Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND CHILDREN díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Dec 2003

Vol. 1 No. 5

Estimates for Public Services, 2003.

Vote 33 - Department of Health and Children (Supplementary).

We are meeting to consider the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Health and Children, Vote 33. The proposed timetable which has been circulated allows for opening statements by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, and Opposition spokespersons, to be followed by a discussion on the Supplementary Estimate by way of questions and answers.

As the Joint Committee on Education and Science will meet in this room at 11.30 a.m., our meeting must conclude promptly at 11.15 a.m. to allow preparations to be made for the subsequent meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister and his officials.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to bring the Supplementary Estimate before the Select Committee on Health and Children. In doing so I am, as always, conscious of the need to ensure public funds are applied most effectively for the delivery of services. However, against a background of finite resources, it is more important than ever to set out clearly the reasons for additional funding requirements.

I am happy to say the Supplementary Estimate is relatively modest in the context of the overall budget for health services - it amounts to significantly less than 1%. This is a very satisfactory outcome in the light of demands on the system. I acknowledge the excellent performance of my officials in managing those demands and the associated expenditure pressures over the course of 2003. Furthermore, the major part of this supplementary request has arisen, first, through pay awards and agreements delivered through recognised processes and, second, the GMS scheme. It is clear, therefore, that the vast bulk of the spending covered by the accountability framework of the service plans and expenditure controls set out in the 1996 accountability legislation is not the subject of supplementary spending. However, expenditure control is only one aspect of effectiveness, which is also measured by how we apply the funding and what we can deliver for it in terms of services. In that regard, significant progress has been made. Hospital activity levels continue to rise and are projected to be up 4.4% on the levels for last year by the end of 2003. This means a projected increase of 28% in the period since 1997 when the Government first took office.

Waiting lists, on the other hand, continue to fall. In-patient waiting list figures stood at 16,658 at the end of June 2003, down 23% on the figures for June 2002. In particular, the numbers of adults waiting over 12 months for treatment and children waiting over six months in the nine target surgical specialities have fallen by approximately 43%, from 7,407 to 4,252, and 57%, from 1,576 to 676, in the same period. It is now the case that all health boards outside the eastern region are reporting that, in general, those adults reported to be waiting more than 12 months and children waiting more than six months have either been offered treatment under the national treatment purchase fund or have conditions that are complicated or outside the remit of the fund.

In other areas significant advances have been made in the provision of services for people with a disability, with more than 1,000 new residential places and 2,000 new day places provided for those with an intellectual disability or autism between 2000 and 2002. Further progress has been made in 2003. Almost €220 million was provided between 1997 and 2003 for physical and sensory disabilities services to provide additional residential, long-term and day care places. In addition, the national physical and sensory disability database is urgently being implemented at national level. When completed, it will enable an efficiently planned and co-ordinated approach to the delivery of services for people with physical and sensory disabilities to be achieved.

These represent just some of the successes for the health service. However, the challenges facing the system are complex, particularly as we enter a time of change, both in structures and services. Throughout this period of change we must remain focused on the need to provide for best practice within health care services as well as delivering value for money. Notwithstanding the success of the service planning process, issues will arise during the year that cannot be planned.

The gross additional spending requirement in 2003 is €207.435 million. Of this, €10 million is in respect of a transfer across capital subheads. The figure of €197.435 million for non-capital expenditure is, however, reduced by savings in other areas of €45.6 million and by buoyancy in appropriations-in-aid of €89.3 million, giving a net cash requirement of €62.5 million. The additional funding sought is necessary to fund adequately a number of items within the health service that have given rise to additional expenditure. The bulk of these relate to pay items and the GMS scheme, a demand-led scheme provided under specific statutory entitlement. Of its nature, such a scheme may not be provided for fully in the original Estimate.

In regard to the pay items that have arisen this year, these have been concluded through recognised processes. Payment of the awards is essential, not only to ensure industrial relations difficulties are avoided or resolved but also because of the Government's commitment to social partnership, the established industrial relations processes and the dedicated staff who are in the front line in delivering health care services.

The public service pay agreement associated with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness provided that all outstanding claims by public sector unions would be subsumed into the public service benchmarking process. Separate arrangements were agreed for craftworkers and non-nursing support staff in recognition of the separate system in place for these workers. The parallel benchmarking process encompasses the negotiation, agreement and implementation of the Labour Court recommendations on the benchmarking awards for these groups. The recommendations having been accepted by the relevant trade unions, the pay component of the agreement is be implemented on the same basis as the public service benchmarking body report, with the first instalment being paid in 2003. Funding of €70 million is sought to meet the cost of this agreement.

Following the public health doctors' dispute earlier this year, settlement proposals from an adjudication board and the Labour Relations Commission were agreed. Additional funding of €12.5 million is required in 2003 to meet the costs of this pay agreement.

The nurses' theatre on-call staff dispute arose from a claim made by the Alliance of Nursing Unions under the terms of the Labour Court recommendation that resolved the 1999 nurses dispute. The dispute was settled after a number of conciliation conferences, culminating in a recommendation from the Labour Relations Commission. The new rates outlined in the settlement took effect from 6 January 2003. Accordingly, a sum of €3.7 million is required to meet these costs. A further €805,000 is required to meet the cost of other minor pay awards for nurses. Again, these have been conducted through recognised industrial relations processes. They include, for example, the cost of the introduction of a new post of senior staff nurse and the cost of regrading nursing night superintendents.

My Department is committed to implementing agreed travel and subsistence rate increases. Additional funding of €15.6 million is sought to meet the cost of recent notified increases, including arrears.

The dental treatment services scheme provides for dental treatment for adult medical card holders. It is a demand-led scheme administered by the health boards and the Eastern Regional Health Authority. A 5.2% increase in dentists' fees was agreed for 2003. Additional funding of €3.08 million is now required to meet the cost of this increase.

A total of €20 million in additional funding is sought for the provision of services for people with a disability. Of this, €15 million is required to meet the cost of services for people with an intellectual disability or autism and a further €5 million for services for people with a physical or sensory disability. This funding is sought following a Government decision in July 2003 providing overall for around 175 emergency places and over 600 day places, as well as enabling the ERHA and the health boards to address key issues of concern identified by the various representative groups.

I am pleased to say the numbers with intellectual disabilities or autism receiving full-time residential services continue to increase. Demographic factors are nevertheless contributing to growing numbers waiting for or requiring a service. Due to the age profile of those waiting and that of their carers, a number of emergency requests for placements arise every year. The provision of day services is also important, with the predominantly adult profile of this population resulting in pressure on the number of places for school-leavers this year. Health-related support services for children with an intellectual disability or autism were enhanced further.

In regard to people with a physical or sensory disability, additional funding is sought to meet service pressures identified by the ERHA and the health boards in consultation with the relevant agencies. This includes funding for the larger voluntary service sector providers, both to alleviate core deficits and towards funding of additional posts within these organisations, as recommended by the Harmon-Bruton service audits.

The GMS scheme is a demand-led scheme which, by its nature, may not be fully provided for in the original Estimate. Throughout the year, against the background of more constrained public finances, my officials have worked with officials from the GMS (Payments) Board to ensure spending on the scheme is done in as efficient a way as possible and that all areas for further efficiencies are explored in the interest of providing the necessary services for all those entitled to them. During the year the board completed a database cleansing exercise that resulted in the elimination of invalid claim cards. Furthermore, prescribing costs have not risen as rapidly as expected given past trends. The board has, therefore, been able to contain the increase above the Estimate projection to the current figure of €60 million.

A sum of €10.9 million is required to meet legal costs relating to the Lindsay tribunal. These bills are in respect of legal representation provided for the virus reference laboratory, the Mid-Western Health Board, the Irish Haemophilia Society, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and a Kilkenny health care worker.

SARS is an acute respiratory illness first recognised as a global threat in March 2003. Up to July, more than 8,000 cases had been reported in approximately 30 countries. Due to the serious public health threat and the stringent disease control measures employed as a result, a public awareness campaign was undertaken by my Department to advise the public, especially those travelling to or from the affected areas, of current expert advice. Additional funding of €750,000 is now required to meet the cost of this campaign.

A range of ICT projects are under way as part of a strategic drive to improve information systems within the health service. Our objective is to strengthen the quality of financial and non-financial information available to underpin effective decision-making and more complete evaluation of investment projects in order to deliver value for money. As part of this drive, my Department has initiated a national approach to the development of fundamental systems such as human resources, payroll and financial information which will shortly be extended to the area of non-financial information. Integration of these systems is required if they are to be effective as an enterprise-wide management tool. While this is by no means a low-cost project, it must be done if we are to achieve the results we seek - better information, greater value for money and improved services.

This year the development and national roll-out of PPARS - payroll, personnel and related systems - were the main ICT development priorities. PPARS is the key to the provision of comprehensive management information on health services staffing and payroll costs on a national basis. An additional €10 million is required to fund the project while maintaining reasonable progress on the wide range of other projects also under development. However, as my Department has flexibility within the overall capital allocation, this €10 million is being made available from within existing resources, transferring from capital building projects to the information systems requirement.

The overall additional funding required, as I have set out so far, is reduced by a once-off saving on hepatitis C and HIV compensation payments. The hepatitis C compensation tribunal was established in 1995 and placed on a statutory footing in November 1997. In April 2002 it was extended to cover persons infected with HIV. This year fewer than expected applications have been made to the tribunal in respect of eligible persons under the 2002 Act. Furthermore, many of the cases still being heard under the 1997 Act are taking longer to hear and determine, with proportionately more being appealed to the High Court. As a result, a once-off saving €45.635 million is available to reduce the additional funding required in other areas.

The funding required for service provision as outlined has been reduced by buoyancy in appropriations-in-aid. Some €29 million arises in receipts from health contributions. My Department receives the 2% health contribution paid by employees and the self-employed. These revenues are an important source of funding in supporting service delivery. There is further buoyancy of €60.3 million in respect of the appropriations-in-aid received by Ireland from the United Kingdom. These are based on the United Kingdom-Ireland health care reimbursement agreement which governs the arrangements for the funding of the health care entitlement of UK persons in Ireland. As a result, a sum totalling €89.3 million in appropriations-in-aid is available to reduce further the overall requirement for additional funding in the Supplementary Estimate to €62.5 million.

This Supplementary Estimate will enable health agencies and the health system to meet the statutory obligations laid down, fulfil the requirements of a Government decision and meet certain pay awards as agreed through recognised industrial relations mechanisms. I recommend it to the committee.

I thank the Minister for his presentation. While I agree the overrun of €52 million on a spend of €9 billion is very modest, the Minister should not boast about it. When he spoke to me yesterday, he referred to it as representing good husbandry. It is far from good husbandry and was achieved on the backs of the sick. Staying within a grossly inadequate budget was bought very dearly and paid for by those trying to get into hospitals to access treatments and those waiting for elective surgery. It was bought even more dearly by those in the community, the hidden sick - the disabled, aged, children in need of therapy and others depending on health services. It was paid for by those who had lost medical cards, paid increased health insurance premiums, higher hospital charges and more for their drugs. All of us in the community paid for this budget and allowed the Minister to come in with this very small overrun, about which he should not boast.

It was because of years of poor cost control, profligacy and the failure to tackle reform in the health service that a sum of €9 billion was insufficient to provide a decent health service. This is despite the fact that we are now spending more per head of population than the EU average, as we heard at the joint committee last week, and despite the fact that we should be getting a wonderful health service given our population profile, which is now as benign as it ever will be. The largest cohort of the population is young and healthy. A huge number of our 70 and 80 year olds, who might now be becoming a burden on the health service emigrated, while many are now being looked after by the NHS in Britain.

The biggest overrun relates to pay awards, the parallel benchmarking award for non-nursing staff, the public health service dispute and the nurses' on-call dispute. Dental treatment fees also increased for medical card holders. These were foreseeable costs - we knew they were coming down the track. Why was there no provision for such matters when the Department knew that an award must be settled? Is no provision made for these in the Estimates?

Has any provision been made for what will come down the track this year? For instance, has any provision been made for the inevitable cost of the new contracts required, possibly by year end and certainly by mid-2004, by non-consultant hospital doctors and consultants in order to implement the new European working time directive? It is certain that we will have to pay dearly for both sets of contracts. At any time we would pay dearly; this is particularly true when they have the gun to the Minister's head. We are now at the deadline and he has no time flexibility. This last minute deal will cost dearly. What has been provided for this? I could not find anything in the Estimates or budget. This did not give me confidence that anything had been provided for the new contracts.

The Minister rightly said the overrun of €60 million on the GMS scheme was very small. However, why is there an overrun? Any increase in medicine costs must surely have been offset by the increase in the threshold from €50 to €78 per month. In two years 30,000 people have lost their medical card. Yesterday's budget again failed to increase the income threshold for medical card holders. This will cause huge hardship. It is already causing hardship, as the cost of medicine people must buy is increasing.

There have been savings of €45 million in hepatitis C and HIV compensation payments. The Minister refers to this as a once-off saving in the information we have been given. Is this postponed expenditure? Is so, is it provided for next year?

I am puzzled by the buoyancy of €89 million, €60 million of which comes under EU regulations. It is hardly due to individuals who went abroad with their E111 forms claiming money back - €60 million is a great deal of money.

No, it is for people from the United Kingdom who get treatment here. I can explain later, if the Deputy wishes.

I am amazed. I thought it was——

There is an agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

With the United Kingdom.

Yes. It is reviewed. There is an EU-wide agreement but the majority of our dealings are with the United Kingdom.

This has been an extremely difficult year in the health service. The Minister paid tribute to those who work within it. I also pay tribute to them. As a member of a health board until recently, I am aware of how difficult it is for those who work with patients when services that are required are not provided. It is extremely difficult for them to work against that background where they know they cannot provide the same level of service as was provided previously. Next year will be worse. Pressures build through years of continuous failure to repair, maintain, refurbish and replace buildings and equipment. Such needs will really begin to bite from now on. Services will be reduced and facilities closed down. Health boards are robbing Peter to pay Paul but there is a point at which this becomes totally unproductive. We have reached that point and matters will be worse in the coming year. Worst of all is the fact that the Estimate does not provide one penny for the reforms discussed.

I read the Minister's statement about the capital side in which he boasted about the five year envelope. I got a sense that he was not in touch with reality. The capital budget for the coming year is down 8% in nominal terms. In real terms, it is probably down by twice that figure. In the context of the Hanly report, the Minister promised that no services would be taken away until other services were enhanced. How is he to provide hospital beds and new facilities in Limerick and St. Vincent's Hospital if there is no provision in the Estimates and the capital budget is down?

I welcome the opportunity to comment on this modest Supplementary Estimate. I also acknowledge the work done by health service staff, particularly those at the coalface. The health service is incapable of meeting the needs of thousands of patients and the circumstances and conditions under which staff work are extremely stressful. We are again talking about money being invested but the return is not commensurate.

I challenge the point made that we are above the European average in terms of investment in the health service. If one strips social funding from the health budget, we do not reach the EU average as a percentage of GDP. Taking into account the past record of under-investment we must acknowledge that significant amounts of money have to be invested to meet needs. Almost 30% are still on hospital waiting lists. Hospital beds are still closed for budgetary reasons. Accident and emergency departments are under grave pressure and it is not even the middle of winter yet. The greatest pressure will be exerted in December and January.

The Minister referred to shorter times for those on waiting lists. That is the case for some specialities but in others the waiting lists are longer for those trying to access care. I got a reply to a parliamentary question on waiting lists in the South-Eastern Health Board area which stated people had to wait four to five years to see a specialist. That is unacceptable. While I understand the argument for transferring waiting list initiative money to the national treatment purchase fund in terms of efficiency, I am concerned that those patients in less need will be processed through the fund because of their suitability to travel and so on and that those in greatest need will not be given priority in this context.

The General Medical Service scheme is one of the central issues in the Supplementary Estimate. We all understand it is demand-led and that one cannot put an accurate figure on the cost in advance. However, the Minister is presiding over the least number availing of medical cards since the inception of the scheme. Some 27.7% of the population now have medical cards. Rather than getting medical cards, people are losing them. This will have a grave impact on their capability to access health care. A person on a low wage cannot afford to pay €40 to a general practitioner. To qualify, the limit for a couple is €200 per week. Medical cards are a crucial issue central to good health. The Minister is not dealing with this problem. In fact, the situation is getting worse.

The deal the Minister struck with general practitioners on the over-70s scheme was a disaster. It has cost a great deal of money and created a new inequity in the GMS. People still find it impossible to understand the reason a doctor is awarded four times more money to look after a rich person aged over 70 years than to look after a poor person of a similar age. Nobody can justify this, yet that is the cost involved in the scheme. How much does this factor impinge on the increase in the Supplementary Estimate? Everybody understands medication represents a significant increased cost but there are increased charges to offset this. A cost benefit is also provided by the prescription of certain medications by GPs which ensures cardiac patients, for example, are not treated in hospital, although it may show up as an extra cost in the GMS.

Will the Minister, please, set the record straight? I nearly crashed my car last night when I heard the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Callely, advise the nation that eligibility for a medical card was a matter for health board chief executive officers. That is simply untrue - it is a matter for the Minister. It is misleading the public to dump on chief executive officers at a time when so many are under pressure. The limits are not set by the chief executive officers but by a Government which does not appreciate what living on a low income means in having to grapple with the decision to feed or cure one's children.

I welcome the fact that the Minister invested money in the area of intellectual disability which served to avert a crisis. Is he aware that families with autistic children have great difficulty getting a disabled person's grant from a health board? I do not know if anybody is listening but I will say this anyway. Health boards tend to treat autism from a distance. They make it difficult for families to get a disabled person's grant for building work to alter their houses, which is often necessary in the case of children with behavioural problems. Presumably, the reason is they are afraid the broadness of the definition will open the floodgates. A practical problem is not being addressed.

To which grant is the Deputy referring?

I refer to the grant for adapting one's house administered through the health boards.

If we say we are saving money because the HIV and hepatitis C compensation tribunal is coming in under budget, it raises the question of whether people are fully aware of their entitlements. This is about dependants. Is the Department reaching out to ensure they can avail of their entitlements under the scheme? It would worry me if money was being diverted from where it belonged.

A saving of €10 million has been made, quite apart from the savings made with regard to the HIV and hepatitis C compensation tribunal. Where has this saving been made?

We switched capital subheads. It is a timing issue.

What did the Department not go ahead with?

It is not a question of what I did not go ahead with. The money was available to switch.

The money obviously came from somewhere. From which capital subhead did it come?

We will discuss the matter later.

I wish to share time with Deputy Cowley.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Minister is always careful to avoid using the word "crisis". In fact, he criticises Green Party members when we use it. There is a crisis in the health system, particularly in accident and emergency services. Last week I raised the matter with the Taoiseach. I told him about the crisis at the Mater Hospital, where instead of being on trolleys patients were on chairs. I had received a telephone call from a constituent about the matter. It is appalling. The conditions under which staff at the Mater Hospital are forced to work cannot be countenanced in a civilised society. I raised the matter with the Taoiseach in the context of the amount the Government was spending on food, wine and luxury chocolates on its jet. Such luxury contrasts with the conditions I have described. The figures were printed in a reputable publication.

(Interruptions).

It would not be great for the health of Ministers to munch chocolates all of the time. It is no laughing matter for those who must sit on chairs in the Mater Hospital while looking at the luxury Ministers are enjoying.

Our approach to health care is that of an inept accountant, as Professor Niamh Brennan told us last week. As Dr. Sean Barrett said, we have a demographic bonus because of the number who emigrated to England but this is not reflected in our services. Professor Brennan also raised the issue of the inept handling of the extension of the medical card scheme to persons over 70 years. She was very critical. The Minister has not yet had a chance to remark on her comments. I would like to hear what he has to say.

Maev-Ann Wren commented recently that we had yet to reach the EU funding average. Given the scale of the crisis and the continuation of the two-tier health system, it is clear that we must invest more. The Minister has said as much. He commented on the "Late Late Show" that he favoured tax increases to fund the health service. However, his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, does not agree with him. He can talk all he likes about waiting list figures beginning to fall but he has only 160 days to the date by which he said he would fulfil his promise to get rid of waiting lists. How confident is he of fulfilling that promise?

Is there any chance?

To turn to disability sufferers, particularly those with autism, the Minister is probably all too familiar with Kathy Sinnott, who has brought forward figures for the amount required to deal with what she describes as an epidemic of autism. There has been a huge upsurge in the condition which we will not be able to address through the Supplementary Estimate the Minister has produced.

A promise was made to increase the income threshold in the GMS scheme to allow another 200,000 to avail of it. There is no prospect with the Supplementary Estimate of fulfilling the promises made. We will continue to have an inept, two tier health service because we have a right-wing ideological Government for which health care is not a priority. It is mainly concerned with cost savings and tax breaks for its friends, the rich.

The problem with the health service has never been the lack of reports. We have had many recent ones, including the Hanly report. I was in Ennis General Hospital some weeks ago, where I was struck by its need for money rather than another report. Services have been downgraded to those of a glorified nursing unit. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate to address this. Mayo General Hospital treats over 30,000 patients while Ennis General Hospital treats 22,000. Like the hospital in Nenagh, they both need money. If the Hanly report is applied to Mayo General Hospital, it will not receive the essential specialists required on a 24-hour basis. We need ear, nose and throat specialists, urologists and eye surgeons.

Deputy Gormley referred to a crisis and I agree with him. What is happening with the 3,000 beds promised? We have around 330 of the 790 beds to be provided during the Government's first year in office. Where are patients supposed to go when services have been closed down? The winter crisis is now a year-round one. The manager of Mayo General Hospital had to go on the radio to tell people not to go to the hospital because of the crisis. The same happened in Dublin. The Supplementary Estimate will do nothing to address this problem and implementation of the Hanly report will make it worse. There is no getting away from the issue of where people are supposed to go when beds are closed.

The Minister referred to the GMS scheme. It is disingenuous to suggest that the cost overrun of €60 million is the fault of general practitioners. I would like the Minister to confirm that the problem is related to drugs rather than the result of increased doctor activity. I suspect that it is the result of increased expenditure on drugs for the elderly, specifically those over 70 years. We have a two-tier health system which the budget and the Supplementary Estimate will do nothing to address. This cost overrun will make it worse, as the Government has created a two-tier GP service. There were public and private GP services but now drugs are being bought for the rich over 70 years as well as for those who are struggling. This has created a difficulty for GPs. I would like the Minister to confirm that the overrun has nothing to with increased GP activity. The €620 per elderly person expenditure is being incurred elsewhere, including the USA, Canada and Europe. It is disingenuous to suggest it has anything to do with GPs. Will the Minister confirm it is not due to increased GP prescribing activity?

The Minister spoke about legal costs and the amount paid out in respect of the Lindsay tribunal. I wish that money had gone to haemophiliacs. A sum of €10.9 million was paid to lawyers, which is scandalous. Senior counsel can earn €2,500 and junior counsel, €1,400 for a morning session. That is also scandalous. There is something very wrong. If we had a board like the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, it could have dealt with this issue. All of that taxpayers' money has gone to enrich lawyers instead of haemophiliacs, who got little in comparison.

The income guidelines for medical cards were not increased. Promises were made but they have been broken. The Supplementary Estimate and the budget do nothing in this regard.

Another issue I wish to raise is the travel and subsistence claim for health board officers. I would like an explanation.

We were supposed to discuss radiotherapy services at committee level and have a debate on the matter in the Dáil. Units in the South-Eastern Health Board, the Mid-Western Health Board and the North-Western Health Board would be more cost - effective than what is proposed. This issue needs to be looked at.

There is a gross deficit in oncology services about which promises were made. There are inadequate facilities in the South-Eastern Health Board and other health boards, including a lack of designated beds, nurses and consultants.

I refer to the hidden waiting list. There are 100,000 people not on waiting lists. They include patients I see in my surgery and who must wait for years to be seen. This waiting list has not been looked at.

There is a lack of helicopter emergency medical services. If the Hanly report is implemented, how will somebody with a ruptured spleen get to Limerick General Hospital? What chance will they have if they cannot get the service they need at Ennis or Nenagh hospitals?

Deputy Mitchell made a point about boasting about Estimates. I was not boasting; I was just making the point that sometimes people question the Department of Health and Children about its accountability, husbandry and ability to manage budgets. From an accountability perspective, officials have done well, with a result close to balance at the end of 2003. We are approximately €60 million out. That was the point I was making. Sometimes it should be acknowledged, because the opposite has regularly been the case, whereby the system is accused of not being able to account for money or manage a large budget. It was not achieved on the backs of anybody.

The outturn at the end of 2003 is up approximately 12% on the figure for the previous year. One is looking at a substantial year-on-year increase. In 1998 the revenue year-on-year increase was approximately 12.8%; 14% in 1999; 19.8% in 2000; 26% in 2001 and 18.2% in 2002, the year of the alleged cutbacks. There has been an increase year on year. We are up to a figure of 12.4% this year. By any standards and relative to what was done in previous decades, these are substantial increases in health expenditure. We cannot get away from this fact.

I do not accept it has not produced results. It has produced significant results, particularly in headline areas such as cancer, cardiovascular and renal services. There has been a range of other achievements. There has been a 90% reduction the incidence of meningitis C, a tremendous achievement brought about through the administration of the new vaccine which has cost millions. However, we have received a return on that expenditure.

One should also look at patient satisfaction surveys. I take the criticisms made and accept patients have had, and continue to have, difficult experiences in hospitals, particularly in accident and emergency departments in the eastern region. However, successive independent patient surveys show high satisfaction rates among patients who attend acute hospitals. I do not conduct these surveys; they are independently conducted. We should acknowledge these satisfaction rates which reflect well on the staff who work in our hospitals. They also reflect improvements which have taken place in many areas in hospitals. Deputies rightly comment on negative aspects but there have also been positive developments in recent years, including cardiac rehabilitation and the systematic breast cancer centres of excellence developed throughout the country. There is a return on the investment made.

Deputy Mitchell asked about pay awards and whether they are foreseeable. The bottom line is that one cannot vote money for agreements which have not been agreed. To be blunt about it, one cannot vote a sum which is not known. The parallel benchmarking negotiations were ongoing and only concluded in November. We are providing for such payments in 2004. The impact of parallel benchmarking for craftworkers and non-nursing staff on the 2004 Estimate is €107 million. As the amounts are payable from January 2003, a sum of €70 million has been included in the Supplementary Estimate. As I said, one cannot vote money in advance for something which has not been agreed.

Deputy Mitchell also asked about the consultants' contract. Again, a similar logic applies. The outcome of negotiations is by no means certain. Therefore, one cannot include a figure in the hope one will get it right. One cannot show one's hand too much in significant negotiations in which one is engaged.

The major costs in the GMS arise from the rate of prescription and the ingredients cost of medication. For example, the use of statins has grown dramatically since the cardiovascular strategy was announced a couple of years ago. Approximately €30 million to €40 million per annum is spent on them. One might consider this a cost but it is also a beneficial outcome of the implementation of the strategy, that is, that more general practitioners are prescribing them than ever before. Clinical trial findings suggest they have a beneficial impact. I am cautious about what I say because there are three GPs sitting across from me. However, statins have a beneficial impact in the treatment of those who have experienced a cardiac event or are high-risk patients.

The use of peptic ulcer drugs has also risen dramatically in the past three to four years. The rate of prescribing and the cost of ingredients were somewhat higher in 2002. However, it has eased back a little in 2003 and is not as high as anticipated. Nonetheless, members will note that for 2004 we have included an extra €187 million under the GMS subhead. This illustrates the incremental nature of the scheme and the fact that it is continuing to grow.

The HIV and hepatitis C compensation tribunal is not an area from which we are taking money. In terms of the legal processes, perhaps the representatives of those going forward are looking carefully at the implications of the amended Act. The money has been put back in for next year when the figure will stand at €100 million. To date we have paid out a total of about €387 million. The number of awards made is about 1,633, while the number of High Court appeals stands at 237. A sum of about €76 million has been paid out from the reparation fund. The number of awards under this heading stands at about 1,608.

To date the legal costs associated with tribunal awards amount to about €63.092 million; administrative costs stand at €5 million and tribunal members' fees at €6.42 million. These are the cumulative costs from 1995.

The total cost from establishment of the tribunal in 1995 to date amounts to about €539 million, whereas total voted expenditure to date stands at €595.678 million. The current balance available is €56.455 million. To the end of the year we project a requirement for €10 million, which means a saving of €45 million in 2003, which sum will be put back in for next year. The level of funding is substantial by any standards.

I am happier with the five year capital envelope on the grounds that I will be better able to plan. I am particularly happy with the 10% roll-over provision which the Minister for Finance is anxious to provide for all Departments. From the end of 2004 onwards we will be able to roll over a total of up to 10% to the following year. It will no longer be a question of having to rush to pay out money before the end of the year.

The increase is minuscule. What would happen if they edged it up by 0.5% per year? In today's terms, it does not amount to much.

It is index-linked and will increase. The Department of Finance has assured us of that. The peak and trough element to capital is a key issue.

The key issue is the amount.

It is, but at the same time huge amounts are going out on St Vincent's and other hospitals. When those projects finish, a huge amount will come back in terms of the capacity to spend. Given what had been provided before, the NDP provided for the first major capital investment in the health service in decades. The results can be seen in the substantial capital works being undertaken all over the country.

Not many are in operation.

The cranes are still up.

The doors are locked.

We will open them in due course. Many have opened. There are other major projects coming down the tracks, such as the one at the Mater Hospital, which will continue to experience congestion problems until the work is done. It is a huge capital project which will bear heavily on the envelope.

Deputies McManus and Mitchell paid tribute to staff at the coalface. I dealt with the issue of the return on the health investment, on which we must agree to differ. I highlight the positives whereas others concentrate on the negatives.

On the issue of waiting lists, Deputies raised the issue of the transfer of funds to the national treatment purchase fund. A recent Comptroller and Auditor General report gave indications which would bring greater clarity and transparency to the issue. The waiting list system was introduced in 1993. Deputy Howlin was responsible for its introduction. There were deficiencies in how the statistical model had been applied——

It worked.

Not in certain respects. The Comptroller and Auditor General raised the issue of how much of the money had become part of the mainstream. What happened was that some hospitals hired consultants on a temporary locum basis to generate extra activity and reduce waiting lists in certain key specialties. That worked but Comhairle na nOspidéal decided it did not like the growth in numbers of temporary locum consultants who would spend three or four years in the system before it was decided they should be made permanent. In essence, the waiting list moneys paid for permanent posts.

With the funding available, we must develop an approach which targets those waiting longest. I will make changes and announce shortly how this will be organised in the light of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. The money that has been mainstreamed will remain. The money in the NTPF and any additional moneys must be spent on targeting those waiting longest for treatment. The fund has been a success and made huge inroads on waiting times for those waiting longest.

The Minister has totally missed the point.

I am not finished.

The point is that because of the nature of the national treatment purchase fund, it is not necessarily the person most in need who actually gets treatment. The treatments purchased are easily transferable to Britain or the North.

I do not accept that.

That is what is happening.

The public patient is doing better under the system.

It depends on which public patient is involved. We will talk about the matter again.

I can clarify the issue. Capacity is greater. As a result, further significant inroads will be made.

Has the Minister addressed the issue——

We have addressed the issue of clinical needs, which will always be a priority.

Perhaps the Minister will provide the information in writing.

I will. I know representatives of the NTPF have met the Deputy and that she is having discussions with it on these issues. She can put these questions to it. Far more public patients with high clinical needs have had their needs addressed as a result of the fund than would have been the case otherwise.

Activity levels went up significantly as a result of waiting list funding. I have the figures for hospital activity levels in recent years. The volume of day case work went up 60% between 1997 and 2002. Day case surgery now accounts for half of all elective surgical procedures.

Deputy Cowley spoke about the type of surgery which could be done in Castlebar but the Hanly report says a lot more about what can be done there. If day case surgery accounts for half of all elective surgical procedures, the figure will have grown significantly by the end of the decade in all hospitals. In Dublin the figure stands at up to 60% in some of the major teaching hospitals.

Can I get in on this?

The Deputy cannot get a bed.

The level of acute hospital activity went up 25% across the system. The number of children waiting more than six months for treatment in the nine target specialities has decreased by 57% since June 2002, a significant decrease by any standards.

On the issue of waiting lists, somebody from Dublin would not go as far as Galway for day surgery. How then does the Minister expect somebody to travel from Mayo to Galway, almost the same distance, to do so? It is not possible.

I did not say day surgery would be carried out in Galway. It can be carried out in Castlebar.

Of course, but relatives cannot be expected to travel all the way to Galway.

The Deputy knows that over the past decade the majority from the west have been travelling to Dublin for treatment. Let us call a spade a spade. What are we on about?

They go to Dublin because that is where the service is provided.

We are trying to bring the service back to the region.

There is a waiting list in the west. The problem is that there is discrimination against the west.

Is it not far better to bring services back towards the western seaboard than maintain the current situation where people are queuing up to get into the major Dublin teaching hospitals for routine treatments?

The problem was that beds were being closed in the Dublin teaching hospitals.

The thrust of policy is to get services back to the region, except for supra-regional services.

If the Minister has his way, there will be closures everywhere except Galway, Dublin and Cork.

That is the lie being perpetuated. The Government has no intention of closing hospitals, or retaining just one in the west. That is not what is being proposed by anybody in any forum.

That is what downgrading amounts to for a person who——

The Deputy has created this scenario. He has written the script that suits him politically.

No, I have not.

He is perpetuating the script across the country.

An unjustified fear is being created. That is my genuine belief.

I am here on behalf of my patients.

I would not make a statement if I did not believe it.

We have not even got to the——

Can the Minister tell me——

We have not discussed the west but the Deputy has said there will be just one hospital there. Who said there will be just one hospital in the west?

Nobody has answered that question.

Who has said there will be just one hospital in the west?

How will a person in Ennis with a ruptured spleen have a better chance of surviving if he or she has to travel to Limerick?

I asked a simple question. Who has said there will be just one hospital in the west?

Sorry, may I intervene?

Am I allowed to ask a rhetorical question?

The Minister has implied that hospitals will close.

The Hanly report does——

The Hanly report does not state there will be just one hospital in the west.

It states there has to be——

It does not state that.

——a population base for a major hospital.

It does not even examine the position in the west.

That formula applies nationwide.

May I intervene?

The Deputies are playing politics.

That is a cop-out.

We have to return to the Supplementary Estimate.

The Hanly report states there should be one major hospital.

On medical cards——

The Minister should speak about the Supplementary Estimate.

The relevant figure in respect of medical cards is 29%, not 27%.

The figure is 27.7%, according to the reply to a question I asked.

No, it is not.

It is less than that in Dublin.

The figure is 27.7% when those over the age of 70 years are excluded.

The rich——

I clearly said in a reply to a parliamentary question on 19 November that 29% of the population were covered by the medical card scheme.

The rich over 70 years, proportionate——

We should get the figures right.

It is 27.7%.

With respect, the Deputy's party manifesto at the last general election called for everybody over 65 years to be given a medical card.

It did not.

The Deputy argued and voted for this.

I did not vote for an inept Minister who had struck a disgraceful deal with doctors.

A Deputy

Withdraw that remark.

The Deputy lobbied——

That was not what I had voted for.

A Deputy

Withdraw it.

I recall——

The Minister was inept.

I can recall——

They had the Minister over a barrel and he knows it.

He struck a deal.

I recall a Dáil debate——

It was a disgrace.

I recall the Deputy's questions——

Nobody voted for it.

The Deputy voted in favour of medical cards for the over-70s.

The Minister did not deal with the problem.

She said it should be for those over 65 years.

It cost poor patients a lot of money.

She wanted everybody to have a medical card.

It cost poor patients a lot of money.

There is a lot of hypocrisy. The Deputy played it both ways.

The Minister made a bags of it——

The Deputy lobbied on behalf of GPs in advance of the agreement.

——and people suffered as a consequence.

She lobbied on behalf of GPs.

The lowest percentage since the institution of the GMS scheme——

She has always lobbied on their behalf.

The lowest percentage——

She does.

How dare the Minister?

Then she came along when the deal had been done——

Chairman——

It is true.

I want the Minister to withdraw that remark straight away.

The Deputy did support——

I did not lobby on behalf of GPs. I want the Minister to withdraw that remark.

I will not withdraw what I am saying. On that occasion——

The Minister has said just now that I always lobby on behalf of GPs. He is not going to get away with that.

With respect, Deputy——

It is a disgraceful remark.

The Deputy has made some remarks at which I could take offence.

I never said that.

The Deputy lobbied on that occasion to do a deal.

I have never said that.

She criticised me for not doing a deal.

The Minister cannot say I lobby on behalf of GPs. Chairman, you must protect me on this. It is a disgraceful remark.

I ask the Minister to continue to respond to the questions he has been asked.

I think he should withdraw that remark.

I am not casting any aspersions on the Deputy's bona fides as a public representative, if that is her difficulty.

That is my difficulty, yes.

I am not doing so.

I thank the Minister.

I certainly want to put on record——

We will leave it at that.

The Deputy knows what happened at the time.

I accept the Minister's clarification.

Deputy Cowley spoke about bed numbers and Ennis General Hospital. Some 568 beds have been commissioned as a result of the funding put aside. The figure of approximately 300 cited by the Deputy is inaccurate.

What about the beds closed and not in use?

The 568 beds are in use. In the Estimate provided——

Beds announced for Castlebar were closed.

Funding was provided for the Western Health Board for the orthopaedic wing, if that is what the Deputy is talking about.

I am not talking about the orthopaedic wing but about the beds for geriatric assessment. They are closed.

The health strategy stated we would try to provide 450 beds but we have provided funding for and commissioned 568. We were anxious to provide 709 but have commissioned 568. Those are the figures. Difficulties were encountered in other hospitals, particularly in the Dublin area, as a result of the accountability legislation. Beaumont Hospital and the Mater Hospital got into difficulties as a consequence of legislation signed up to by everybody in the Oireachtas in 1996. The legislation provides that if a hospital exceeds its budget in one year, the amount by which it has overspent will be the first charge in the following year.

The Minster should check the beds in question to ensure they are open.

That is what happened at the Mater Hospital and Beaumont Hospital, mentioned by Deputy Gormley.

Deputy Cowley is being disingenuous, as he knows funding was provided for the beds in question.

It was provided.

The Deputy knows exactly the reason they are not open.

I am saying the Minister is providing for beds which are not open.

The Deputy is telling the Minister that funding was not provided but he is incorrect.

I would like the Minister to check.

The beds were provided and funded by the Western Health Board.

The Minister is saying the beds are open but I would like him to ensure they are functioning. I do not believe they all are.

This is more of the spin-doctoring of lies.

I do not think it is spin-doctoring.

I assure the Deputy that I am totally correct. I know the exact position in respect of geriatric beds.

I would like to make another point about medical cards. The reason the percentage of persons who hold a medical card has decreased to 29% is quite simple. An extra 300,000 people have been working since 1997. Income levels have increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. That is the major factor.

The Minister promised an extra 200,000 medical cards.

I would like to address some issues on which I may not have commented in my general reply.

Deputy Gormley raised the issue of the OECD, which has discounted some of the social and personal services we provide for in our health budget. Comments about the health service sometimes do not take into account the fact that we have a wide spectrum of subheads. Areas such as homelessness and child care are covered in the health budget. Ireland's public health expenditure per capita is close to the average. We have to go through the most recent OECD figures in considerable detail before we can come up with definitive figures. Ireland was ranked ninth of 14 countries in the most recent OECD survey on this matter. Our expenditure in this area is at about 98% of the EU average, which excludes Luxembourg. I welcome the most recent OECD template, which gives a fairer picture of health care expenditure. It is unfortunate that the immediate reaction of most who consider the sum of €10 billion is to refer to hospitals, as much more is happening in that regard.

A feasibility study is being prepared in respect of the proposed helicopter ambulance service. The ambulance service needs investment in line with all of the reports. We have invested a great deal in recent years - close to €27 million has been invested when current and capital expenditure are considered. We need to do more to train ambulance personnel to EMTA standard, a priority of mine in the next 12 months. This is critical as we address the recommendations of the Hanly and other reports.

A vote has been called in the House. Is the committee content to declare that it has completed its consideration of the Supplementary Estimate? We will not have time to consider it further. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the meeting. I also thank members of the committee for being so alert at the end.

Barr
Roinn