asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the burden which would fall on the rates if the demand of the health boards on local authorities were to be met in full, he is yet in a position to state the levels of health grant to be provided from the vote for his Department in the coming financial year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Health Grant.
17.
I am pleased to be in a position to say that a very substantial amount of special supplementary grant will be made available to health boards both in respect of the year 1971-72 and 1972-73.
The information supplied to my Department by the health boards indicates that in the current year the increase in the cost of the services, mainly in respect of staff costs and consumer goods, is such as to involve a rate increase of 16p in the £ on average if the normal levels of subventions from central funds are to apply.
In respect of the year 1972-73 the estimates based on information supplied by health boards indicate that the increase over the latest figures for 1971-72 would, in the absence of special relief by way of increased grant from the Vote for my Department, involve an average rate increase of 48p in the £.
In terms of the amounts involved, the total which without special subvention would have to be raised by the rating authorities in the coming financial year would be £40.35 million, consisting of £2.53 million in respect of the increase in health costs during the year ending 31st March next, and £37.82 million in respect of the year commencing 1st April. The special additional grant will, however, absorb the full £2.53 million in respect of the current year and will reduce the burden on the rates by £2.81 million in respect of the coming year. The total additional grants will thus amount to £5.34 million.
The figure of £2.53 million will form part of a Supplementary Estimate of £7.39 million for the year 1971-72 to be presented to Dáil Éireann. Apart from the £2.53 million this sum comprises almost exclusively the statutory element of grant to health boards and a further subvention to the Hospitals Trust Fund. The latter item is £1.5 million and arises from the increase in the revenue deficits of the voluntary hospitals which, in turn, is largely attributable to the growing difference between hospital costs and the rates of payment by health boards for treatment of Health Act patients.
In the absence of this special assistance from central Government funds, the average increase in the health rate would, as I have indicated, have been 64p in the £ as between the years 1971-72 and 1972-73. Special grant is, however, calculated to limit the increase to 30p in any area.
Does the Minister not appreciate that even at that the increase in the health grant of 30p, together with the other increases which have to be borne by local authorities, will mean a tremendous increase in the rate for the coming year? Is he not prepared to increase it more than the amount which he has announced here?
There are many other calls on the Exchequer for education, social welfare and other essential services. I think I have been able to persuade the Government to make a reasonable increase in this regard. The House will be interested to know that I will be circulating to Deputies a complete statement of exactly how the increase arises, the amount required purely for increases in remuneration and the increased costs of drugs resulting from inflation and so forth and from normal increases of salaries plus the inflationary element, the amount required for the increase in the user of services and the amount required for brand new services. In respect of each of these items the extra number of pence per pound required to be raised by the local authorities will be indicated, so the House will have a full concept before the debate on the Health Estimate begins as to how these figures are made up.
Sugar on the pill.
Is it not true that the biggest amount of increase is caused by the setting-up of the health boards, the actual health boards without even supplying one "aspro" to the sick poor of this country?
The Deputy simply cannot go on repeating this absolutely untrue statement.
It is quite true.
I hope the House is prepared to believe my statement, which was prepared by the officers of my Department with the very greatest of care. I have already made the statement once and I will make it again. It says:
In view of erroneous statements freely circulated about the increases in administrative staff employed by the eight health boards, it should be clearly stated that the total net extra cost of administrative staffs for the boards as compared with the corresponding staff cost before the establishment of the boards will amount to £200,000 approximately and after making allowance for grants from the Exchequer this represents an average increase of ½p in the £ in respect of the share born by the rating authorities.
The Minister is only talking about staff. What about buildings and all the rest?
If the Deputy wants that answer I can equally give the reply on the Estimate. The county councils were just as lavish in demanding the appointment of extra staff by way of consultants. In the years 1969 to 1971 there were 45 posts of consultants sanctioned by my Department alone with all their ancillary staffs recommended by the county councils.
There is a difference between consultants and administrative officers.
I have given the cost of the administrative officers. Does the Deputy believe me? Does the Deputy want to believe me or not?
The figures which I have got myself prove that it could not be correct.
Is the Deputy accusing me of telling an untruth?
I am not. I am accusing the Minister of making a second mistake in the Health Estimate.
I have not made any mistake in this. I have had the figures gone over. I am not saying that in every health board there might be the exact equivalent. I am saying that the average for the country is ½p in the £.