Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Feb 1967

Vol. 226 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Health.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £21,757,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Health (including Oifig an Árd-Chlaraitheóra), and certain services administered by that Office, including Grants to Local Authorities, miscellaneous Grants and a Grant-in-Aid.

I am grateful to the House for facilitating me in taking, in conjunction with the main Estimate of my Department for the coming year, the Supplementary Estimate for the present year.

I have arranged to circulate to Deputies, tables on the more important statistics which may be of some assistance to them in considering these Estimates. I intend to make only brief comment on some of the more salient points which arise from the consideration of mortality and morbidity statistics.

The number of mothers who died in childbirth in 1966 was 19, an increase of one on the previous year, while the number of deaths of infants under one year of age in 1966, at 1,546, showed a drop of 58 compared with the previous year.

Deputies will have observed from the circulated tables that of the 34,725 deaths in 1966, a total of 16,851, or almost 50 per cent were caused by heart disease and cancer.

The provisional figure of deaths from respiratory tuberculosis, at 306 in the year 1966, is an increase of four on the previous year. The position in respect of this disease improved quite dramatically in the past 15 years—in 1952, for example, 1,207 deaths from that cause were recorded. There are, however, still far too many new cases of the disease occurring each year. In each of the years 1965 and 1964 over 2,000 new cases were discovered, which indicates that the incidence of the disease is still such as to give us cause for some concern. In this regard, I might say that it is very regrettable, indeed, that there are far too many people who do not avail themselves of an annual X-ray examination. Could I make a strong appeal now to the public about this? Prevention is not merely better than cure; it is quicker and cheaper too.

While I am on the subject of people not making use of the free services which are available to them to protect their own and the community's health, I would like to say that I am most seriously concerned at the fact that in the years 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965, only 47 per cent, 53 per cent, 56 per cent and 49 per cent respectively of the target figures for pre-school children was achieved under immunisation schemes against diphtheria provided by health authorities. This continued failure to come within reasonable distance of the target figure is very worrying, particularly because each year's failure means that the proportion of the population at risk is rising. Health authorities have been asked to make a special effort to bring home to parents their responsibilities to protect their children against this disease.

Against this rather gloomy picture in regard to diphtheria immunisation, it is heartening to find that of the million or so people in the age group recommended for the new oral vaccine against poliomyelitis in the recent campaign, 77 per cent took the full course of three feedings, 84 per cent took two feedings and 88 per cent took one feeding. Incidentally there was only one recorded case of poliomyelitis in 1966.

A major problem facing the community is the provision of proper care for the aged. I am fully committed to the view that it is preferable, where at all possible, to keep old people in their own surroundings. The primary aim must, accordingly, be to provide such services as will enable old people to remain in the community, and to avoid the necessity for institutional care, so far as this can be done. To achieve this a wide range of community services must be provided.

Ideally, a truly comprehensive community service would supply medical care, domiciliary nursing, physiotherapy and chiropody on an out-patient and domiciliary basis; the supply of equipment, such as rubber sheets, bed rests and other aids to home nursing; financial assistance; help in housing; home helps; meals; fuel; laundry services; social clubs; home visiting; help in shopping; advice regarding nutrition and hygiene; and last, but not least, readily available information to the aged, and those interested in their welfare, about all the different services available.

I do not suggest, of course, that every old person would need to be assisted by the provision of all these aids and services; but I mention them as, so to speak, an aggregate list of all that a first class community service for old people could be called upon to supply. The public authorities can do a great deal for the aged; but there are many directions in which a public authority, or indeed a Minister or a Government Department are powerless to help. A public authority or a Minister can supply medical and nursing care, or social welfare benefits or domestic nursing equipment; but, in the provision of the day-to-day help of kindly, neighbourly services these authorities cannot do what only the good neighbour can do. What I mean here is that in any locality— be it urban or rural—there must be developed a sense of responsibility towards our old people, and an impelling urge to care for them. A locality service — given by the spontaneous charity of the old person's near neighbours, or promoted by a parish organisation, or by the clergy or religious, or by voluntary organisations—is what is needed to alleviate the loneliness of the old person, to provide the important little personal services needed by him, and to give that invaluable touch of warmth and humanity which only true charity can supply, and only a lonely, fearful old person can fully appreciate.

Health authorities have been urged to improve and develop their services for the aged, and many health authorities have, indeed, been most active in dealing with the problem, and are providing a commendable service.

The well-established voluntary bodies, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Legion of Mary and the Irish Red Cross, and the various religious orders, have always helped the aged as part of their charitable activities and have increased their efforts in recent times. A heartening development has been the emergence of a large number of voluntary organisations throughout the country, whose sole purpose is to care for the aged, demonstrating the growth in public awareness of, and interest in, this problem. I have endeavoured to foster this most praiseworthy voluntary effort by encouraging health authorities to make grants under section 65 of the Health Act, 1953, to help to finance the activities of the various organisations. There is room, however, for much more effort on the part of the public in this sphere. There is evidence of a rising tide of consciousness of our duty to others. We can, all of us, perform a most useful Christian duty by helping our aged in a practical way. I appeal, therefore, to the public to extend their efforts—by working in with those already in the field, or by setting up local bodies or committees to help the aged.

We have a number of examples of what can be done by local effort, based on individual charity, and co-ordinating the work of individuals and religious and voluntary agencies.

Most Deputies will, I imagine, be aware of the social experiment being conducted in Kilkenny. The Kilkenny Social Service Council caters, of course, not alone for the aged but for all those in need. The service it is providing for the aged is outstanding. Here, all the different charitable organisations in the area have come together, under one co-ordinating body, which works in full co-operation with the health authority. In Dublin, where a great number of different organisations work for the aged, the establishment of the Dublin Council for the Aged has brought a large number of them together and the active participation of officers of the health authority in the work of the Council has ensured that the necessary co-operation with that authority exists. Similar programmes are being developed in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. In Carlow and Kildare, the operation of a domiciliary assessment and screening service of all old people before admission to an institution, backed by good community services provided by the health authority and voluntary organisations in co-operation, has led to a noticeable drop in the number of admissions to institutions. Other areas which are particularly active are Tipperary, Wexford, Offaly and Westmeath.

No matter, of course, how good community services are, there will still be a proportion of the aged who will require institutional care. I am very conscious of the need to improve accommodation for the old in county homes, and I shall refer later to the progress already made and the further progress planned in this direction.

During the past year, the Inter-departmental Committee which is representative of my Department and the Departments of Local Government and Social Welfare, has been carrying out a survey of all the various services, public and voluntary, provided for the aged. The committee expects that it will soon be able to let me have its recommendations as to how these services might best be developed, and co-ordinated in the future.

A service which is of particular importance to community care—including, of course, the care of the aged —namely the district nursing service, is being expanded with all possible speed. Health Authorities generally have adopted the recommendations of my Department for the appointment of additional public health nurses, and for the improvements in the conditions of service of the nurses.

The first of the series of training courses being held by An Bord Altranais for recruits as public health nurses will finish at the end of next month, and arrangements are in train for the holding of two or, if possible, three further courses within the next year. As 35 nurses attend each course there should be quite an appreciable addition to the number of fully qualified and trained public health nurses, within the next 12 months. The courses will continue until the service has been brought up to the required strength.

The appointment of superintendent public health nurses to supervise and co-ordinate the work of the district nurses is proceeding in a number of health authority areas where the number of nurses on district nursing duties would warrant such an appointment.

In the provision of domiciliary nursing services, health authorities continue to have the assistance of the nurses employed by district nursing associations and the Lady Dudley Scheme. Successive Ministers for Health have praised the contribution which these voluntary associations have made to the development of our nursing services, and I am very glad to have this opportunity of adding my own tribute to the valuable work being done by them. Health authorities will continue to avail themselves of this help to the greatest possible extent.

As the House is aware, the Commission of Inquiry on Mental Illness has reported to me. Arrangements are being made for the printing of the Commission's Report, and I expect that it will be published shortly.

The population of our district mental hospitals at the 31st December last, was 17,046, a decline of 538 in 12 months. There has been a steady, and satisfactory decline year by year in this figure—only eight years ago mental hospital patients numbered just over 20,000. A contributing factor has undoubtedly been the increasing emphasis on domiciliary and out-patient care and the development of out-patient psychiatric clinics, attendances at which have increased from 4,732 in 1958 to 91,077 in the last financial year.

In the past year a start has been made on the re-organisation of psychiatric services in the Dublin area. This aims at establishing a comprehensive psychiatric service, to include everything from out-patient diagnostic service right through to full hospital care, and after-care services in the community. The re-organisation includes a teaching and training programme for medical personnel, aimed at producing for our psychiatric services throughout the country fully trained and competent psychiatrists. An organisation to conduct research into psychiatric illness is also envisaged. A special programme of care is being planned for the adult mentally handicapped who, until special institutions are provided for them, are being maintained in Dublin Health Authority's psychiatric institutions, and it is proposed to extend further the psychiatric services for children.

During the past year, Dublin Health Authority opened a day centre for emotionally disturbed children at St. Kevin's Hospital. The centre will complement the work already being done for this type of child in the children's unit of St. Loman's Hospital, County Dublin. Work will start soon on a pre-adolescent unit, in which continuing care will be provided for some of the patients in the children's unit in St. Loman's Hospital. Notwithstanding these developments, I am very conscious that the needs of children suffering from psychiatric disturbances are not yet being fully satisfied, and that a provincial centre for such children must rank as a high priority project.

Arrangements are well advanced for the establishment of active treatment psychiatric units at St. Stephen's Hospital, Sarsfieldscourt, Cork, and at St. Fachtna's Hospital, Skibbereen, County Cork. Those units will play an important part in the development of a comprehensive mental health service in the Cork area. New admission and treatment units will open shortly at Clonmel and Castlebar.

Over the past two decades, there has been a notable improvement in the standard of care provided at, and from our mental hospitals. I am confident that the high standard which has been achieved will be maintained and, indeed, bettered. I am not, however, satisfied with the standard of accommodation in our mental hospitals. I know that much has been done to improve our hospitals structurally, but parts of many of these buildings are still very sub-standard as regards heating, lighting, sanitary accommodation, etc. I intend to ensure that in the coming years, money will be allocated, to the full extent that our resources permit, to schemes for improvements in our mental hospitals.

The care of the mentally handicapped is, I am glad to say, also an area in which there is considerable valuable community endeavour. As Minister for Health, my principal immediate objective in the field of mental handicap is to supply the pressing need for residential care for severely and moderately handicapped children. Quite good progress is being made in this problem, and a further substantial amount of accommodation for these children will be provided over the next two years.

The total number of places in the residential institutions for the mentally handicapped at the end of December last, was over 3,600. This represents an increase of about 200 beds over the past year, and nearly 500 over the past two years. Already since 1st January, a further 20 beds have become available at Stewarts Hospital, and an 80-bed unit at St. Vincent's, Lisnagry, is practically completed. Further extensions are in planning, at St. Vincent's, Lisnagry (40 beds); St. Raphael's, Celbridge (50 beds); St. Mary's, Delvin (20 beds); Moore Abbey, Monasterevan (30 beds), and I have offered the Cork Polio and General After-Care Association grants to provide extra accommodation. In addition, I have arranged that certain institutions, which had been used for other purposes, will be converted for the use of the mentally handicapped. These include the former sanatoria at Roscrea and Macroom, the fever hospitals at Ennis and Carndonagh, and a further unit at Peamount Sanatorium. The former industrial school at St. Patrick's, Kilkenny, has already been changed over to the care of the mentally handicapped. Nor is that the full story. Other possibilities are at present being investigated and, as I have already indicated, it is my hope that the next two years will see a very great easing of the problem of residential care for the severely and moderately handicapped.

The development of day services for the mentally handicapped is also progressing. During the year, day centres were opened at Kilkenny, An Uaimh, Carrickmacross, and at Ballymun, Dublin. The planning of centres in a number of other areas is in progress.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry on Mental Handicap has been of considerable assistance to my Department. A White Paper outlining, in detail, the long-term Government proposals in this area will be published shortly.

The general improvement of maternity services, resulting in fewer birth injuries, and the further development of the recently introduced phenylketonuria service should result in a decrease in the number of new cases of mental handicap arising.

In the field of drug control, a National Drugs Advisory Board was established during the year, under the Health (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1961. The Board will be responsible for organising and administering a national service for obtaining, assessing and disseminating information as regards the safety of drugs. It will be concerned with ensuring that new or reformulated pharmaceutical preparations are not marketed here, except after consultation with it, and it will advise me on other matters, such as a scheme of quality control of pharmaceutical preparations.

Comhairle na Nimheanna, the statutory Poisons Council, in June, 1964, made far-reaching recommendations for control of the storage, transport, distribution, supply and sale of poisons. The practical application of these recommendations is not an easy one, and my Department has been examining it. Considerable progress has been made, but I am not yet in a position to say when a comprehensive code can be evolved. I might mention, however, that as a first step in giving effect to the Comhairle's recommendation I have recently made regulations, which came into operation on the 2nd January last, bringing up-to-date and extending the list of preparations which may be sold only through retail chemists, and on the prescription of a doctor, dentist or veterinary surgeon.

We have seen in the newspapers a good deal of comment on the increase in drug addiction in Britain and the USA. The information so far available here would indicate that there is not abuse in this country, to anything like the same extent, but I am watching the situation very carefully and I can assure the House that I will seek additional powers, should this be necessary.

Deputies will be aware of the statements in the public press of alleged shortcomings in the ambulance and accident services. All such complaints are investigated by my Department and, for the most part, it has been established that the press statements to which I refer are incomplete and misleading.

Independent of these investigations of specific instances, during the peak holiday period of 30th July to 12th August last, my Department undertook an investigation aimed at checking the effectiveness of the service in responding to accident calls. The findings revealed that out of 602 calls received, the ambulance left to deal with the accident within five minutes of the call in 577 cases. In most of the remaining cases the ambulance left its base within ten minutes of being called. In only two instances could it be said that there was undue delay in getting an ambulance under way.

Steps were taken during the year to improve the services. My Department has arranged a series of courses of training in first aid for ambulance drivers and, in co-operation with the Irish Medical Association, a pilot scheme is being introduced shortly under which, for a trial period, accident cases occurring at night in the Dublin area will be routed to a selected number of Dublin voluntary hospitals in which special arrangements for the care of such cases are being made. The details of these special steps have already been announced in the public press and I do not feel that it is necessary to occupy the time of the House by elaborating on them. I mention them to disabuse unbiased critics of the feeling that nothing is being done by my Department to improve the service.

The House is already aware that, with the co-operation of all the Dublin Voluntary Hospitals, a Hospitals Joint Services Board was set up some time ago for the central supply of sterile goods for use in hospital theatres and wards. I am happy to state that this Board has now commenced the supply of these goods. When the scheme is in full operation it will put us well in the forefront of developments aimed at easing the burden on the hospital service by relieving it of such ancillary services as can be more efficiently and economically developed in a single centre serving many hospitals. With the agreement of the hospitals, the Board is also planning the provision of a joint laundry and linen service for the Dublin hospitals and it hopes that the construction of the necessary premises will be completed early in 1968.

The hearing aid service operated by the National Organisation for Rehabilitation, on behalf of health authorities, continues to function satisfactorily. The staff has been increased and some of them visit different parts of the country periodically to fit hearing aids and to provide an educational advisory service for the parents and teachers of children with impaired hearing. I am examining the possibility of extending this hearing aid service, as soon as circumstances permit, to persons in the middle income group.

The health services, like everything else, have their defects. One of these, in particular, is causing me considerable concern. The dental services in most areas are unsatisfactory. Services for those entitled to free treatment at present—that is, children attending child welfare clinics, national school children, and medical card holders— are mainly provided by full-time public dental officers, whose efforts are supplemented to a limited extent by the employment of private dentists on a sessional basis. The main obstacle encountered by health authorities in recent years, in their efforts to provide a satisfactory service for the eligible classes, has been the difficulty of recruiting, and retaining, dental surgeons. At the moment, 25 dental posts are vacant out of a total of 117. The difficulty of recruitment was due to some extent, I believe, to the unattractive salaries offered, but as a result of a recent agreement at conciliation between the managers of health authorities and the Irish Dental Association, increased salary scales, which, I hope, will be adopted by health authorities, have been approved. This should result in the filling of some of the posts currently vacant. In addition, a number of new dental posts will be approved in the near future for areas that are greatly understaffed at present, so that, in general, there should be a gradual improvement in the public dental service in the coming year.

A fully satisfactory service, available without delay, for all those currently eligible for dental services, cannot, however, be provided without utilising to a greater extent than at present the services of dentists in private practice. The provision of a service in this way would be costly and, before it could begin, it would be necessary to conduct detailed negotiations with the Irish Dental Association. I intend to arrange shortly for such negotiations so that, as the economy expands and more funds become available, we may be in a position to improve the service in this way.

We must, however, recognise that dental decay is so prevalent throughout the community that treatment measures alone will not suffice to bring it under control. Preventive measures are necessary if we are to have any hope of coping with this problem and, now that public piped water supplies are being fluoridated, the amount of dental decay in children should decrease markedly in the coming years. The water supplies in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and in seven towns are already fluoridated. Arrangements to fluoridate many other supplies are well advanced and I expect that a further 40 areas or more will have fluoridated water within the next 12 months. This will mean that, at the end of that period, the number of people using fluoridated water will rise from 950,000 to approximately 1,200,000. The Estimate contains a special Subhead for recouping the capital cost of fluoridating these supplies.

I should like to report to the House on the present position in the development of the specific proposals for major changes in the health services contained in the White Paper published last year.

I should first say that the White Paper dealt not only with such radical subjects as the introduction of a choice of doctor in the general medical service, and of regional administration of the services, but also with the whole range of the services and with several improvements in detail in them which are considered necessary. It will be clear from what I have already said that there have been many such improvements in the last year, and that these improvements will continue at ever-increasing cost to public funds. Thus, in the last year, we had the raising of the income limit for hospital and specialist services, and maternity services, from £800 to £1,200 a year, with a corresponding adjustment for farmers, and the arrangements for the expansion of district nursing services.

At no time was it suggested, however, that the introduction of choice of doctor and the other radical changes could have been brought in by now. It was made quite clear in the White Paper, and by my predecessor in introducing the debate on it in the House on 1st March, 1966, that it represented a pattern for the future, long-term development of the health services, and that each proposed development could only come into effect when the money was there to pay for it. When, as will be seen from the Supplementary Estimate for this year, and the estimate for next year, expenditure in the latter year on the existing services will be about £5½ million more than it was in 1965-6, it is not possible to secure much more money for radical developments in the services at present.

The detailed preparatory work for the introduction of the major changes when the necessary funds are available is, however, progressing steadily. One of the first steps which I took after my appointment as Minister for Health was to arrange for discussions with local health authorities on the proposals in the White Paper. Thus, from September to early November, I visited all the health authorities in the country, with one exception, to discuss the proposed changes. In this concentrated tour, I heard the views of over 300 local councillors and these views gave me plenty of food for thought.

The local opinions expressed on the proposed substitution of a new general medical service for the dispensary service were particularly interesting. I have had an analysis made of the views expressed on this by the 168 local councillors who spoke on it. Of these, 65 were unequivocally in favour of choice of doctor, 50 expressed themselves in favour of choice but had reservations about rural areas, 12 advocated choice within the dispensary system, and 41 were either against, or doubtful, about changing from the dispensary system at all. I found the variation in the views thus expressed most interesting and significant. While it is clear that the majority of local authority representatives accept that there should be choice of doctor, where this is practicable, I think the large number of reservations about changing the dispensary system indicates a genuine volume of unease at how the rural areas might fare, if we were to make a radical change from that system without fully considering its implications for those areas. After the completion of my tour of the local authorities, I remain fully committed to the principle of introducing a choice of doctor where this is practicable, but I am extremely concerned to ensure that, whatever we do, will not leave those living in rural areas with a service inferior to what they have at present.

This was the basis of my directive to my Department in the further development of the scheme for altering the general medical service and, I might say, my attitude on this was confirmed in December by a resolution received from the National Health Council which, while approving in principle of choice of doctor as outlined in the White Paper for all areas where possible, recommended "that there should be a subsidised doctor or dispensary system in remote rural areas; that to attract doctors to remote areas a promotional outlet in this system must be provided; that pilot schemes in selected rural and urban areas should be undertaken before the system is adopted in the whole country and that doctors should, before being admitted to the choice of doctor system, be required to have a certain minimum post graduate training; and that existing dispensary district boundaries should be examined".

In accordance with my directives, my Department have been engaged on a detailed survey of the actual position as regards general medical practice, both by private and by dispensary doctors, which exists in representative areas. Detailed maps have been prepared showing the location of doctors and the distribution of population, and an exercise is being carried out to estimate what the effect in each area would be if the dispensary district boundaries were abolished and choice of doctor were introduced. The object of this exercise is to get a clear picture of the circumstances in which salaried doctors might be needed in rural areas, the conditions under which they, and other doctors, would participate in the scheme, and the details of the arrangements which might be needed for other areas—such as the cities, the towns and the hinterlands of the towns. I do not intend that this study should be a paper exercise only, and am arranging that my Department will discuss the detailed picture for a selection of representative areas with the officers of the local health authorities concerned.

When, on the result of these studies, I have made provisional decisions on the detailed application of the White Paper policy in this field, I will have a memorandum sent to the Irish Medical Association and the Medical Union with a view to negotiating with them on the details of the proposal and on such questions as the method of payment of doctors. I should hope that these negotiations can commence in a few months time.

I would emphasise that what I have said does not represent any retreat from what was written in the White Paper on the alteration of the general medical service. Paragraph 45 of the White Paper clearly recognised that, "on the discontinuance of the dispensary system, special steps would be necessary to retain doctors to provide a service in some of the more remote areas and allowances to supplement the standard payments would be offered to doctors in such areas." That paragraph also envisaged the retention of some dispensary premises for renting to doctors for adaptation as general surgeries. What we are now engaged on is the detailed application of that paragraph and I am paying particular attention to it in the light of the views expressed by local representatives and by the National Health Council. There is no question, however, of a reversal of the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper that there should be a choice of doctor in the general medical service where that is practicable. Neither is there to be any departure from the policy that in organising the new service there should be the least practicable distinction between private patients and those availing themselves of the service.

In the meantime, the dispensary system must be retained and in this respect I have to confess to some unease as to the number of posts in that service now filled temporarily. I can quite understand that this is unsatisfactory to the profession, but I should hope that, when I have gone some way in my discussions with them on the revised service and the picture of that is clearer, we may be able to proceed to fill again on a permanent basis at least some posts, on the understanding that the holder would become absorbed into the new service when it is established. That, however, is a proposal which I would need to discuss in detail with the profession before deciding definitely if effect could be given to it.

The White Paper referred also to the possibility of arranging for the supply of drugs under the general medical service through retail chemists. My Department has had general discussions on this proposal with representatives of the retail pharmacists and of the manufacturers and wholesalers of drugs. A number of matters need to be clarified, but I expect to be in a position to make a definite policy decision on this, more or less in step with the decisions which will be taken following the discussions with the doctors.

The other major proposal in the White Paper is for the transfer of the administration of all the health services from the present local authorities to new regional boards. Many local councillors expressed themselves as being against the idea. I have not been convinced, however, that we should abandon the proposal in the White Paper for establishing these boards, which would be made up of persons appointed by the Minister for Health— these would include doctors and other professional people—and members elected by the county and county borough councils for their areas. I think that the general case argued in Part V of the White Paper for setting up these boards is unanswerable and that, particularly as far as hospital services are concerned, a wider unit of administration than the county is essential if we are to progress towards having a more logical and effective pattern of health services in this country.

I can appreciate loyalty to the tradition of the county as a social, sporting and political entity, but we must not blind ourselves to the fact that for the practical operation of many health services county boundaries are awkward and unsuitable. The aim is to provide the best and most convenient service for everybody and I am convinced that we can achieve this only if we have regions, each of which will contain a number of counties, or parts of counties.

The House will, of course, be aware that new legislation will be needed to make this change to regional administration. It is my intention to introduce this legislation so that it can be discussed and enacted this year. This legislation will also make the several other amendments of the present law which will be required to give effect to many of the changes mentioned in the White Paper. These will include the enabling provisions for regulations specifying more clearly than at present the group entitled to the general medical service, the establishment of more formal provisions under which those in the middle income group can get assistance in the purchase of drugs and medicines, the abolition of charges for out-patient specialist services, the doubling of the maternity cash grants and provision to allow health authorities to arrange programmes for screening for symptoms of diseases specified in regulations. I have considered the possibility of separate, earlier legislation to deal with at least some of these changes, but I am satisfied that it would be better that one Bill should cover all the legislative changes needed for giving effect to the White Paper.

This then is the stage reached in the development of the White Paper proposals—a stage where, having made many practical improvements in the health services in the past year, we have also made considerable progress towards the detailed evolution of the new pattern. It is my intention to see that this progress is not halted and that the development of our health services will continue to the limit of the resources in money and personnel which will be available.

In a rather intemperate speech on the health services made by Deputy Ryan recently in Mayo, among many other sweeping statements he said that: "No advance can be made in health services in this country until there is a basic change in the whole approach to them." I think that I have given here today enough concrete examples of progress to refute this sweeping generalisation, and others with which the Deputy's speech abounded.

In explaining the details of the Estimates now before the House, it is necessary for me to refer first to the amount which the House provided in March last for the services of the current year. The total of the Estimate then submitted was £17,337,000, and I now find it necessary to seek an additional sum of £2,470,000. This very large deficiency arises under the heading of Grants to Health Authorities, and it reflects two things, an unexpected and unprecedented rise in the revenue expenditure of the health authorities, and the operation of the arrangement under which for the current year, the rates have been relieved of the burden of health costs in excess of those falling on the rates for the year 1965-66.

The original Estimate for the current year was based on a projected expenditure of £31,255,000 by health authorities. This was the total of the estimates supplied to my Department by health authorities in October and November, 1965, but statements furnished towards the end of 1966, show a total figure of £33,760,000, an increase of £2½ millions. In order that the rates should be relieved of any part of this added burden, it must be borne on the Vote.

The principal causes of the increase are the improvements in the pay of large numbers of health authority staffs, and the reduction of the working hours of hospital staffs, mainly nurses. Of the £2½ millions increase it is estimated that £1,075,000 is attributable to these factors. The cost of medicines, both in the hospital services and the general medical services, also continues to show a steep rise which accounts for about £300,000 of the increase in requirements. The running expenses, other than remuneration and drugs, have risen by about £300,000 beyond the levels provided in the original Estimates. These include building maintenance, heat and light, and food, and, of course, the increased expenditure reflects a degree of improvement of standards. Allowances to disabled persons show an increase of £120,000, due to the increased rates which came into operation on 1st November, 1966, and also an increase in the number of recipients. Payments to voluntary institutions, in respect of patients receiving services under the Health Acts, are greater by almost £200,000 than was envisaged when the original Estimates were prepared.

Of the total increase in the expenditure of health authorities, one half must be met by way of grant in accordance with the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, and the balance must be met by way of supplementary grant, in order to maintain in the current year the "freeze" of the local rates. The issues within the financial year amount to 95 per cent of the total estimated grants, and the additional provision now sought is accordingly £1,190,000 to cover normal statutory grant, and £1,075,000 to cover supplementary grant. It is necessary also to provide an additional £215,000 for balances of grant payable in respect of the year 1965-66, arising from the fact that the final accounts of the health authorities received after the close of the year, show that the interim statements, on which the original provision was based, fell short of actual expenditure. The predominant cause was the upward revisions in the previous year of the pay of certain health authority staffs, much of which involved considerable retrospective payment.

The total of these increases in grants to health authorities is £2,480,000, against which may be set a relatively small saving of £10,000, which leaves the net supplementary requirements at £2,470,000.

To turn now to the Estimate for the year 1967-68, I have to seek a total sum of £21,757,000 which represents an increase of £1,950,000 over the total 1966-67 requirements, including the Supplementary Estimate. Here, again, the predominant factor is the rising levels of expenditure by health authorities, which for the next year is estimated at £36,500,000, an increase of approximately £2¾ millions over the current year. Again salaries and wages of health authority staffs are the greatest single factor, showing an increase of £1,270,000 as compared with the revised figure for the current year. The reduction of the hours of work of nurses and other employees involves the recruitment of additional staff which will be fully reflected in the 1967-68 costs, but only partly in the costs of the current year. This, combined with staff increases to improve standards, especially in mental hospitals, accounts for much the greater part of the increase.

The estimated amount to be paid as allowances to disabled persons shows an increase of £200,000, due to the operation for the full year of the increases in rates of allowances effective from 1st November, 1966, and to a continued increase in the number of recipients.

The estimated expenditure on medicines shows an increase of £155,000. This is not as great an increase as has been recorded from year to year, in recent times. Nevertheless, the steep continued increase under this heading is engaging the attention of my Department.

The costs of institutions conducted by health authorities, apart from costs of salaries and medicines, are estimated to rise by £350,000. This is due in part to a very desirable up-grading of standards, especially in accommodation for the aged and chronic sick, but it also reflects a rise in the cost of goods consumed in the institutions.

Additional accommodation in voluntary hospitals, mainly as a result of the opening of the new Coombe Hospital, together with a continued increase in the rate of occupancy in extern institutions generally will, it is estimated, involve an addition of £390,000 to the expenditure of health authorities.

An estimated increase of £370,000 in a miscellaneous group of services including child welfare, ambulance and administration makes up the £2¾ millions by which the 1967-68 expenditure is estimated to exceed that of the current year.

Deputies are aware that the special undertaking regarding the "freeze" of the amount to be met from rates applied to the year 1966-67. This was set out in the White Paper on the Health Services and their Further Development. In respect of the year 1967-68, in the absence of further special arrangements, the Exchequer grant would be the statutory one, which provides for recoupment of one-half of the revenue expenditure on health services. As has already been announced, however, the Government has decided to continue to provide supplementary grants so as to cushion the rates against rising costs. The grants available to health authorities in respect of next year will accordingly consist of the normal 50 per cent grant, a supplementary grant equal to the amount of supplementary grant payable in respect of the current year, and a further grant allocated according to the capacity of each rating area to meet its share of the cost of the services. On the basis of estimates furnished to my Department by health authorities amounts of supplementary grant which will be payable have been calculated and notified to each authority. The amount which will be contributed by the Exchequer in the year over and above the amount of the statutory contribution, will be £2 million of which 95 per cent or £1,917,000 will be paid within the year. , As I have said, the basis of the provision, which I have included in this Subhead, to enable me to pay these grants is information supplied to my Department by the health authorities themselves in the form of estimates of health expenditure which in the aggregate showed an increase of £5½ millions over the 1965-66 figure. There may be instances in which individual health authorities have to provide for liquidation of adverse balances brought forward from previous years, and, naturally, the Exchequer cannot be expected to make good such deficiencies. However, on the basis of the health authorities' estimates as furnished to my Department in respect of the services of the year 1967-68, I have so allocated the supplementary grant that in the areas where capacity to meet further charges is most limited, the increase in the rate necessary to meet health costs in 1967-68 should not exceed 9d. in the £. In the areas more favourably placed as regards capacity to bear the costs, the rate increase for health purposes should in all but a few cases, be not more than 1s 3d. To achieve this degree of relief of rates, the Exchequer, as I have already mentioned, is assuming a liability of more than £2 million over and above the normal 50 per cent statutory grant.

There are some aspects of the trend of costs of the health services on which I should like to comment. The total revenue expenditure of health authorities in respect of the year which ended in March, 1965 was £27.8 millions. As I have explained the expenditure for the year commencing 1st April next is estimated at £36½ millions. The increase in the period is thus approaching £9 millions, or 30 per cent. The causes of this increase, of course, include improvements of services, additions to institutional accommodation and extension of the limits of eligibility for institutional and specialist services; but to a very considerable extent the growth of the cost is attributable to increased remuneration of staffs and, more recently, reduced working hours. Staff costs have, in fact, now reached the point where they constitute more than 62 per cent of the total costs of health authority institutions. I do not suggest that improvements in the conditions of employment were not justified; but I would point out that the possibilities of further improvement and extensions of our health services must depend substantially on the optimum use of the present manpower and equipment. Any avoidable duplication of services, particularly institutional services, is a waste of scarce and expensive skills, as well as a waste of capital equipment, and, therefore, a dissipation of resources which could be used towards development of the services.

Capital expenditure on hospitals during 1967-68 is expected to be about £3.6 millions, of which about £2 millions will come from the Hospitals Trust Fund, supplemented by a grant-in-aid from the Exchequer of £1 million, and the balance from the Local Loans Fund, and other sources. The programme to be financed in this way —as Deputies will see from the statement I have circulated—includes new or improved medical, surgical and maternity facilities, accommodation for the mentally ill, for the mentally handicapped and for the aged in need of institutional care. Work on some of the projects included in this programme is already well advanced. It is expected that the new Coombe Hospital in Dublin will be opened for patients in the very near future. This new 265 bed maternity hospital will be a valuable addition to the hospital services in the Dublin area. It will provide 156 maternity beds, 58 gynaecology beds and 51 paediatric beds—almost double the accommodation in the old Coombe Hospital. Progress on the new St. Vincent's Hospital, at Elm Park, Dublin, is such that most of the building work should be practically completed by the end of 1967. This new general teaching hospital will provide some 450 patient beds, as well as the usual ancillary facilities.

To complement and supplement the community service for the care of the aged, a special effort has been made to improve the accommodation for old people, who cannot be looked after in their own homes. Major reconstruction and improvement schemes in progress at Athy, Castlebar, Castleblayney, Clonakilty, Ennis, Longford and Trim will provide accommodation well up to modern standards for about 1,300 persons. Further schemes which will commence in 1967-68 at Carrick-on-Shannon and Roscommon and, in completion of works carried out over the past few years, at Stranorlar, will provide accommodation of similar standard for 370 persons.

A number of other schemes have reached an advanced stage of planning, and are expected to get under way during the year, for example, staff accommodation at Nenagh County Hospital and at the North Charitable Infirmary, Cork.

A major extension, for 100 additional patients and 21 staff, is in course of construction at Sligo County Hospital. It is expected that the new extension will be opened next year. Planning of the new county hospitals at Wexford and Tralee is going ahead, and preparatory work on the planning of the new regional hospital and dental hospital at Cork is proceeding.

Following submission of a report of a group, consisting of members of the Board of the hospital and officers of my Department, on the accommodation to be provided in the new St. Laurence's Hospital, the medical authorities of the hospital are at present carrying out a more detailed examination of the functions and requirements of each Department of the hospital.

The position in regard to the building of a new hospital by the Federated Dublin Voluntary Hospitals is that the Federation have appointed a project team to report on the existing hospitals, on the site proposed for the new hospital and on the extent of the facilities to be provided in the new buildings. I understand that the report of this study, with the views of the Federation, will be available fairly soon.

The rapidly-rising cost of hospital building makes it imperative that all reasonable economy should be secured, both in design of building, and in the utilisation, where practicable, of new techniques in construction. The Hospitals Trust Fund, which in the past was the principal source of capital for hospital building works, is not now able to meet all demands made on it. It has been necessary for the Exchequer to provide additional moneys and a sum of £1 million is provided in the present estimate for this purpose.

My Department continues to enjoy the most cordial and beneficial relationships with the World Health Organisation, the Council of Europe, and other international organisations. By invitation, the annual meeting of the Regional Committee for Europe of the World Health Organisation is, this year, being held in Dublin in September next. Delegates from some 30 countries will be present.

I would like to thank Telefís Éireann for their generous support of my Department's endeavours to educate and inform the public in health matters during the past year. I have obtained the utmost assistance and co-operation from them.

It is only since I was appointed Minister for Health that I have come to appreciate the extent to which voluntary, unpaid effort enters into the administration and operation of the health services. The persons concerned in supplying this effort include the elected members of the health authorities—a fact often overlooked —the members of the boards of voluntary hospitals, religious congregations, and the professional and other members of various officially appointed bodies, including the National Health Council, the National Organisation for Rehabilitation, commissions and committees of inquiry and the corporate bodies set up to deal with particular aspects of the services. I have already mentioned the increasing number of bodies which assist with community services. To all of these I feel that the best thanks of the nation are due.

I move:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.

I do so on the ground that in the course of his statement, the Minister referred to legislative proposals and in the absence of a motion to refer back the Vote, there might be no opportunity to discuss these legislative proposals having regard to the Standing Orders that proposals for legislation be not discussed in the course of the debate on an Estimate. I understand that the Chair is agreeable to accept such a motion on short notice, in the circumstances.

Our purpose in moving to refer back the Estimate is to enliven the discussion. It is not because we in Fine Gael have any criticism to offer of the amount of money spent on health services. The money spent on health services is necessarily collected from the community. We believe the money is spent unwisely and foolishly and could be spent to much greater advantage to the community otherwise than by, as it were, channelling our main activity through costly institutions which the Minister saw fit to criticise when he said—I think quite rightly—that institutional services can cause waste. He said:

Any avoidable duplication of services, particularly institutional services, is a waste of scarce and expensive skills, as well as a waste of capital equipment and, therefore, a dissipation of resources which could be used towards development of the services.

We in Fine Gael have been advocating for years an entirely new approach to our health services so that we would get away from the ridiculous system which forces our dispensary doctors, because of overwork, to put people into costly institutions; so that we would get away from our expensive system which forces the general practitioner, having regard for the burdens of home medical services, of drugs and medical equipment, to put people into hospital if they have not got medical cards. The Minister knows well that it was to that basically wrong approach to the health services that I was making reference when I spoke recently on this matter in Ballina.

In the Minister's address, which was a smug speech, he made several unjustified assumptions—to use his own adjective, several sweeping assumptions. He resorted to a trick at which his Party are masters. I thought he would not have resorted to it. I refer to the trick of quoting out of context. However, I shall quote the paragraph out of which the Minister took one sentence. I said in Ballina:

Fine Gael rejects as totally unacceptable and demonstrably false the basic assumption in the Fianna Fáil Health White Paper that people without medical cards suffer no hardship in having to pay the family doctor, a home nurse, the chemist and for hospital services. Health proposals based upon such faulty premises are not worth considering. No advance can be made in health services in this country until there is a basic change in the whole approach to them. We must ensure that nobody postpones consulting a doctor or goes without medicine or treatment or fails to act on doctor's advice or is slow to recover from sickness or injury because the cost of medical services is a worry. That happens daily in thousands of homes in this land and it is high time that as a nation we cared about it and did something about it.

Deputies will appreciate that the sentence which the Minister quoted out of context is not a sweeping generalisation but is a correct approach and the only proper approach if we are to have worthwhile health services.

We do not regard any of the reliefs or palliatives which have been given in recent years as advances in our health services. We do not think that any advance will take place in our health services here until everybody in the land can call upon a doctor of his choice, can call upon any specialist, can call upon the most expensive medical services at a time of illness without having to pay for them at that time.

We are moving in this modern world into an age in which societies, progressive societies certainly, accept that social rights are as important as political rights. The 19th century saw a great concern with the obtainment of political rights, the obtainment of what are regarded sometimes as the natural rights, the right to freedom of the person, the right to freedom of speech and to these what may be called abstract rights. But today we must have a wider approach. We must recognise as equal in importance, as obligatory on society to achieve, social rights. These social rights include the right to full education, the right to decent housing and the right to full medical services.

It might be asked: why should a person have a right to claim these services from society? Man is a social animal and if society has failed to organise its own development so that every person has an adequate income out of which to pay for all these services without restricting the opportunity to obtain others, then there is a clear obligation on society to provide these services in some other way. The ideal solution is, of course, to pay to everybody an adequate income so that he can pay for these services for himself and his family but I fear that if that were to happen here, the Minister for Transport and Power would have a seizure altogether.

He would blow a gasket.

He would blow a gasket. I fear the consequences to the poor decent man. These things cannot be obtained in an imperfect society and, therefore, it behoves us so to organise the community that all can help themselves by helping one another.

We got some reason to anticipate that notwithstanding years of opposition to the Fine Gael health insurance scheme, the Minister and his immediate predecessor were thinking on lines which would mean that we would have new progressive health services financed on an insurance basis. We had hoped that when the Minister saw fit, as I think he properly did, to discuss health proposals in the address which he gave to the House, we would get some further indication that he would finance the improvements through a system of insurance. We regret that all we have received from the Minister is a mea culpa, an apologia for failing to do more and a petition that we would not ask him to do more because of the cost of existing services and the difficulty of financing them.

The Minister, of course, has run into a grave difficulty in trying to finance his present services. He points out the enormous increase in the cost of administering these services in recent times and he has indicated that the increase in cost is not reflected to the same extent in increased services. Sixty-two per cent of the increased costs, I think he says, are in relation to wages paid to people who are administering these services. The position is likely to worsen so long as we continue a health service which obliges people to go into costly institutions which have to be staffed by competent persons, persons who are entitled to every penny of remuneration they get. Indeed, I think we should be ashamed of what we are paying to some of the persons administering our health services. We are not paying them half enough. The important thing in future is to see to it that whatever our health services may cost, we get more out of them, that is to say, that the ordinary people get more out of them and we are not going to do that as long as we maintain the wrong approach which the Minister today and in the White Paper has assumed, with a sweeping assumption, is perfectly satisfactory.

I did not refer to it because I have only just got the report of the inter departmental group on the insurance proposal in regard to health education and social welfare and have not had time to study it yet. It is only just out.

That interdepartmental group is dealing with matters other than health. It is dealing with what you call the social fund.

That is right.

It may well be that it would be desirable to have a social fund, but, knowing how long it takes to create institutions to administer such schemes, I would hope that we will not have to wait the introduction of such an omnibus scheme in order to have improvements in our health services.

The Minister has justified today every criticism that Fine Gael have voiced in this House over the past ten years about any effort to improve our health services based upon a system of general taxation. Every time this matter has been discussed, we have said that we would wait indefinitely for worthwhile improvements in our health services if they were in competition with every other demand which is made upon the Exchequer, and that is exactly what is happening. That is why the Minister, who I think means well, was not able last autumn, as promised, to introduce legislation to give effect to the proposals in the White Paper. Not only was the Minister not able to bring in legislation to deal with the major changes which it is proposed to make but he was not able to introduce interim legislation which he could now introduce if it were not for the fact that we have not got the money to bring about some of the paltry modifications which were promised in the White Paper.

Some of those things I mentioned in Ballina. I am sorry the Minister did not quote them when quoting from my Ballina speech earlier today. One of these things is an increase in the maternity cash grant for mothers in the lower income group from £4 to £8—and that is not anything which calls for any difficult legislation or for any major administrative change. It is a perfectly simple one-line Bill and there is no justification for postponing increases in the cash maternity grants. The law could be amended quite simply so that in assessing eligibility for disability and infectious diseases allowances, account would not be taken of any income save that of the applicant and spouse. That is a perfectly simple change that does not call for prolonged negotiation or difficulty in administration. There is no justification for holding up that simple improvement pending all the negotiations which the Minister says will take place over the next year with professional bodies and local authorities in discussing the difficulties which will have to be faced in bringing in the other changes that are proposed.

By a very simple piece of legislation, the Minister could clear up the confusion and injustice, which is caused at present in ascertaining entitlement to medical cards, by fixing known statutory limits on income and outgoings in determining eligibility. There is no reason why this simple measure should be delayed pending the modification in our overall health scheme. Likewise, the Minister could by a very simple Bill fix the middle-income group entitlement to assistance in meeting the cost of drugs and medicines, which scheme at present is as crazy as it is possible for any State scheme to be with the result that there are thousands of families without adequate medicines in the unlucky 70 per cent who do not qualify for medical cards. If they do buy these necessary medicines, this deprives these people of the necessary food, clothing, education and other services for their families. Different health authorities and different members of the administrative staffs in different health authorities have different ways of approaching this problem.

The vexatious charges for outpatients—charges for X-rays and consultation—which make up the one-eightieth part of the revenue for the health services could be abolished overnight by a simple measure. Finally, we could have the legislation, simply by an administrative ruling, extended to general nursing services for the aged and critically sick in the middle income group.

It is necessary to emphasise how simple these measures are and to say that there is no justification for postponing the enactment of the necessary legislation to achieve these things; there is no justification whatsoever. We do not regard the poor mouth as a justification for postponing the increase in the maternity cash grant for poor mothers from £2 to £4. A nation that cannot afford that small increase ought to pack up.

The other matters are those of common justice which may or may not involve any tremendous increase in expenditure. If they do involve additional increase in expenditure, it proves how necessary it is to have them. It would show that there must be, as we suspect there are, thousands of necessitous people who are not getting benefit at all under our unjust health services.

In relation to the increased cost in the coming year, one would have thought that if the Minister wanted to be frank with the House, if he wanted to keep the Members of this House and the public properly advised, he would have provided a statement of the amount given to each health authority in respect of the supplementary grant that is being given this year. I have been unable to find out what amount is being given to Dublin Health Authority for the coming year. My information is that notice was given to the health authority in the past few days only. So far, the request I made for information has not been answered. I hope that perhaps we will get this information before the end of the day. I was wondering last night why the Government were so anxious to get the Health debate under way. Seeing that the Minister has not given this information, I suspect that they wanted the debate to conclude before Deputies knew about this allowance.

It was arranged to suit me.

I quite see it would suit the Minister not to have this matter discussed earlier. I should like to know precisely how much the Dublin ratepayers will have to pay in respect of health services this year. The Minister used what I will describe as a sweeping generalisation. He said the increase, except in a few cases, will not be more than?d in the £. Why could the Minister not give us, either in his own address or in separate statistics, a statement showing precisely how much is to be given to each health authority. I suspect the Dublin ratepayers will be one of the few who will have to pay more than 1/3d in the £.

That is not so.

That is encouraging so far as the people of Dublin are concerned. Whatever we may have to pay, we regard the Government's conduct in this matter as a serious breach of faith. The Government might now say that Deputies were aware that the undertaking to freeze the charge on rates to the year 1965-66 applied only to last year. That was not the understanding. That was not what the Minister and the Government intended last year to convey to the ratepayers. That is not what it was intended to convey to the members of the local authorities who were striking the rate. That is not what was generally understood by the people of this country. That is not what was generally understood by the members of the Minister's Party when they discussed matters in relation to health in this House and elsewhere over the past year. It was understood by members of the Minister's Party, and they were never disabused by the Minister or his predecessor, that that undertaking was one which was to be applied hereafter and that the ceiling in relation to the health charges on the rates would be related to the services and the cost of the services for the year 1965-66.

Now we have had a departure from that. We have had a serious breach of a clear understanding which was given to the people. The precise wording of the legal documentation may well be that a safeguard, a let-out, is provided for the Minister but the Minister and the politically-minded people know well how important it is not to allow misunderstandings to arise. They know well also that where misunderstandings exist, they have a duty, unless they want them to exist, to dispel them, but never has the Minister or any of his colleagues made any effort to disabuse people of the belief that the charge on the rates was limited to what it was in the year 1965-66.

Any time any person raised doubts about the matter, any time people drew attention to the strict interpretation of what was promised, they were told they were being mischievous: they were told they were trying to take away the credit the Government were entitled to because of their generosity, and that it meant that for all time we would have no increase beyond what was charged in 1965-66. Now we have had the thin end of the wedge. It has been driven in and we can expect from the demeanour of the Minister here and the activities of his Department during the past year that the wedge will be hammered home year after year, that there will be further increases on the rates and that efforts will continue to be made to justify the hopelessly inadequate and grossly inefficient health services we have at the present time.

The Irish Medical Times, the new bulletin issued to the medical profession, had an article by the Minister for Health last month. The public will be interested to see what the Minister stated, something he has not too clearly stated in the White Paper and which he has not stated at all today. In that journal, in an exclusive interview which the Minister gave to a representative of the journal, is an assurance—that is the word the Minister used—by the Minister to the medical profession that the Government had no intention of introducing a general medical practitioner service covering much more of the population than is covered at present.

It will be noted that the Minister today did not give an assurance to the people of Ireland that he had in mind the introduction of a general practitioner service for the people of Ireland. He has not given an assurance in his White Paper that he will not come to their assistance. But he wishes to prevail on the conservative element in the medical profession, in a journal addressed only to the medical profession, he wishes to secure the sympathy and the support of the conservative element of the medical profession by giving them an assurance that they in their present, happy ways will not be disturbed—that they can go along in the future in the happy 19th century liberal world in which so much of our medical practice is carried on.

I do not think that is playing fair with the public. We believe it is time the Fianna Fáil Party said in public what they have said to the medical profession—that there will not be any improvement in the right which people should have to claim from society better medical services; that we shall continue only to tinker around with the problem and to give a choice of doctor only in a limited number of urban areas. The only reason they are doing that is that otherwise the dispensary service would break down in the urban areas. At the present time it can only be described as a scandal. Dispensary doctors in some of the large housing areas around Dublin are required to attend between 2,000 and 3,000 people and each morning they are required to treat 180 to 200 people in a two-hour service period.

That is a scandal. It is a situation one would expect to exist at a time of plague when half of the medical profession are themselves down with plague and when people crowd in panic into dispensaries. This is the daily occurrence in urban areas in this country. It is only because they are faced with an appalling scandal that the Government are prepared to give way and under pressure of that scandal, to provide that people in urban areas will have a choice of doctor. They are hoping that this opening of the door to a choice of doctor in urban areas will relieve to some extent the pressure on the dispensaries. So great is that pressure on the dispensaries, so great is the pressure on the general medical service for people in the lower income group in Dublin and in other urban areas, that many people entitled as a right to the service do not avail of it, preferring to deny themselves some other pleasures in order to be able to pay for private treatment.

In Dublin also we have a situation in which only 16 per cent of the people are entitled to the general medical service. In other parts of the country, it rises to 30 per cent, 40 per cent and in one case to 50 per cent. Why is the percentage so low in Dublin? The reason is that in the urban areas the pressure on the dispensary service is so great that the dispensaries are not able to cope with it. Therefore, the standard of eligibility is being kept low so as to reduce pressure.

The general attitude of Fianna Fáil Ministers for Health towards the health service convinces us that they have considered giving a choice of doctor only because they are afraid of the serious crisis which will lead to a total breakdown of the dispensary service in the urban areas. Fianna Fáil are not bringing about this change because of the conviction that it is desirable or because they think that the poor as well as the rich should be able to choose a doctor of their own but because the alternative is crisis and breakdown of the inadequate dispensary service.

The Minister said he has toured the country, that he has gone to all health authorities and that the Department, as a result, have done a comprehensive analysis of members' views. I am convinced that the councils would be troubled if they knew that what they said would be used in evidence.

I do not understand what the Deputy is talking about.

There has been a particularly critical examination of the situation——

What is wrong with that?

Did the Minister assure the people that he would determine his policy along those lines? Has the Minister to any extent determined the qualifications of the people who commented on the health services?

These people were elected by the people.

They may have been, but that does not necessarily qualify them to speak in relation to these matters. There is a frightful amount of prejudice and, in a situation in which we had the Fianna Fáil Party conditioning the people to the belief that the dispensary service was satisfactory and in which the Minister's advisers in the Department were convinced that the service was satisfactory, we are unlikely to get any worthwhile progressive ideas from people who have been indoctrinated to some extent. The duty of the Minister and the Government is to lead. The duty of any Party who think for themselves is to lead, and the tragedy at present is that the Minister is making no effort to lead because, for other reasons, he has no prospect of getting the consent of his Government colleagues for the introduction of any new legislation. Therefore he is traipsing around the country encouraging the conservative elements to put the brakes on him so that in Ireland we still have not got a medical service such as every other country in this part of the world, with the exception of Finland, has got—a general medical service for everybody in the land who wants it.

Why must we be the only country left out? Why must we continue to pay almost as much as other countries for far less in the way of medical service? Why can other countries provide home choice of doctor and a good general practitioner service? The reason is that they have balanced health services while ours are lopsided. Private doctors have to send people to hospital where the minimum cost is £3 10s a week. If they stay at home, they will pay £3 10s per week in doctor's fees alone, plus the cost of drugs and medicines, and plus, perhaps, the fees of a home nurse. As long as we continue this imbalance, we are going to have an excessively costly health service in relation to what is given for the money. Our health services do not give anything like value for the money put into them.

Fine Gael, alone of the political Parties, opposed the 1953 Health Act and it is worth while reflecting on why we opposed it. Our reasons will be found in Volume 138 of the Dáil Debates of 15th April, 1953 when Deputy John A. Costello said that Fine Gael opposed the Bill because it was unjust to what were called the people in the middle-income group, the people who were going to have to pay for a service for which they would not qualify. That is what has happened since then and that is what the Minister proposes in the future. That is why we oppose a scheme limited to only 30 per cent of the people.

Deputy Costello also said that under the Bill the return to sick and injured people would not be commensurate with the expense. That has been proved over the intervening 16 years. Again, Fine Gael opposed the Bill because it amounted to no more than an extension of the dispensary service imposed by an alien Government and so, in 1967, we must again oppose the extension of the dispensary service which it seems is all the Minister proposes to give. We opposed the 1953 Act because it was not workable and if ever a measure was proved to be unworkable, it was that particular measure. The Minister admits that it is not working in relation to our dental services, that we have people required to wait for many months before they can get necessary extractions and people who have to wait for many more months and, perhaps, years before they can get dentures.

We have an unworkable scheme in relation to our hearing aid service. Here the 1953 Act is completely unworkable. I will not say the scheme broke down: it was never given to break down. The Minister now says that there are hearing aid facilities available and that these are being extended. What we are doing is giving to everybody who has a defect the one type of hearing aid. It is like giving to everybody the one set of glasses. We are not giving equipment to the people suited to their particular complaint. People who have got hearing aids have had to discard them as being useless for their complaint and independent persons have on several occasions condemned the Department for giving hearing aids to people which are useless to them. The optical service is also unsatisfactory.

The 1953 Health Act was also condemned by Fine Gael because it did not give a choice of doctor. Now, after 16 years, the only improvement which can be supported by us on this side of the House is the giving of a choice of doctor to a limited number of people in urban areas, to 30 per cent of the population. We can go further back than 1953 to get the Fine Gael approach to this matter. Speaking in Kilkenny in 1951, Deputy Costello, who was then Taoiseach, said that a system of contributory insurance would provide a solution for our health problems. That was said 16 years ago, and although we have been endeavouring to make the present unsatisfactory scheme work and to bring about some relief here and there, the overall pattern which we now see is one of little improvement but substantially increased cost, and no change in the basic approach which is still based upon a Medical Charities Act of the early 19th century brought in in the reign of Queen Victoria because of embarrassment for Britain's reputation by references by visitors to the extent of poverty and disease in Ireland.

The Medical Charities Act was brought in to relieve destitution, illness, poverty and disease which already existed and what the Minister proposes in his White Paper is a scheme which is basically the same as that under the Medical Charities Act. In the Fianna Fáil White Paper, they actually boast of the fact that they have the same basis for their scheme and are not bringing about any radical changes. They talk of the further improvement of what they have rather than about bringing in something radically fresh and new which would give a new approach to the whole problem.

We are aware that the vast majority of people in the medical, nursing and dental professions are anxious to see in this country a scheme under which nobody will delay putting off consultation with medical specialists, nobody will deprive himself of medical treatment and advice because he is unable to afford the cost or is afraid he could not afford the cost. We can also appreciate that people who have been in private practice for years and who have been free from the vexations and pressures inherent in bureaucratic control may be worried by what changes may come about. Other countries have had the same problem and, in these countries, the medical professions have had to meet these problems. By and large, they have done so successfully and everything now works well.

We are sorry to think that it is over a year since the Government's White Paper was published and there have yet been no consultations between the Minister for Health and the Irish Medical Association, the Irish Dental Association and the Irish Nurses Association. We do not think that is good enough. But because of the Minister's inactivity a certain number of conservative-minded people in those professions are building up undue fears and are building up a certain amount of animosity and resistance to improvements which ought to be taking place. We would beseech the Minister to delay no longer in consulting with these bodies.

In 1953 we had a lot of discussion here and elsewhere about the health services, and following that, we had practically 18 months of inactivity on the part of the Fianna Fáil Minister for Health; we had 18 months during which there was not one word or one syllable of consultation with the medical organisation. After all that time in the absence of those consultations, on the eve of their departure from office, the Fianna Fáil Minister made an order bringing the 1953 Health Act into operation. Within a matter of months before he had any negotiations, good, bad or indifferent, with the people whose duty it would be to implement the Act, they brought it into operation. We now see the result that 14 years afterwards we still have large sections of that Act which have never been worked, and I fear that if the Minister does not get down soon to his consultations with these bodies, we will be promising the sun, moon and stars in a Bill and because of lack of negotiation, the provisions will never be brought into operation.

These bodies are responsible bodies. They have done immense public service in the manner in which they have educated and disciplined recruits to their professions over the years, and the public has benefited by their discipline and by their dedication to their vocation. They are entitled to be consulted and they should be consulted well in advance and not after the Minister and his Department have drawn up the scheme. These people have an immense reservoir of advice. They have an immense fund of experience and a tremendous amount of goodwill. It behoves the Minister to consult with them at the planning stage and not after the plans are drawn up.

The Minister has told us that his Department has been working on maps of dispensary areas indicating where doctors live and where the populations are located, but apparently he has not yet shown these to the IMA, the MU or any other body. These people are entitled to be consulted about this. There are many areas in Dublin where it is impossible for a doctor to get a residence or a surgery of his own because the areas in question consist of thousands of acres on which local authority houses have been built and which cannot be let to doctors. Areas of that kind are ones which will create a particular problem when the dispensary services are abolished, but these are the areas in which it is critically important to abolish the dispensary system because these are the areas where doctors are required to attend 2,000 and 3,000 people.

It is common knowledge that the Medical Association has had this problem under discussion within its own circles over the past few years, and it is very sad to think that the Department of Health has not had any consultations with these gentlemen over the past year. I do not know whether it is proposed to give the maps to these people to be checked. Apparently a memorandum is to be presented to them, and from the disposition of the Department of Health in other matters over the years, I suspect it will be an attitude of "like it or lump it," and if they decide to lump it, I suppose they will be subjected to the same kind of castigation as the Minister for Education has been subjecting those who know more about education than he does, because they have experience of it for decades past. It is about time the Department of Health took into its confidence the people who are best qualified to give advice, and I can only hope the Minister will hasten in consulting these various bodies.

The Minister is also promising us that he will bring in legislation to regionalise the hospital authorities and the medical services generally. That may or may not be a good thing, but we cannot judge whether it is good, bad or indifferent and we cannot test any proposals which the Minister puts before us until we are given the facts upon which decisions should be made, until we are given the knowledge which is inseparable from a wise decision.

It is now approximately ten years since the Department of Health published an annual report. Last week and the week before I queried the Minister on this matter by way of Dáil Question. The Minister said he would look into the matter and he would see if a comprehensive report could now be prepared dealing with the past ten years. I would hesitate to accept the validity of a ten-year report published by the Department of Health because their propaganda section takes second place only to Dr. Goebbels in its capacity to misinform and to tell half-truths.

That is very high praise.

It is probably very high praise to those who regard Dr. Goebbels as a person whose standards should be imitated. But it is perfectly true. Their White Paper is based on a whole lot of wild statements about the existing services being satisfactory, but these are not supported, strangely enough, by statistics. However, from what we know, we can say that one of the assumptions in question is based upon statistics which are now, I think, 15 years old, and those statistics bear no relation to incomes and demands which people make at the present time. I do not want to go into too much detail on that.

As I was saying, I asked the Minister last week to name the alternative publications which he said contained the information which used to be covered in the annual reports of the Department. I have carefully examined the reports to which the Minister made reference. I had read them before I asked the question but I looked back on them to see if I had missed anything. I found that what I implied in the question was true, that is, that a great deal of the information which used to be available in the annual reports of the Department is not published in any of the publications to which the Minister made reference. I am aware that the Hospital Commission issues an annual abstract of voluntary hospital returns, but even those returns are now two or three years out of date. The returns for the local authority hospitals are not available at all and these are the institutions in relation to which we should have full particulars of bed occupancy, of bed availability and of costing when we come to consider what regions should be set up in the future.

Without that information, we in the Fine Gael Party are not going to approve of regionalisation. We are entitled to that information, and it must be given in the greatest possible detail. We cannot accept any proposals for regionalisation unless this vital information is given. The earlier reports of the Department of Health used to give this information, but in their later reports, this information was dropped. It may well be that somebody in the Department of Health knows these figures but the decisions for the future in relation to regionalisation are not going to be taken in the Department of Health, and let them clearly understand that they are going to be taken here in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. They will be taken in the knowledge and common belief in all local authorities throughout the country that they are entitled to this basic information before any changes are brought about.

One of the reasons for the high administrative cost of our health services is the fact that the Department is not attending to the preparation and collation of information of that kind. Indeed, the Department is duplicating work which many hospital authorities could themselves do without having an official of the Department looking over their shoulders. We really ought to have some confidence shown by the Department in hospital administrators and I would plead now with the Minister to cut through a great deal of the duplication that exists at the present time and leave the day-to-day running of the different hospitals to the hospital authorities.

We have been asked in connection with other concerns, such as the ESB, Bord na Móna, Radio Telefís Éireann, to leave the day-to-day running of these organisations to those who are concerned with them. That, I suppose, has its own drawbacks. We discussed that last week and again this week on the Fine Gael motion dealing with statutory bodies, but there is a considerable amount of detail which ought to be left to the administrators of the hospitals themselves, without the needling supervision, the costly supervision and costly duplication which arise under the present system, the Department watching every halfpenny and every penny; the result is the halfpennies and pennies get spent, because the expenditure is always justified, but the overall cost of duplication and supervision is not taken into account. We have, therefore, a burdensome system which causes unnecessary delays and a great deal of inefficiency.

The Minister in his opening statement was, I suppose, in the difficulty that he could hardly discuss our existing health services without taking cognisance of what is proposed in the future. We are in very much the same position but I should like to deal with the unsatisfactory system now in operation in relation to prescriptions for medical card holders. In urban areas, areas with which I am most familiar, it is not an uncommon experience for people to queue for a couple of hours to get a couple of minutes attention from an overworked dispensary doctor, who issues a prescription; then the patient has to go to the end of a new queue and queue for the prescription. Before the patient is half way to the top of the queue, the dispensary service for the day closes down and the patient requiring medicine or a drug, or even treatment, as a matter of urgency is unable to get it on the day of first presentation at the dispensary. Even if such a person is lucky enough on the second day to arrive at the hatch, being at the top of the dispensary queue, as distinct from the doctor's queue, at an early hour, he or she may be told the particular drug or medicine is not available. It is not uncommon in Dublin for such people to be advised to call again on another day, and on a third day, and on a fourth day, before the drug or prescription is available.

This is outrageous. Sometimes the dispenser will relieve the acute anxiety of the patient by prescribing of his own accord an alternative drug, or sometimes a clerical assistant in the health authority headquarters in James's Street will send out some drug as an alternative to the drug prescribed by the doctor. That is wrong. This must stop. We think it is unlikely to stop so long as we preserve the present system. Unfortunately, it appears from the Minister's White Paper and from the lack of comment on the part of the Minister since, plus his lack of comment today, that the Government propose to go ahead with their idea of having two stores of drugs and medicines. In the urban areas, they will do away with the dispenser in the dispensary service. They will invite chemists to come into a scheme but, in order to come into the scheme, such chemists will have to keep two stores, one with drugs and medicines for those who will be paying for them and another for medical card holders.

The result will be the imposition of enormous distribution cost upon the health authority in distributing drugs and medicines through the retail chemists. The health authority will distribute their drugs and medicines from a central store to these retail outlets. At the same time, the same drugs and medicines will be distributed by the wholesale chemists and manufacturers in the private sector to the very same chemists. Why on earth must we impose on this nation such a daft scheme? Why must we have two systems for the distribution of the same drugs and medicines through the same door into the same store? Why must we impose upon a chemist the obligation that, if he has a prescription for Mrs. A with a blue card, he must fill it from a store on the left, while, if he has a prescription for Mrs. B, who is paying for her medicine, he must fill it from a store on the right? This scheme will result only in increased costings. Let there be no doubt about that. It is the craziest scheme and I earnestly hope it is not proposed to go ahead with it.

I know the justification for it is fear on the part of the bureaeucrats that, if they do not control the issue from the central store, the whole pharmaceutical profession will run riot and charge outrageous prices and the costings will be very much greater. It is quite within the competence of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take the necessary steps to control the price of medicines. In fact, they ought to be doing more about it at the moment than they are. Whatever savings may be effected by having a central depot will be completely wiped out by the additional cost of redistribution to the various retail outlets. That should be quite apparent. Everybody is entitled to protection in relation to the cost of drugs and medicines and the Government have a clear duty to take whatever active steps are necessary to control excessive profits. The Government have been failing in their duty in recent times in this regard.

The cure is not two separate stores with two separate groups of medicines and drugs; the cure is to distribute these medicines and drugs through the traditional channels, through the private sector, if you like, the Government keeping a careful watch to ensure excessive profits are not made. In such a scheme the cost of distribution would be infinitely less and the service to the public very much better. Remember, at the moment dispensers are unable to get the proper drugs and medicines rapidly from a central depot. The private chemist will certainly have to wait much longer and we could well look forward to an intolerable situation in which a chemist would be in a position to supply a particular drug from his private store for a patient not holding a blue card but would not be able to supply the same drug from his public store to the holder of a blue card. One can imagine the situation that would arise if the chemist took the drug out of his private store and gave it to a person on the public health list. I pity the poor chemist. He might be lucky enough not to be struck off the list but he would certainly be punished to the extent of never being paid. Let us not have this Gilbertian situation, which we most certainly will have if we proceed with the Government's frustrating proposals.

Unfortunately, another drawback under our existing services is that people who need surgical equipment, such as braces and corsets, prescribed for them, have to wait for an inordinate length of time for delivery if they are medical card holders, but if they are paying for these things themselves, they can get them as quickly as they can be made or provided. That is unforgivable. It is true to say there are many medical card holders confined to bed for weeks on end for no reason other than that the brace or the corset prescribed for them is not produced quickly enough by the health authority. Indeed, there are many people in hospitals, being paid for out of the public purse at a cost of £15 to £20 a week, who would be out of that institution and leading a normal life if we had not these impossible delays in the public sector of our health services.

I have on more than one occasion been obliged to call the Minister's attention to particular cases which came to my notice. I acknowledge that the Minister's intervention did speed up delivery, but it should not be necessary for people to go crawthumping to a politician or to send their relatives down to a politician in order to get a necessary service of that kind. If the providers of these are in a position to give them to people in the private sector, I am quite confident they are also in a position to give them to people on whose behalf requests are made by the health authority. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that the delays in the provision of equipment of this kind are primarily on the part of the health authority and not on the part of the manufacturers and suppliers. It therefore behoves the people concerned to expedite the system they have for processing applications of that kind. We can only hope and trust we will see an improvement in the coming year.

In the dental service we have little better than chaos. We have in the public dental service no more than one-third the number of dentists we need. I was glad to hear the Minister say that negotiations have been completed between his Department and the Irish Dental Association and that, as a result, it is hoped to attract more people into the dental service. They are certainly very badly needed. They will have a huge backlog of work to make up. Recently 20 vacancies in the service were advertised, but only four candidates offered themselves for these vacancies. Of those four, two were already in the dental service. Two of them were simply looking for transfer to a better position. Therefore, for the 20 vacancies advertised, there were only two applicants. That is an appalling situation and it is regrettable in the extreme that the Department should have allowed it to develop. We can only hope that in relation to the dental service or any other medical service the same situation will not be allowed to develop in the future.

This was not a sudden development. This was something developing over the years. It was common knowledge that the dental service for school-children in some areas was simply non-existent. Any parents with any concern for a child could not endure the anguish of a child waiting for an extraction by the public dental service. Instead, they paid for it themselves, and in many cases they could not afford to do so. We can only hope, with tremendous anxiety, that the dental service will vastly improve and that the new rates proposed will attract the necessary number of people into the service.

In Dublin at present we have another appalling situation as a result of the delays which occur in the extraction of tonsils. There is a large number of children recommended for tonsillectomy over a year ago, and in some cases over 18 months ago, who have not yet had their tonsils taken out, who are still on the waiting list. In the meantime, their physical development is hampered and their health endangered by constant colds and the threat of infection which they should not have to endure. Again, I would urge the authorities to take the necessary steps to see that this outrageous situation is not tolerated any longer.

We have in Dublin the situation in which one children's hospital, a most excellent children's hospital, had to refuse admission to some 350 children last year. We have other children's hospitals in Dublin, specialising, perhaps, in particular fields, which have not sufficient children available to keep them operating economically. The result is that some of them are keeping children in hospital for a longer time than they advisably should be there. One can always argue that a person is medically better off in hospital, but there are problems in relation to children other than the repair of a particular limb. There is the problem of home environment and so on. I would ask the Minister to have a look at the situation and satisfy himself that the welfare of the child is paramount, and that if it is necessary to change the character of the activities in some of the children's hospitals, the necessary steps to do so will be taken. A bit of goodwill on the part of the Department and enlightened administration could bring about the necessary improvements. By and large, the country is not doing enough for children in the provision of hospitals. There are some cases in which children of very tender years are put into wards for elderly people. This is not desirable, particularly where children may be in hospital for a long period. We would hope that every possible effort will be made to deal with this increasing problem.

I am sorry the Minister had not more information on what is to be done for the mentally handicapped. The Report appeared in 1965, and we need to do a great deal more than has been done in the intervening years. One of the things that irritate me in the Minister's statement today and the statements made by the Department from time to time is that they do not tell the full story. It would be much better for our society to understand the enormity of the problem facing it. The Minister mentioned that 3,400 beds are now available for the mentally handicapped. He did not say the Report states there is a need for 7,000. I know that it is in the Report and that any person with even a passing acquaintance with the problem knows that. However, the Report stresses that that is a conservative estimate. It would be much better when dealing with the Health Estimates to have the full picture before us so that we will see how far away we are from achieving the target.

There is also need for better provision for the mentally handicapped in the teenage and adult groups. We are not doing nearly enough there. At present there are about 1,200 on the waiting list for accommodation. Of that number, 200 are, I think, severely handicapped, 200 moderately handicapped and the remainder are mildly handicapped. One can understand the financial problem; one can understand the anxiety of people to help and their concern that there is not more money available; but there are few problems more urgent and which command more public sympathy than the problem of providing relief for the mentally handicapped. One is anxious to see an even greater drive in relation to this problem. I am glad the Minister paid tribute to the voluntary organisations and religious orders who are dealing with all medical problems but in the field of the mentally handicapped without the assistance of the voluntary organisation and religious orders, I fear nothing would have been done. They were the trigger factor in making our society and the community aware of this problem. We can only hope there will be an improved pace of assistance for these people in this highly-commendable work.

There are those who are always pricing everything by its cash benefits and to those I would say that the cost of providing a proper service for mentally handicapped is such that every £1 invested will yield hundreds of pounds of profit because if you can make out of a child, who would otherwise be a burden on society, a reasonably useful child and make that child reasonably fit, you will save society the burden of supporting that child as a teenager and an adult for decades afterwards. This is one of the fields in which an examination of the cost benefit would justify a much greater investment than we are making at present.

On that score I should like to say a word touching on the Department of Justice. At present it is not uncommon for mentally handicapped children to get into trouble. They are the easiest victims of the tempter, be he mortal or devil. It is extremely sad to see children who are so afflicted being remanded to places of punishment, to penal institutions, when their only prospect of reform, the only prospect of saving them from further temptation and further trouble, is to have the right kind of treatment. I am not saying that there is no treatment available in institutions to which the children who have strayed from the "straight and narrow" go, but there is not the right kind of atmosphere and there is essentially the complexion of a penal institution in those places no matter what psychiatric care or skill or kindness is bestowed on them. It would be better, I think, to have these children catered for in an atmosphere which would be separate from that of penal institutions.

It is also desirable that we should have a single statutory authority to deal with the mentally handicapped. This is something which we in Fine Gael dealt with at some length in our Programme for a Just Society. There are so many bodies dealing with this problem at present that it is difficult to see how efficient or inefficient they may be but each of these voluntary organisations or religious orders or other authorities dealing with this problem is at present obliged to consult with the Department of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Justice and with many other bodies in order to have some of their principal needs considered and approved. That is bad. There is too much work for people concerned with the mentally handicapped to do in immediately looking after the mentally handicapped without imposing upon them the long, time-consuming procedure of consultation with innumerable State Departments and other authorities. The burden of consultation, the length of time involved in putting an idea into practice would be considerably reduced if we had a single statutory authority. I earnestly hope that the Minister will see the Fine Gael viewpoint in relation to this and that we shall have such an authority in the not too distant future.

In regard to mentally handicapped people, as in regard to others, we must not consider that the duty of society is discharged in the provision of institutional treatment and care. We must have a vastly improved scheme of domiciliary care, of after-care and of placement services. These things are not, because of the demands being made by people other than the mentally handicapped, adequately attended to at present. A great deal more must be done about this. Likewise, we must have greater recognition on the part of the Department of Education of the need to provide full school services, full educational facilities for the mentally handicapped. I think the goal which was recommended in the Report was that by 1975 there should be full educational facilities available for one per cent of the school-going population, because that is estimated to be the number who can be regarded as mentally handicapped. When one thinks how little we are providing in that regard, one sees there is a great deal more to do.

The provision of transport for mentally handicapped children from their homes to the various schools is something which may well come under the Department of Education but it can also be argued that it comes under the Department of Health. This is one of the many services which require consultation with at least two, if not more, Government Departments before assistance is provided in relation to it. But there is transport needed for other people as well, for those attending remedial clinics and rehabilitation centres and I should like to see the same assistance provided by the State in relation to this. A small effort is being made to provide proper educational facilities for the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped but one of the greatest burdens which organisations concerned with these problems have to face is the burden of providing transport. I think it costs something between £1,000 and £1,200 a year to run a mini-bus to bring children to and from day schools. It is quite clearly to the advantage of the child to be preserved in a home environment and it is much cheaper in the long run to have the child so maintained and attend day clinics and day schools rather than have the child maintained in an institution. I would earnestly hope that we will have a new and courageous approach to the problem of the provision of transport for children either mentally or physically handicapped.

We are all glad to see that the Central Remedial Clinic which has done immense work in the past 15 years will move, in the not too distant future, to a new centre which it badly needs on the north side of the city but I hope that the existing centre on the south side of the city will not be closed down. When one considers how small is the work of the Remedial Clinic in relation to what needs to be done, there is an immediate conviction that we need, not one but several remedial clinics. It may be difficult for the existing organisation out of its own resources to maintain two institutions and therefore I would urge the Minister to consider coming to its aid, by ensuring that the two clinics operate because it would be a tragedy if one had to close down. The clinic in question is old. People have certainly achieved miracles in adapting such an old building to serve the tremendous needs of rehabilitation but it is there and it is a most useful institution. Its closing down would not be justified simply because there is to be a specially built institution on the north side of the city.

If we are to consider merely the transport factor, then we must admit that the transport problem in Dublin is colossal at present. It involves a lot of time daily to transport people attending clinics from one end of the city to the other. However, the problem will be almost insuperable in another ten years. No matter what our planners and engineers bring into operation and no matter what effort may be made by the Government and by others to distribute our population more evenly around the country, I suppose Dublin will still continue to grow. As Dublin continues to grow, and as our traffic problem becomes greater, the problem of conveying people to and from clinics will also multiply. The cost of maintaining a second remedial clinic is so small in comparison with the immense personal and social benefits that would flow from it that the State should now commit itself to the preservation of these two institutions.

The Minister made reference to improvements in the position of nurses. I have no doubt some improvements have taken place but to what extent all hospitals have taken the steps necessary to bring about that improvement we are in some doubt. One aspect in relation to nurses which I think has not received as much sympathy and help from the Minister as it should have received is the efforts to have a pension scheme for nurses in voluntary hospitals. We now have a scheme applicable to nurses in public hospitals but the negotiations which have taken place in relation to the voluntary hospitals have indicated a certain resistance on the part of the Minister to giving due recognition to all the years of service which nurses have given. A proposal to limit recognition to only half the years of service is not good enough.

The number of nurses who ever arrive at pensionable age is small, probably something like 14 per cent, because most of them make very good wives and they are snatched out of the wards and off the beat at an early age. Those who are not, I think, deserve well of the community. It may be said that most of those who become eligible under the pension scheme did not contribute to it. Certainly, they did not contribute to it in the earlier years of their service but, in those earlier years, they had to work hours a great deal longer than nurses are now required to work or may be required to work in the future. I think that what they gave to our society is so great that society owes them a debt. The least we can do is to give all those nurses recognition of their full service.

Another bone of contention, too, is that the Minister will not give way in the matter of recognition to nurses in respect of their four years of training. Recognition in relation to training is already given, I think, in the case of psychiatric nurses on the ground that during their training they are providing a service, that they are assisting in the running of the health services by the provision of services of one kind or another to people in mental hospitals. Goodness knows, every student nurse is run off her feet. The whole hospital service would collapse if student nurses were not providing services. It was a cause of some concern to the Minister and to his predecessor that they were called upon to perform all kinds of herculean tasks which, in some cases, were beyond their physical capacity and certainly were not the kinds of services for which they had to be trained in order to become good nurses. On that account, it is not asking a whole lot to request that their years as student nurses should also be recognised for pension purposes. Some of these unfortunate girls are not only overworked during their student days but have to pay a fine fat fee for the honour of being overworked and of contributing to the wellbeing of the community in general. The Minister and his advisers, particularly the watchdogs in the Department of Finance, shudder at the idea of establishing a precedent. They do not have to do it here: all they have to do is to follow suit. If we give it to those concerned with psychiatric nursing, we should give it to the whole nursing profession.

I come now to the need to cater for old people. I was glad the Minister dealt at some length with this problem. The care of the old is a dual problem —social and medical. We have a very high proportion of our population in the older age group—I think, the highest in Europe. This imposes on us a very clear obligation to provide for these people. Provision for these people should not commence when they are already old. We should not be satisfied simply to relieve the problem when it already exists. A large number of people are already compelled to retire at 65 years of age and that number will increase. Considering the number of people who will be required to retire at 65 or perhaps even 60 years of age in future society, we should prepare people for retirement. How many people do we not all know as individuals who were in fine health, physically and mentally, until they retired and then, within a matter of months, shrivelled up into the grave, as it were? In a matter of months or in a couple of years, they disintegrated from being fine useful members of the community into shadows of their former selves. It is a tragedy. It should not happen in a modern society if that society geared itself to train people for retirement.

We need to pay special attention to this matter. I make a plea to those who will always concern themselves with the cost of everything, and who will bewail the cost of it, to consider how much our society would be relieved if our elderly people were capable of functioning and of leading a useful life and were capable of keeping out of institutions in which they cannot be and never will be happy but in which it is tremendously expensive to keep them. Instead of having a sudden and complete retirement of people in public services and elsewhere, we should consider a scheme of gradual retirement. Consider the position of a man who has gone out to work every morning for 40 or 45 years at 8 a.m. and has come home at 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening who suddenly finds himself, after that habit of 40 or 45 years, with nowhere to go, with nowhere to be usefully employed, with nothing to think about or to occupy his mind at a time when he needs to have it occupied in order not to be thinking of himself and the drawbacks and misfortunes of old age.

The Minister has dealt, quite rightly, with the provision of services of home care, nursing care and social care for elderly people and has properly stated that much of this can be better done by voluntary neighbourhood services than it could ever be done by the State because old people, above all, want to keep their self-respect. Any of the tragedies that we know of old people dying alone in recent times have arisen in the main out of people who were preoccupied with the preservation of self-respect and their own independence. Therefore, it behoves us as a society to consider in what way we can prepare people for old age, which we all hope we will reach one day.

We want to treat old age not as a period of decline, not as a period during which old people resent that they are becoming a burden on the community, but rather as a fruitful age in which people can benefit by the experience of their years and can assist young people in themselves learning for future generations. It is by so doing that we can make our greatest contribution to the care of the aged, by preparing everybody for the day when he or she will be required by law or by other processes to retire. This is challenging work and one that we are not doing enough about.

I do not want to detain the House very much longer. There are several other matters in the Minister's address to which I should like to refer but I have no doubt that people more capable than I will deal with them in the course of their remarks.

I would mention this point, however, that the Minister has referred to certain statistics. I urge upon him to do what his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, does: to send us the information in advance of the debate. It would be much more useful to have the vital statistics and the other information which the Minister has given in his explanatory memorandum a few days before the debate.

But he ought not to follow his example in anything else.

Not in anything else. If Deputy Tully does not want Deputy Childers held up as an example, good, bad or indifferent, might I also point out that the Minister for Finance prior to the Budget supplies us with the essential facts?

The Deputy's point is well taken and accepted.

I am grateful to the Minister for it. It will probably help because I certainly was not in a position to know who was dying from what, where and why, when I was given the explanatory memorandum at the same time as the Minister's address.

I hope and pray that the Minister will do far more in the next 12 months than he has done since taking office. We are not unaware of the embarrassing situation in which the Minister was put and in which he finds himself day after day but, if it is any consolation to him, he will have every support from this side of the House in trying to get through his health proposals. As far as we in Fine Gael are concerned, there is no problem more urgent than the problem of the health of our people or the relief of human pain or the relief of agony and the preservation of life. We are not satisfied that we are relieving sufficient people of the anxiety of illness.

We are convinced that there are many people who postpone getting medical treatment because of the fear of the cost or because they know they cannot afford the cost, and we are also satisfied that there are people who do not take their doctor's advice to go into hospital or who do not take their doctor's advice or the full course of treatment because they have not got the money. We know also that there are people who do not go for medical checks because of the fear of what the doctor may disclose to them. That is not a healthy society; that is not a just society. Therefore, we in Fine Gael will support any proposal which will tend to get away from that situation. We do not think the Minister is going far enough but we prefer to go that way of the road with him as far as he is prepared to go rather than stay as we are at the moment. The Minister may still consider that I am making sweeping generalisations when I say there is no advance but I say it again. It is a well-considered opinion. I do not think you are advancing when all you do is simply to comfort the person who is standing still.

The first thing I should like to do is, on behalf of the Labour Party, to welcome the new Minister. This is the first opportunity that I, at least, have got in public to wish him well in his new position and to pay tribute to the work done by the former Minister, Deputy O'Malley. I trust that Deputy Flanagan will follow in his footsteps and will complete the programme outlined by Deputy O'Malley in his speeches in the House and elsewhere.

It is with great regret that I find that the proposals in the White Paper which were so well put forward here by Deputy O'Malley seem as far away as ever. While, as the Minister has said, small improvements have taken place in the health services, we have not got within the past 12 months any change of any startling nature, notwithstanding the fanfare of trumpets with which the White Paper was introduced.

Like Deputy Ryan, I noted the Minister's comments in the new Irish Medical Times that there would be no increase as far as he could see beyond the 30 per cent class already covered. I wonder is this going back on a statement by the former Minister? I should like to quote paragraph 51, page 34, of the White Paper on The Health Services and their Further Development:

It is proposed to introduce legislation under which the Minister for Health would make regulations specifying the classes of persons entitled to participate in the service. Such a specification would fix different income limits for single persons, for married couples without dependants and for married couples with dependants, provision being made for a quite substantial increment in the limit for each child, having regard to the fact that hardship in meeting doctors' and chemists' bills is most likely to be met in large families. Certain outgoings, such as rent, would be deducted in applying the limits. Corresponding limits—probably by reference to rateable valuations— could be fixed for farmers. The "family income" concept which now governs the determination of eligibility would be modified so that only the means of the person concerned and his or her spouse would be taken into account. Recipients of non-contributory old age pensions, blind pensions and widows' pensions would be included among the classes specified as eligible.

How could all that be done? How could that extension of persons eligible for the medical card service be made without increasing the numbers eligible above the 30 per cent class already covered? I should like the Minister to explain that to me. Either this is wrong and will not be implemented or eligibility will have to be extended beyond the 30 per cent class. In my view, if paragraph 51 is implemented, 50 per cent of the people will be covered. That is my interpretation of it. I am simply seeking information. Either this paragraph is wrong and is now being repudiated or English does not mean what it appears to mean. You cannot improve the position and bring more people in without increasing the numbers unless there is some other provision to be brought in about which we know nothing.

I was surprised when I read the Minister's comments in the Irish Times. I quite understand that if what he said were true, he was right to say it. As Deputy Ryan said, it is a pity that we are not quite clear as to where we are going in connection with the health services. Even the public are being fooled, and they are anxiously awaiting an improvement.

So far as the Labour Party are concerned, we are very clear about what we want. I have said in this House repeatedly; I have said on television in a discussion at which the Minister was present, that what the Labour Party want is not an improvement. That is public knowledge. We want a free medical service covering all people without exception, similar to the medical services in Britain and those operating in Northern Ireland. We are going by comparison—that is all we can do—of population and we know from our examination what the cost will probably be. Knowing the amount spent in Northern Ireland in the past year, our estimate is that it will cost approximately £50 million a year to give and administer a free health service for all our people.

I have discussed this matter in detail on a television programme and I do not want to repeat the figures. The charge will amount to approximately 2/6d per worker. It must only be an estimate, of course, because it cannot be the same every year. It would amount to 2/6d for each worker and the employer would be called on to pay as well. This will only mean approximately £5 per year, even to self-employed people. To join the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme is a good thing and I have no quarrel with it but it will be much more expensive to join that Scheme, as you are advised to do, than to opt into a health scheme.

I would not give people the chance to join the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme; I would make it compulsory on all people in the State to enter the scheme. If they do not and they cannot provide medical services for themselves, then they must die through want of medical care. We should have it in the form of compulsory insurance for all people. That is the Labour Party policy. We will vote for any proposals the Minister may bring in the meantime to improve our present health services.

Having listened to Deputy Ryan speaking about 1953 and when the Health Act came in, I wonder has he read the debates in full. My recollection of the Fine Gael group in 1953 is that they were opposed to any limited improvements in the health services proposals. The Labour Party voted with the Government on that occasion and they were glad so to vote. We welcome any improvements that were in it, even the limited improvements that have been given or will be given in the future, so long as we feel it is to the advantage of the people. This turnabout by the Fine Gael Party is welcome.

It was pre-1953, and exactly the same words.

We are glad to know, and hear Deputy Ryan state, that Fine Gael are anxious to have a free health policy for all the people.

We said it in 1951.

The Deputy is saying it now anyway and I am not worried about what he said in 1951. We are very glad Fine Gael are prepared to do this. Up to now the main Opposition Party were against a free for all health service. I have Deputy T.F. O'Higgins' Fine Gael health policy in my bag, and that policy does not say that it would be free for all but for approximately 85 per cent.

It is available to all.

I can take it out of my bag and read it for the Deputy, if he wishes. That is the Fine Gael policy and opposite to that you have the Labour Party policy.

I should like to make the point that a man who would be excluded from the Fine Gael scheme, that is, in the higher income bracket, who is a taxpayer would have to contribute to whatever improvement would be proposed under the Fine Gael scheme. He as a ratepayer would also have to pay, so he should, in my opinion, have a right to be in the scheme the same as everybody else. That is the only honest way of handling the health scheme.

We must do away with the means test. This is the most odious part of the health services. To qualify for a medical card, you must make an open confession of your poverty. You must, within the hospitalisation scheme, publicly confess your inability to pay your way in order to get a reduction. These are things that should be impressed on people. Our health is our most important possession. We hear a lot of talk from the Minister for Labour about the number of days lost through strikes. Is the Minister aware— I am sure he is but certainly his officials are—that in 1956, 17 million days were lost through illness? If these people were well, they would have given 17 million days' work.

It can hardly be days.

I am afraid it may not be but I cannot check it just now. However, I take it to be 17 million man hours lost in 1956. I am speaking from a Tuairim book and I presume the facts were closely examined before they were published. I have no intention of going right through all the points we repeatedly have made over the years in connection with what the Labour Party would like done in the health services.

There are a few points of interest which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. All the health authorities are saying that in their particular county £17,000 was expected to keep the 1965-66 rates freeze in relation to the health services and they want to know whether that £17,000 will be forthcoming this year. Will there be any further increases for their areas? Due to a misunderstanding I was not here to hear the Minister's speech in full. However, I have read the written report of his speech and I must confess that I cannot quite follow whether any increases in health charges beyond the 1965-66 level will be made good to local authorities. We have been told by the city manager that in Waterford this year we shall fall short by £17,000. Are we to get that or not?

That at least is plain. That is a complete go-back on a promise made here in the House. I am disappointed and I am quite sure the country will be disappointed. Deputies on all sides interpreted statements made as having the effect that from 1965-66 health charges would not effect further increases in rates. If that is not so, it should have been made clear to us. If it is so, it will mean the Government will have to extract the additional money by way of taxation. If it is not so, the extra money will come from the rates which, to my mind, is the proper way because then it will be based on means in the same way as income tax.

I am not worried about extra health charges being charged on the rates but I am worried that statements made from time to time were gone back on quite soon after being made. How can we accept anything as being true or correct in the future if that is to be the trend? We were given a solemn assurance that after 1965-66 increased health charges would not be a charge on local rates. If that is not so, how can we trust future promises?

Another point I wish to stress may seem to be parochial, of a parish pump type. In his reference to mentally handicapped children, the Minister praised voluntary organisations and groups for the work they have been doing. The work such groups have done is reflected by the efforts of a voluntary organisation in Waterford who have undertaken expenses amounting to £9,000. Because of a transfer of control from the Department of Health to the Department of Education, the matter of recouping this organisation has become difficult. They have been told by the Department of Health that it is no longer their function, that it is now administered by the Department of Education. Must this group re-open the matter with the new Department, although they incurred their commitment because of an understanding with the Department of Health? It is not the way to encourage voluntary organisations to engage in work of this kind which is of such importance to the general health services.

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to. If he prefers not to give the details in the House, he might give them to me privately and I will look into them.

I will give them to the Minister.

May I say that the Deputy is never parochial? He is one of the few Deputies who never is.

I appreciate the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter I have raised. I wish to avail of this opportunity to pay a tribute to this group in Waterford who give so much of their time and money to help retarded children not only in their own areas but sometimes far afield. They deserve all the encouragement and admiration we are capable of extending.

Recently I put two Parliamentary Questions to the Minister who in reply indicated that he saw some value in them. One concerned the functions of dispensary medical officers and the Minister said he would consider if in future a provision should be put into the contracts of new doctors entering the health service. One of my questions asked if a dispensary medical officer was compelled to render medical assistance to a person having an accident outside that person's area. I do not suggest that doctors generally refuse to attend to accident cases because the victims do not hold medical cards issued in the doctors' areas. If the case in point is investigated fully, the doctor may have had a just reason for acting as he did.

The Department of Health have received complaints in connection with this from outside Dublin where a dispensary medical officer refused to attend to an accident victim on the basis that he was not the holder of a medical card in that area. That seems a wrong attitude. As a whole, the medical profession are conscious of their duties and obligations, and I submit that the question of whether a card applies to the area in which the accident occurred should never be a factor in deciding a doctor to refuse to attend to a person. Under present regulations the doctor is entitled so to refuse and I am glad the Minister has agreed to look into the matter with a view to altering it.

The next point I wish to make is in relation to ambulances. I am lucky enough never to have required conveyance by ambulance to hospital or to any other place but I am told that the type of ambulance being used in my area—I can speak only of the place I have knowledge of—is unsatisfactory by reason of its design. It stands right up and is a most uncomfortable mode of conveyance. I suggest that someone from the Department should do the journey in it from Waterford to Dublin. I have been told by perfectly impartial people that if you travel in one in your health, you will have to get out two or three times between Waterford and Dublin because your stomach will get sick from the swaying. In America, in Britain, in Europe, they employ excellent vehicles, low-slung, close to the ground. What appears to be standard throughout the country here is a desperate looking, high vehicle——

A Bedford truck.

——the designers of which should be forced to travel in it. I have been told by people who quite honestly give an impartial view that a nurse in her health had to stop the ambulance several times during the journey not because the patient got sick but because she got sick from the swaying. We talk about radio control and other sophisticated matters and fail to consider simple matters like the design of our ambulances. I trust the Minister will see to this. It would be much more comfortable to take patients by car on long journeys to hospital than in the type of ambulance which seems to be standard equipment as far as the county health services are concerned. These ambulances should be scrapped.

I have no intention of repeating the various points I made this time last year. In connection with the medical cards. I suggest to the Minister that whatever he proposes to do in this respect, one important part of our health services should be attended to, that is, the right of appeal from a manager's decision not to give a medical card. The manager can give a medical card to anyone he decides is in need of it. The manager delegates his powers to the secretary of the health authority who, in turn, delegates them to the home assistance officer. You then have the home assistance officer having the right to grant or refuse a medical card. Representations can be made by a Deputy, a member of a health authority or a member of a county council to the manager, but in practice, it is the report of the home assistance officer that will be accepted as to whether a person is entitled to a card.

That is a shocking state of affairs. If the Minister had the right to investigate and decide in cases of refusal, he would be kept busy for a time, but if he sent his inspector down and if the inspector found that the cards were being refused to some groups and given to others, in a very short time we would find that the system of distribution would be much fairer than at the moment. At present no one seems to know where to go to get redress and it is a shocking thing that home assistance officers, decent people in their own right, can decide whether or not a person or his family is entitled to medical cover. This is too serious a matter to be dealt with by people who are appointed for a completely different purpose.

I am glad the Minister decided to visit the various health authorities. More of that should be done by Ministers. Local authorities should be visited and their opinions and ideas obtained as often as possible. I regret I was unable to be present when the Minister visited my constituency. Looking over his speech, I have the feeling that the Minister, perhaps because of these visits, is having some reservations in connection with the question of the choice of doctor. I hope I am wrong. If the Minister will look at the reports of the Select Committee on Health, he will find that practically all the organisations giving evidence before that Committee stressed the choice of doctor as one of the most vital points.

It is true that there may be remote areas which a paid doctor such as a dispensary doctor will have to deal with, but where possible, a choice of doctor and, if possible, a choice of hospital, should be given to the people. Whatever people may say about the doctor-patient relationship, it is true that if somebody has a serious dispute with his local dispensary doctor, the position for both of them is most unenviable. A doctor might not want to attend a person with whom he had had such a dispute in case it might be suspected that he would not give that person proper attention because of the dispute. Choice of doctor is a most important matter.

I have no reservations in principle. I have reservations about the application of the scheme.

That is understandable. There are places in which it would not be possible to have a choice of doctor and to which you would probably have to draft somebody to service the people. Regarding the placing of old people in county homes and other such institutions, I agree that there are some people who must be put in these homes because they require day and night nursing and attention by qualified people. However, I am surprised that no Government have introduced some scheme of inducement to encourage sons and daughters to retain their old people at home. I know it is the duty of a son or daughter to keep the father and mother at home but it is a fact that thousands of old people have been sent to county homes because the family income is not sufficient to keep them at home. If some increased income were given to relatives or friends to keep the old people at home, then much of the overcrowding of our county homes would be avoided.

In our county homes we very frequently have people who, while they are able to get up and walk about, are unable to move beyond the ward in which they have been placed. There is no means of recreation provided in many of these homes and there is no way by which the authorities of these institutions can provide recreation by way of games or hobbies. It is deplorable to go into some of these institutions and see normal healthy people sitting and looking at one another. It is fortunate that most of the men take an interest in the sport of kings and read the papers. Otherwise, they would have nothing to do. Arrangements should be made for the provision of books, papers, games, television and radio. These would not cost much and they would lighten the burden of having to live in a county home.

I have no intention of continuing to speak indefinitely on this Estimate. I was not really prepared for the Estimate coming up so quickly. One of the things I should like to know is what is the Fine Gael attitude in connection with the distribution of drugs. Are they in favour of their being given out by pharmacists directly or——

I could not quite follow, because I was trying to work out the suggestion in regard to the Minister for Industry and Commerce imposing a price on the various drugs. I wonder can that be done as easily as suggested. There is such a variety.

By contract is a cheaper way of doing it.

I wonder, I have grave doubts. I certainly subscribe to the idea of a central body for drugs and buying such quantities as to get them as cheaply as possible and redistributing them to chemists throughout the country.

And having two stores?

Having two stores does not matter. There will have to be some control. It must be remembered that if we are to have a free-for-all health service, drugs will be the heaviest item of expenditure, and if it is left in hands over which there will be no control, beyond the normal control imposed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on prices, we know how effectively that can be overcome even where it is supposed to be in force. I do not believe that is the way to do it, but I am glad to get the view of the Fine Gael Party because it does give us an opportunity of having another look at the matter to see if there is something in the suggestion.

There is one thing I should like to suggest to the Minister as one of the failings of the health services that I have come across—again I am speaking from local knowledge—that is, that in our area the school inspections take place, at least, only once a year. Within the past few months, I have come across at least three cases of definite need for medical attention to school-going children that have occurred since the last school inspection. In these cases the people sought to get the child admitted for treatment under the Schools Act under which it would be free, but they were told that because this illness was not detected at the previous school examination, they now must wait until the next school examination and the authorities cannot indicate when it will take place.

In one case it is an eyesight defect; the eye is beginning to turn. That child was taken to the MOH who pointed out that under the law, he cannot do anything unless either he or his assistants find that defect at a school examination. MOHs should have the authority and, in fact, should be required, to issue a certificate as if that defect were found in the school. In another case it was the cramping of the fingers, a loss of grip in a child. Again when taken to a doctor, the same story was told: you cannot get treatment under the School Health Act because the defect was not discovered at a school inspection. The mother of the child has to wait for the next school inspection which may be in a week, a month, a year or maybe two years, because, as I understand it, while the aim is to visit once a year, it is practically impossible for the medical staff employed to complete all the schools in one year. I suggest the Minister should interest himself in this because if defects are allowed to continue in children while waiting for examination, the illness may become almost permanent and a much longer stay in hospital may be required to rehabilitate the child in respect of its infirmity.

I wish the Minister well in his position as Minister for Health. I hope he will speed up the introduction of all the improvements in the health services that are promised. I would suggest to him, as I have suggested in the House before, that, especially since responsibility for employment and unemployment are being transferred to the Minister for Labour, the Department of Social Welfare and Health are so allied that an amalgamation of the two Departments is seriously needed. In many countries in Europe Health and Social Welfare go together. Health and Local Government went together for a time in this country but I believe the day must come when Health and Social Welfare will be combined. Unless the health of people is improved and maintained, there will be a heavier drain on the Department of Social Welfare. It is almost impossible to run these two Departments without one creeping in on the other's activities, and it is desirable to associate the two. However, that is not the duty of the Minister but of the Government.

Whatever improvements the Minister can make in the health services he can be assured of the support of the Labour Party, irrespective of whether or not it will cost more money. We must give the best health services this country can provide, and the Labour Party will support the Minister in any such proposals he puts forward.

I should like to start by dealing with one of the last points made by Deputy Kyne, the outlook of the Fine Gael Party on the question of prescriptions. I am not absolutely certain that I speak fully the opinion of the Fine Gael Party but I can speak on behalf of chemists who have approached me on several occasions in relation to this matter.

Over the years quite a number of chemist shops have been forced to close down due to the encroachment of the State on the original purpose of this profession. Realising that they are one of the essentials or one of the ancillaries of the health services and the service of the public as a whole, it is necessary that they should be maintained in full production. Therefore the proposition is that they are prepared to supply drugs as cheaply and as efficiently as any existing ancillary to the dispensaries, hospitals, or health services as a whole, in that to a large extent they would waive a lot of their profit, provided they were allowed a standard prescription fee. I do not know if the House is aware that the major profits enjoyed by chemists in bygone days derived mainly from prescriptions. Those were the days in which doctors took pen and paper and wrote out a prescription — a tincture, an infusion, or whatever it might be—and the chemist got a definite fee for filling the prescription and a definite profit out of it.

To a large extent, those days are gone because proprietary medicines are now prescribed and chemists have not the same measure of profit. They find themselves, too, up against ever-increasing charges, such as rates, wages, and so on. As a body, they feel they may eventually find themselves forced out of business unless they are embodied in the new State scheme. For that reason, I suggest to the Minister that he should hold consultations with the chemists, if he has not done so already. He will find on looking at the statistics that the majority of the chemists who have closed down were those in his part of the country. The falling population may have had something to do with it, but the other element is also in it.

I believe the chemists could produce an efficient service. They could save doctors a great deal of wasted time mixing bottles, and that kind of thing, and they would also save the employment of pharmacists and dispensers in hospitals. All these constitute an extra charge on the health services. These functions could be carried out quite economically by chemists. I do not know if the House is aware that the percentage of profit where chemists are concerned is rather high. It has to be because there is a great deal of waste. Very often a doctor prescribes a particular medicine. The chemist lays in a supply. The doctor then finds the medicine is not as good as he thought it was and he prescribes something else. The chemist has unsold stocks on hands and he must, therefore, have a high percentage of profit. If chemists were embodied in the service, they could give a really excellent service, satisfactory from every point of view. I ask the Minister now to consider this aspect and, if he has not already met the chemists, to meet them as soon as possible.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister. He is at the moment the junior Minister and in any cheese-paring that is going on, he will probably be cut more than any other Minister. As well as that, he inherited from his predecessor, the present Minister for Education, what can only be described as a declaration of intent in relation to health services. There have been many declarations of intent in the past in which the public were promised everything, but they have not always turned out as anticipated.

The Minister finds himself now with greatly increased charges. That is the first difficulty he has to face. He also finds himself faced with the statement in the White Paper issued in January 1966 that the Central Government were going to alleviate the burden on the rates. That does not now appear to be the case. I have not got all the statistics before me but I think Kilkenny is about the only county not faced with an increased charge. Everyone is, of course, interested in his own constituency and I have here a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Health sent to me the other day by Wexford County Council pointing out that Wexford was £58,000 short of the money they expected to get for the purpose of stabilising their health charges. The result is they have already had to put an additional 3/5d in the £ on the ratepayers. They now find they must put another 2/8½d in the £ on the unfortunate ratepayers, of whom I am one. Perhaps I will be able to carry the burden more easily than some but, at the same time, I carry it with difficulty. I would carry the burden willingly and gladly if I thought the money was being spent to the best advantage on health services.

I want to make a few suggestions to the Minister. It is no use being destructive but, when dealing with health services, one is inclined to get into a destructive humour because of all the messing about with health services over the past 15 or 20 years. One feels like saying harsh things, but I want to help the new Minister as much as possible and give him some idea of how he can save money. The health services are growing all the time. The reason for the high expenditure given by the Minister is alleged to be overhead costs. Nobody will gainsay that; it is perfectly true. The costs are increasing all the time. Here, I should like to say that the nurses, who carry the burden of the work, are very badly paid. Although the overall costs are rising, they have been kept to the level at which they are mainly because we are underpaying our nurses. I have always thought that. I have said it on every Estimate in this House and I repeat it now.

With regard to saving money, it costs approximately £25 a week today to keep a patient in hospital in a public ward. Ten years ago, it cost seven to eight guineas. The health services are so constituted that, if a person in the middle income group goes into hospital, he gets all the treatment free except for a payment of 10/- per day. If he attends the outpatient department and is then sent back to his own doctor, he must pay the full cost himself. Now, if I have an ailment—a rheumatic hip, or something requiring regular medical treatment—naturally, if I belong to the middle income group, I will get myself sent into hospital and I will stay in hospital, if I can, because it will cost me only 10/- per day and I will have all the services at my disposal. I will cost the State £25 per week.

Remembering that, it seems to me the health services are not really administered to the benefit of the public as a whole. A man in hospital for six weeks costs the State or the local authority, whoever it is, a sizeable sum. There are literally hundreds of patients in hospital today who could be treated quite satisfactorily as out-patients. Very little money is being spent on outpatient departments. I do not know exactly how it works, but most of the capital expenditure is operated through the Hospitals Trust. The greater portion of our money is spent on putting wings with extra beds on to our hospitals. In spite of the fact that we are building and building all the time and providing extra wards, we are still not able to keep pace with the demand for patient accommodation of all types.

That is due to what I have just said. It is in the interests of the average person to go into hospital. It is also in the interests of the doctor to send him there. If they have them at home, they probably will not be paid for the treatment because people, with all the commitments they have today, are not able to meet the doctor's bill. I suggest to the Minister, as a new Minister for Health, that he take an entirely new look at the situation and, as far as lies in his power, develop outpatient departments. I was recently in the outpatient department of a Dublin eye hospital. I had to wait there with somebody over an hour. What struck me immediately was the inadequate accommodation. Four or five doctors were waiting to get their patients into a darkroom. What often occurs in such cases is that the doctor says: "I will put you into hospital and see what happens later." That is another £25 out of the charge on the health services. I would ask the Minister to look at that. If he swings over from hospitalisation to outpatient work, there will be a considerable reduction in expenditure; but, as against that, we will have to bear in mind there will have to be an incentive for the patient to stay out of hospital. You will have to have some form of medical service, at domiciliary or general practitioner level, to encourage him to do that.

It is a question of what we are going to do for the future in respect of health services for the middle-income group, which comprises professional people, shopkeepers and smallish farmers. One theory, coming largely from the Labour Party, is there should be a free for all medical service for everybody, that the State is responsible for that. I cannot subscribe to that view. In the nation beside us, before they got into their present financial difficulties, the late Aneurin Bevan introduced a free for all health service. In the end they had to put a charge on prescriptions to try to put a ceiling on it. It went to astronomical heights and they had to put on extra charges to try to control it. It is inconceivable that we could ever hope to do anything like that. I have no doubt the Labour Party feel that this would give a better service, but I feel it is not a practical proposition and cannot be considered. That brings me back to what we can do, to the free choice of doctor and to the dispensary service.

I am one of those people who has always considered that, by and large, the dispensary service has worked pretty well. In the White Paper, even the Minister's predecessor admitted that. There is an old proverb which says you should not throw out the dirty water before you have the clean. If we are going to disrupt the dispensary services here, we are going to take away the foundation of private practice among the so-called indigent classes and the middle-income group. There is a most unsatisfactory situation at the moment in relation to dispensaries becoming vacant. There is some sort of futile scheme whereby medical officers are appointed on a temporary long-term basis. This means that no doctor knows if he has any future, if he has pension rights, whether he is going to stay in a place or be told in a few years time that the system is changed and he is no longer wanted.

When speaking on this Estimate a year ago, I suggested to the then Minister for Health that he might wind up by having a lot of High Court actions in regard to existing dispensary doctors who had been there for years and who had the ground cut from under them suddenly and their jobs removed. They had pension rights and they had the right to security. Some of them had specifically gone to a particular area because they believed there was a considerable living there for one medical officer only. Therefore, I would ask the Minister, who is obviously studying the question, to consider seriously whether the dispensary system should go or not.

This brings me to the free choice of doctor. Being a doctor myself, but not in practice at the moment, I know a free choice of doctor is a most desirable thing from the point of view of the patient and also from the point of view of the doctor himself. There are, of course, many instances in which you cannot get a free choice of doctor. You also have to consider whether a really free choice of doctor is feasible outside certain areas. If I were Minister for Health, I would try to implement a scheme for free choice of doctor, but I would do it in a very limited way. I would start in the bigger centres and see whether it was successful or not. If you had a free choice of doctor in the city of Dublin—one of the obvious places—and in Cork, Limerick and perhaps Waterford, that would probably finish you to start with.

If you have a free choice of doctor, you are going to cause a good deal of disorganisation among the medical profession. The medical profession is, after all, a business concern. There are quite a number of doctors in Dublin who, I learned to my surprise, have built up practices, employing assistants, and have built up these practices at a loss so as finally to get established. With some new system established whereby you have a free choice of doctor, I assume you are going to have some new financial situation. Therefore, you are going to disrupt these existing practices. I am not an expert on Dublin but I believe many of these practices have been established in what are known as the newly built up areas. If the Minister is going to institute a free choice of doctor system, it is not something you can do by a glib phrase or a wave of a wand. You have to be practical in every approach. You have to consider in advance how you are going to pay the doctors and, most important point of all, how you are going to maintain the private relationship between patient and doctor.

I practised years ago in England under what was known as the Lloyd George system of capitation fees. I found that was not a satisfactory system in that it did not maintain the personal relationship between the doctor and the patient. The patient felt he was not getting a fair crack of the whip or felt he should get everything you could possibly offer. I remember, in my youthful enthusiasm, explaining at length to a patient how he should do exercises for his flat feet I spent a long time at it, even though 40 or 50 patients were waiting outside. Then he said to me: "Can I have a bottle, doctor?" That exemplifies the relationship that now exists. The patient feels that he is entitled to a bottle and should have it out of the doctor.

The doctor is trying to do his job on the capitation system but is not getting the same patient-doctor relationship as one wants to maintain at all costs. If we cannot do that, we will not get the most satisfactory service for doctor and patient. For that reason, I suggest that the Minister, in the ordinary general practitioner service, should first concentrate on the big centres. Secondly, he should endeavour to preserve this relationship by having, as so many other countries have, an insurance system. There is no reason why such an insurance system should not cover the entire range of those who go to doctors, whether they are entirely dependent on the State, or able to pay a portion themselves or able to pay nothing.

That system exists in many other countries but somehow here when we get down to medical matters, we find we must hand everything over to the Custom House which, no doubt, is full of devoted people doing the best they can but they cannot preserve the doctor-patient relationship. They are part of an official organisation and there can be no give and take. Therefore, I suggest that the Minister consider the insurance basis and further that he should leave the ratio of income as it stands. We have the people who can afford to pay nothing, and I shall have something to say about these in a few minutes. We have those who cannot pay and are entitled to medical cards. We have the middle income people, those with incomes up to £800 a year or farmers up to £60 valuation. We then have the higher income group.

I suggest that a satisfactory domiciliary service could be provided through a non-profit insurance company on the basis of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme which is excellent so far as it goes. It has its defects and it cannot cover everybody, old people or mental cases, according to its rules and constitution. But the State could pay the entire fee for the lower income group and those with medical cards; it could make a contribution for middle-income patients and the higher income group could pay the full amount themselves. Such a scheme should be compulsory. I do not like the word "compulsory" but otherwise people would opt out and the scheme would not be economically successful unless you had the entire community in it.

I am very interested but what I am not clear about is how the insurance system would improve the doctor-patient relationship.

I shall deal with that before leaving the subject and reassure the Minister and the Custom House that everything will be right in that connection. The question of administration of the system really takes us back to the doctor-patient relationship. This is no innovation. As the system exists in other countries, the patient goes to the doctor and pays the doctor himself. In certain cases there would be an arrangement, I suppose. If the person is not able to pay, the fee is recouped from the insurance company. I consult my doctor who prescribes and charges a fee which I pay. I get a receipt which I pass to the insurance company. We still retain the doctor-patient relationship. The county manager or his officials or the Custom House are not involved. It is purely between doctor and patient.

The Minister may say—or his officials will, quickly enough—that if we are helping to administer a service like this, we must have control over it. In the administration of State funds, as the system has grown up here, it seems that we must always spend sixpence to save a penny and make sure that the books are in order.

There is a lot of truth in it, even though it is funny.

As a safeguard, there would have to be a board in control and not a board of political hacks, a good board of people who know what they are talking about. That is our main trouble—in the case of every State or semi-state body we must have a board consisting of people who know nothing about anything. It should be a board of doctors and those ancillary to the profession, chemists and perhaps mental nurses, representatives of the nursing board and people who understand these matters. They would make sure that if the State is contributing it would be safeguarded. I would agree to have on that board, even as chairman, a civil servant, so that the board would ensure the funds were properly administered. That would cut out any amount of expense in administration. Our trouble to-day is the extraordinary expense regarding everything connected with medicine.

In 1953 when the Health Act—which I did not believe in and do not believe in now; I think it is a failure and the price we are paying for it is proof of that—was introduced, I remember the then Minister for Health, Dr. Ryan, telling us that the only extra charge on the local rates would be 2/-. I think the figure for health services in those days was about £8 million or £9 million. Today they are costing £21 million from the Exchequer. I challenge anybody to say we are getting good value for the money being spent.

I have tried to show the Minister the benefits of the economy drive I am making on his behalf and on behalf of his officials—and perhaps I shall continue after Questions—to ensure that the money is directed towards the right purpose and that the right people get it.

A distinguished Senator speaking in the Seanad last year was greatly criticised by the Minister's predecessor. He was Senator Alton, who, I think, made a magnificent speech. I did not hear it but I read it. He pointed out that of the £31 million spent on health about a year ago, £1 million was going to the medical profession. It may be very popular to say here that doctors get too much, that they are grinding the people, but they are the people who administer the scheme, and unless they are properly financed, you will not get their services, just as if the nurses are not properly paid and on a par with their colleagues in other countries, we shall lose the best of them as we have been losing them for years to America and Britain and other parts of the world.

I have given the Minister a little food for thought and perhaps when he comes back after lunch in good form, I shall give him a few more.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share