I was going to raise that point, also. I entirely agree with Senator Hayes. The Minister, when I asked him to justify his figures, in the politest possible terms, replied that Senators, on financial matters, might mind their own business. He did mention that we have the right to make recommendations, but he seemed to imply that nobody ever pays any attention to those recommendations. I do not think that is wholly true. It may be true in many cases, but, since we have the right to make recommendations on financial matters, no matter how unimportant any Minister may consider our recommendations, nevertheless, since it is possible, it is conceivable that our recommendations might be sane and wise recommendations. It is therefore quite obvious that it is the Minister's duty to inform us, as far as he can, of the basis of his own financial calculations in order to help us to make our recommendations as wise as possible.
The Minister did go on then to give us some of the facts which made him make his statement about the 80,000 people being brought in by this Bill and about the calculation of the family income, and so on, but he said that this was merely a general estimate and he hotly denied that he had ever said or suggested that there would be no increase whatsoever in the numbers of people brought in because I had said he had told us that this was merely a bringing back in of people who had gone out.
The Minister to-day told us he never made any suggestion that there would be no increase in numbers whatsoever. I should like to refresh his memory by quoting what, in fact, he did say on the last occasion. It is in Volume 50 of the Official Debate, column 140. He says, in the first place:—
"All we are doing in this Bill is to give renewed entitlement to benefit to persons who were excluded from the scope of the Act by reason of the increases which have taken place from time to time in their money incomes."
He went on, in case that was not sufficiently clear, to say:—
"We are merely restoring the status quo as it existed in 1953.”
I think that entitles me to say that the Minister said there would be no increase whatsoever, but, in case it does not, I would remind him that, in reply to another question of mine, at column 141, he said:—
"The question was put to me by Senator Sheehy Skeffington, and repeated by a number of others: ‘Have the doctors been consulted?' The doctors have not been consulted because we are merely restoring the position as it was understood to be at the time when the introduction of the services concerned was being considered."
In case that was not sufficiently clear, he goes on to say:—
"We are merely bringing back into eligibility the persons who it was anticipated would be eligible in the first instance."
Therefore, I feel I was entitled and, in fact, am still entitled, to say that the Minister claims that there is no increase whatsoever over what was anticipated in 1953 now proposed. This is merely a bringing back of 80,000 people into eligibility who were anticipated in the first place to have been eligible.
That brings me to the question, again, as to whether, in calculating the family income, the aggregation of a certain proportion of the children's income with the head of the family's income, under this Bill, a new basis of calculation is not being introduced. I think it is a good basis. The Minister wonders why I am raising this question at all but I think it is a good basis of calculation. Nevertheless I do not think we should be afraid to recognise that it is a new basis, if the truth is that it is a new basis. I do not think we should run away from the facts and, in relation to consideration of the effect of this Bill on voluntary health insurance schemes, upon the compliance and the co-operation of the doctors, the co-operation of the hospitals, the co-operation of the local authorities, I think it would be unfair to ask for acceptance of this Bill by all these interested bodies without telling them the full truth.