1,652 for the year 1924-25, was met by the British Treasury. Statutory contributions comprise the sub-heads G.I., Medical and Sanatorium Benefits (Grants-in-aid), and G.II., Sickness, Disablement and Maternity Benefits (Grants-in-Aid). Of the sum, £38,500, provided under G.I., £6,300 represents 2/9ths of the estimated cost of sanatorium benefit which, under the general scheme of the National Health Insurance Acts, the State is required to bear. With regard to the balance, £32,000, societies in Great Britain get 2d. out of each contribution more than Irish societies. Out of this 2d. they pay 7/9ths for medical benefits, which leaves them 2/9ths of 2d. more than Irish societies. Under Section 81 (10) and (11) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, the State is required to provide this 2/9ths of 2d. for Irish insured persons. In the case of seamen and soldiers, where the rate of contribution is less than the standard rate, the State is similarly called upon to pay 2/9ths of the difference. I do not think that there is anything in the individual sub-heads to call for comment.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

I am aware that the responsibility for national health insurance has only recently become a heritage of the Minister, and I do not, therefore, want to ask him for a detailed statement, but I thought he would have said something about the final report of the Commission that considered the position of National Health Insurance. Many societies are awaiting anxiously that report and, without commenting unfavourably on the activities of that Commission, one would have expected that it would have reported before this. The Minister, I am sure, is aware that there has accumulated in the funds of the different socieities a large surplus. One would like to know what the Minister intends doing in the matter of providing medical benefits from that accumulated fund. The extension of medical benefits is one of the most desirable things in connection with the National Health Insurance Act. I would also like to know whether the Minister has considered how National Health Insurance in England has been managed, and whether there are three Commissioners there or whether there is a principal officer who is solely responsible for the whole department. The Minister has mentioned that there is a sum in the Estimates whereby compliance officers do duty in connection with both unemployment insurance and national health insurance. To my mind that is most undesirable, because we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that, while National Health Insurance is accepted by almost every worker and employer, Unemployment Insurance is not so generally accepted and, when you send a compliance officer to secure compliance with both National Health and Unemployment Insurance requirements, you are injuring the payment of National Health contributions because you are tacking on a rather unpopular contribution to what is regarded as a popular contribution.

Mr. GOREY

Where is it popular?

Mr. HOGAN

I am not responsible for the opinions of Deputy Gorey on anything, and I dare say that he will express himself on the unpopularity or popularity of National Health Insurance when discussing this Vote. I hope that the Minister will give us any information which he has in his possession. I know that these complications have only recently come within his purview and that he cannot be expected to be familiar with all of them.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I would like to say a few words in connection with this question of National Health Insurance. I came across many of these insured people. They are connected with approved societies and some of these societies have taken advantage of what they are allowed to do under the Act. They have drawn up a scheme, which has to be approved by the Commissioners, of additional benefits for hospital treatment. There are on the lists supplied to the hospitals only two or three of these societies that have adopted these additional benefits for hospital treatment, and in these cases, particularly those of the Dublin Catholic Young Men's Society and the Great Southern Railways Approved Society there is no trouble whatever in getting the 25/- a week from them for the treatment of their members while in hospital. We have, on the other hand, such societies as the Ancient Order of Hibernians and the Slainte Society, which have not formed any scheme by which additional benefits can be obtained for hospital treatment. We have a number of patients from these societies coming to hospital who pay nothing whatever. Occasionally half-a-crown a week may be got from their health insurance contribution, but nothing whatever is contributed for hospital treatment. The Slainte Society gave a subscription to the hospital with which I am connected of £10, because they said that we treated their patients very well. That, however, was only a donation. I shall just give one example which has come under my observation. There is a patient in the hospital suffering from incurable cancer and he has been kept there, for God's sake as it were, for over five months. He is insured in the Round Tower Foresters' Society, but not one penny has the hospital received for the treatment of this patient for over five months. His wife is receiving ordinary sickness insurance. She was not able, she said, to give anything to the hospital, and when it came to the point of asking her to take her husband home again she refused to do it. The reason I call attention to this matter is that I should like, in the very forefront of any scheme that is put up for the use of this surplus money, that one of the first things that should be provided for as an additional benefit should be hospital treatment. The Deputy has said that very many of these societies have a large surplus, some of them a very large surplus indeed, and what is done in many of the cases, I understand, is that they increase the amount of the benefit for ordinary sickness to of the insured people. But what I want to try to put into the minds of the Government or of the Commission is to endeavour to get these societies to send forward a scheme under which they will make provision for hospital treatment as the first claim upon the amount of money that is being collected. I do not know whether I made myself clear or not, but what we in the hospitals object to very much is that we have to take in patient after patient, insured people belonging to societies, and they will pay us nothing, whereas if we get patients from the two societies I mentioned—the Catholic Young Men's Society, which seems to be a splendidly-managed society, and the Great Southern Railways—we have no trouble whatever in getting 25s. a week for these patients. I have a note of two other societies which I might mention, as I have mentioned these two, the Distributive Workers' Insurance Society and the Irish Amalgamated Health Insurance Society. The latter have a scheme that does not provide for any particular form of payment, but when it comes to dividing up their surplus they give a certain amount for the hospitals. It amounts, as a general rule, to about a guinea a week.

Mr. GOREY

Statements have been made here that this is a very popular Act and is being accepted in the country by everybody. There is no doubt it has been accepted by those who have official connection, in one form or another, with the different societies of the country, but amongst the people who pay this is one of the most unpopular Acts that ever operated in the country. Am I to understand from the Minister that this sum of £143,500 under sub-head G 2—Sickness, Disablement and Maternity Benefits (Grants-in-Aid)—is the State portion of the contribution to the money that is to be drawn by people who come under that head?

Mr. BURKE

That is right.

Mr. GOREY

That is the State subscription, in addition to the subscription of the employer and the employee—£143,500 and £38,500.

Mr. BURKE

That is the State portion of the contribution actually paid.

Mr. GOREY

The State pays £182,000. What is the total paid into the societies annually?

Mr. JOHNSON

You had better look at the returns laid on the Table.

Mr. GOREY

Am I right in assuming that roughly about £1,000,000 was paid by the employers and the employees?

Mr. BURKE

The sale of stamps, which is the other contribution, amounted in 1925 to £480,000. That is the employers' and employees' contribution.

Mr. GOREY

You have £83,000 for salaries, wages and allowances, and £8,000 for travelling. Anyway, we have the position that the whole Vote appearing here is £274,000, in addition to £485,000 paid by the employer and employee. If the State thinks this is a good and necessary scheme, why is it not borne by the State? I am talking about the State as a whole. There will be no occasion for laughing when I am finished. This contribution to this scheme is borne by the individual who benefits at a particular time and to a certain extent, and it is also borne by his fellows who never benefit, and by the employer, who gets no benefit whatsoever. It is borne by the employers and by the employees. In other words, those two classes of the community take it on themselves to defray the whole scheme, whether there is an income to the particular employer or not. Why do not the whole citizens of the State contribute to this scheme in preference to those who employ?

Mr. BLYTHE

Why should they?

Mr. JOHNSON

This is the law.

Mr. GOREY

Quite right, why should they? This is the penalty of employment.

Mr. HEWAT

Might I intervene just to say that the employers do not take the view that they are paying money and getting nothing in return at all.

Mr. GOREY

The employer in the country unquestionably takes that view. There is a considerable number of people in this country with considerable incomes who employ nobody or who employ very few. They contribute nothing, or very little, to this scheme, but people who may be proved conclusively to have no income at all have to bear the whole cost of the scheme on their shoulders.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we going to enter into the merits of the whole health insurance? If so, we would like to have preparation.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot discuss the merits of the Act. He must discuss the administration of the law as it stands.

Mr. GOREY

I am trying to take a lesson from the discussion on the previous Votes, dealing with motor traffic and other things.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

What was in order then is not in order now.

Mr. GOREY

When the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair he allowed considerable discussion on other sub-heads.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

I do not think the Ceann Comhairle did.

Mr. GOREY

In that case I think you have very effectively closed the whole door to me on this question. I was going to refer especially to this £143,000. That is of material importance, anyhow. Allowing for the average family of five children, £10 will be received on the present benefit scale, while into the fund you will have paid £28 3s. 4d. by the three parties contributing. Sickness benefit is paid to a few deserving cases, but very largely to chronic cases. We all assist in trying to get something. After paying in so much we have no scruples in trying to get out a little.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

It would be very interesting to hear the doctors' opinion as to whether the cases in respect of which payments were made were deserving of them or not.

Mr. GOREY

The people who are entitled to benefits are in many cases dead before the benefits are granted.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is quite evident you know nothing about it.

Mr. GOREY

I know a lot about it from the point of view of the people who are supposed to get the benefit; but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has ruled discussion on this Vote out of order, and what I have to say would be directed against the merits of the Act and not so much in criticism of the administration of the Act. I can say, however, that in connection with the amalgamation of societies that Deputy Hogan referred to, we found considerable activity on the part of officials of societies. Deputies were circularised by several societies viewing with alarm the amalgamation of these societies.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

May I say I never said a word about the amalgamation of societies. In anything I did say I never mentioned it.

Mr. GOREY

One of the things they were afraid of was that they were going to be put into one big society. I have two or three letters in connection with it.

Mr. HOGAN

Not from me.

Mr. GOREY

I did not say the Deputy was a member of a society or an official of a society. If he is it is news to me.

Mr. HOGAN

I never mentioned the amalgamation of societies in anything I said here this evening.

Mr. GOREY

It was in reference to the report of the Commission that inquired into the matter. Anyhow you had all these officials going about but you had not any of the payees and nobody was concerned about them. The only concern was for the officials. I do not know what is in the Minister's mind or the mind of his Commission, but I for one would not act on any of the suggestions of any of the societies. Anything that would aim at providing more money for the unfortunate people who are forced to pay into these societies would be good. All the money that the young people of the country pay in up to the time that they are married is wasted.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy knows absolutely nothing about it. He is talking the greatest nonsense at all.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Deputy Gorey when he gets up to talk about a subject that he knows little about adopts the practice of taking points out of speeches made by previous speakers and contradicting them. I do not think I have ever seen such an exhibition of ignorance on a subject shown in this House as we have just listened to from Deputy Gorey. He started off by saying the National Health Insurance Act was the most unpopular Act in this country. It is unpopular among certain classes of farmers, although there is no section of the community to whom it should appeal more than to farmers. We hear Deputy Gorey and the people whom he is supposed to represent shouting about economy and bringing down the rates. I wonder does Deputy Gorey try to visualise what the position in the country would be if this Act were to be abolished and if there were to be no sickness or maternity benefits for those who at present receive them.

Mr. GOREY

It would not be any more costly than it is at present. It would probably be a lot less.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It would mean that the people would have to go into the county homes and would have to be maintained by the rates.

Mr. GOREY

There is more being paid for their upkeep outside.

Mr. MORRISSEY

If the Act is unpopular at all, it is unpopular because many employers try to make workers believe that it is of no benefit to them, so that the employers will be able to avoid making the small contribution they are compelled to make under the Act.

Mr. GOREY

Is the Deputy in order in going into the merits of the Act? I was prevented from attacking it and he is allowed to praise it.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Morrissey cannot proceed on those lines.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I was not going into the merits of the Act. I was discussing the demerits of some of Deputy Gorey's colleagues, which is quite a different thing. I am dealing with the administration of the service which is under discussion and the evasions of the Act. Might I point out to Deputy Gorey that if compliance were more general, the taxpayer would not be called upon to pay the amount he is called upon to pay in the Estimates. If Deputy Gorey would advise the people for whom he speaks and employers throughout the country to obey the law, there would not be the necessity there is for the number of officials who are engaged in securing compliance with the law. That is one way in which Deputy Gorey might assist by giving good advice. Deputy Gorey said this Act was unpopular. He did not tell us why it was unpopular.

Mr. GOREY

I was prevented from going into the merits of the Act. If the Deputy proceeds in this way, I will insist on having a full-dress debate.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Deputy knew nothing apparently about the National Health Insurance Act. He does not know that I am not discussing the Act but the demerits of some of the employers. So far as I am concerned, and so far as the workers for whom I speak are concerned, we are in favour of this Act and want to see the medical benefits extended.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot discuss that question.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I should like to know from the Minister whether compliance with the Act is expected to be so much improved by the end of this year that he can afford to dispense with the six temporary officials who have been employed. I think the Minister will admit that compliance has not been at all what it should be. Again, I might say that Deputy Gorey, when speaking of the letters he had received from the societies against amalgamation, made another slip. The societies, so far as I know, did not object to amalgamation. They objected to the unification scheme. I am quite prepared to agree with Deputy Gorey or anybody else that there are too many societies in this country.

Mr. GOREY

Deputy Gorey has not said a word on the matter, so that you cannot agree with him.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Deputy should have said it.

Mr. GOREY

I will put it to the Deputy this way: Is he prepared to let the merits or demerits of this Act be decided by the workers themselves by referendum? I am prepared to accept that. Will the Deputy accept it?

Mr. MORRISSEY

Quite; but that does not get us any further. I want to put a question to the Minister with regard to a matter mentioned by Deputy Hogan. I can see no reason why in this service we should have a chairman at £1,500 per annum, plus bonus; two commissioners at £1,200 per year each, plus bonus; a secretary at £1,000 a year plus bonus, and the customary office staff. I do not think there is any necessity at all for that. This is one department in which great economy could be effected without interfering in any way with the efficiency of the service. There are, as I have said, too many societies in the country. If there were fewer societies, greater compliance with the Act and less misrepresentation of the benefits, there would be less necessity for expenditure. Deputy Gorey talks about the State's contribution. Why should not the State contribute to improve the health of its citizens?

Mr. GOREY

Why should not the State do the whole lot?

Mr. MORRISSEY

That is a matter we can argue at another time. We must deal with things as we find them. It has been said here that all the money is paid by the employers and by young, strong and healthy men who get nothing out of it. It is nothing to Deputy Gorey that those men are blessed with perfect health. I think they ought to be very well satisfied that they are in the position that they have not to apply for benefit.

Mr. GOREY

These unfortunate workmen must carry the rest of the nation on their backs.

Mr. MORRISSEY

They are not carrying the rest of the nation. This Act has only been in force since 1912. A man may be paying since the first day the Act came into force and this year or next year he may find himself stricken down with illness and drawing ten times the amount he paid in.

Mr. GOREY

That is an exceptional case.

Mr. MORRISSEY

It is not. If Deputy Gorey knew anything of the working of the Act, he would know that there are thousands of men and women at present on disablement benefit and who will be on disablement benefit as long as they live. If they were not receiving that disablement benefit, they would have to go to the county homes and there would be a much greater charge on the ratepayers.

Mr. WOLFE

There is a matter under this Act which presses harshly on people who have been insured. I refer to the cases of old men and old women who have been insured since the Act operated and who have never drawn any benefit from it. They have turned, say, 70 years and are stricken down by illness. Of course, it may be said that they are entitled to the old age pension, but in a great many cases, either on account of means or for other reasons, they cannot get the old age pension. I have in mind the case of a man who got no benefit at all from the Act and who is now aged 71 years. He has been stricken down with cancer and has a comparatively short time to live. He has not the slighest chance of getting the old age pension. His employer will allow him his full wages as long as he lives which would prevent him getting the old age pension in any event. It would be a good thing for those people if they could get a bonus out of the money they contributed since the Act became operative. It would provide comforts for them for the short time they have to live. It seems that a great many of these societies have large surplus sums. That money, I think, could not be better spent than in giving back to those people a bonus that would make the days they have to live bearable. I know it cannot be done without legislation.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

And it cannot be discussed at the present time.

Mr. WOLFE

I hope the Minister will bear the matter in mind in the event of future legislation.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

With regard to this Vote, I hardly know of any service which is so unpopular amongst the people I come in contact with. They inform me that their employees are not in favour of making contributions towards the maintenance of this service. Everywhere I go the farmers ask: "Why do you not do away with the National Health Insurance Act? We do not want it, and our employees do not want it."

The PRESIDENT

Why do you not bring in a Bill to do away with it?

Mr. GOREY

Why do you not bring it in?

The PRESIDENT

I am satisfied it is all right.

Mr. GOREY

I would like to hear the opinion of other Deputies on your benches.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

There are difficulties in bringing in Bills. We know very well the fate of a Bill that the President does not approve of. He knows that as well as I do. It is simply a gesture, and we are tired of making gestures.

The PRESIDENT

Then what are you gesturing about now?

Mr. GOREY

Very well, we accept the President's challenge. If the Constitution allows us to bring in a Bill we will bring in a Bill to abolish the Act.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Of course you know that that would not do.

Mr. GOREY

And we will stand over taking the consequences.

The PRESIDENT

Very good.

Mr. GOREY

This is a beautiful Act under which the farmers pay all the contributions.

Mr. CORISH

When was that?

Mr. GOREY

It was nearly all the time.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

We cannot discuss the Act at this stage.

Mr. GOREY

Any stamps that were put on in my case were put on by me. It is a beautiful Act.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

With regard to the administration of the Act, what happens in many cases is, that the employer pays the full contributions. The onus is thrown on the employer to pay the contributions, and he is responsible for them. Of course, he has the right to deduct the employee's portion from his pay, but in a great many cases it is not the custom to do so. It might be said that although the employee's portion is not actually deducted, the pay is less than it would be if there was no stamping.

The PRESIDENT

On a point of order. What has that got to do with this Vote?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

It has something to do with it.

Mr. GOREY

He does not like hearing it.

The PRESIDENT

The administration of the Vote, or any question of saving on it would be in order, but this is not.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is dealing with the merits of the Act, and that is out of order.

Mr. GOREY

It has no merits.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I respectfully suggest that I am dealing with the merits of the administration of the service. Surely to goodness the payments by the employers and the employees is a matter that is controlled by the administration.

Mr. JOHNSON

It is a statutory obligation.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It is laid down in the Act that the employer is to contribute a certain portion and the employee another portion.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am afraid I can go very little further on that. As far as the carrying out of the service is concerned the information I have obtained down the country is this, that as far as the people in the rural districts are concerned the only real benefit that they get from it is the maternity benefit. That is a benefit which they all approve of and which they think is useful. But the position is that young men in the country, having certain advantages in the way of open air and otherwise which the men in the town have not got, are healthier, and that in the country this Act is not required to the same extent as in the town.

Mr. MORRISSEY

If the Deputy will allow me, I want to say for his information that the returns, so far as the National Health Insurance service is concerned, show that the standard of health in the towns is better than in the rural areas. I think that the Minister would be able to substantiate that.

The PRESIDENT

On a point of order. What are we discussing? The Deputy, if I understand correctly what he has said, makes the charge that the only benefit that is derived from the Act in his view is the maternity benefit. Is that a charge against the Minister, that the Act is no good as far as sickness or anything of that sort is concerned? I think it ridiculous to be taking up the time of the House talking about the merits of the Act and about matters that have nothing to do with the Vote at all. It is absurd and it is not fair to the House.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I wish to keep in order. I know if the President was in the Chair I could not speak, but he is not in the Chair.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must not make that statement.

Mr. GOREY

Must not repeat it?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

If the President were in the Chair he would act quite fairly.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

If I said something that I should not say, and that you think is out of order, I withdraw it.

Mr. GOREY

The President is trying to influence the Chair.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Order!

Mr. HEFFERNAN

In regard to what Deputy Morrissey has said, I am aware that such figures were submitted to the Commission, but different deductions can be drawn from tables and figures, and I am not convinced that these tables are so comprehensive as to be absolutely depended on. They take certain societies in certain districts. Other societies in other districts might prove other things. Apart from that, there are aspects which deserve consideration. The greater percentage of benefit is drawn by old people. Ailments which affect people, such as rheumatism, are liable to come on late in life, and these should be dealt with by some other means.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to explain why I intervened to point out that the Deputy was out of order. We made a bargain, and in respect of this particular Ministry we have exceeded the number of hours allotted by at least 50 per cent. Of course we cannot carry out our programme if that be continued with regard to the remaining Estimates.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Might I state in explanation that we on these benches are not in any sense trying to prolong the discussion or to obstruct? We have a point about this National Health Insurance which we have been trying to make. We may have been out of order.

Mr. GOREY

Who spoke most on the Local Government Vote?

Mr. BURKE

I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the Act. This whole question of National Health Insurance has been before a Committee of Inquiry, and they brought in an Interim Report, which is before Deputies. Some of the findings of the Committee were unanimous, and we intend to give effect to these by legislation, which will probably be introduced this session. There were other recommendations which were not unanimous, and we do not intend to deal with these at present. There was also a recommendation as regards unification, but the phraseology was such that we felt we would not be justified in acting on that recommendation without further consideration. Accordingly no action will be taken with regard to that in the forthcoming legislation. I will give some figures as regards the sale of stamps in the years 1923, 1924, and 1925. In 1923 they amounted to £423,000, in 1924, £469,000, and in 1925, £480,000. The amounts paid in benefit for those years were very high. In 1923 the amount paid was £441.000, in 1924, £477,000, and 1925, £476,000, and there were additional benefits as well.

Deputy Hogan was anxious to get some information about the Valuation Report. That has not been completed yet, but, judging by the result of the valuation so far as it has gone, we believe that it is very satisfactory, much more satisfactory than was anticipated, and that as a result we will probably be able to give additional benefits—dental and hospital benefits— to a great many more societies. Deputy Sir James Craig referred to the fact that members of the Irish National Foresters and A.O.H. Societies were not able to contribute to the hospitals. Those societies at the time had not sufficient funds to give the additional benefits of hospital treatment, but several other societies are at present in a sufficiently sound position to give these benefits, and we expect that after this valuation a great many more will be in that position, as the valuation is much better than we anticipated, as far as it has gone, though, of course, it is not completed yet. The accumulated funds at present amount to £2,460,000. As regards the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, we are merely collecting contributions for unemployment, and the cost of our administration, salaries and travelling expenses is, as to about half of it, ascribable to unemployment.

Mr. JOHNSON

Half of what sum? Is the Minister referring to the inspectors?

Mr. BURKE

The salaries of the inspectors, and the travelling expenses of the outdoor staff, mainly inspectors.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

The Minister seems to have missed the point that I endeavoured to make, and that was amalgamating the outdoor staffs of the National Health and Unemployment services. That is to say, having one compliance officer to enforce both National Health and Unemployment Insurance is not for the good of the National Health service.

Mr. BURKE

I think that we must make some concessions in favour of economy, and it would look very bad to have two sets of inspectors doing similar duties. You could not very well justify that. As regards the higher officials, this Department is probably a bit top-heavy, but it is an inherited system and it cannot be changed without legislation. There is no point in that at present. Probably even if we were to get rid of officials who might appear to be redundant, when they came to be pensioned off and others substituted in their places or doing their duties, the saving might not be so very great.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

Could the Minister indicate how the overhead charges in the administration of the English National Health Insurance compare with the overhead charges in the administration here?

Mr. BURKE

I have not got those figures, but that is not a matter to be discussed on the Estimates. It would be a matter for legislation.

Vote put and declared carried.