|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 29 Samhain, 1973.Thursday, 29th November, 1973.The Committee met at 11 a.m.
Mr. S. Mac Gearailt (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.Mr. M. Jacob called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 25—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.Mr. J. S. Martin called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 42—POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS.Mr. P. L. Ó Colmáin called and examined.716. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead 1. —Losses—what are these for? —It relates mainly to losses in the post for which we have to pay compensation. To a limited amount? —Yes, within a limit. 717. Chairman.—Paragraph 93 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead K.—Commissions and Special Inquiries The charge to the subhead, £25,705, is for expenses incurred in the year arising out of the judicial tribunal set up to inquire into the RTE programme on moneylending. Including £3,715 in the previous year the expenditure, as shown in a note to the account, amounted to £29,420 at 31 March 1971.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The charge against voted moneys arising out of the judicial tribunal to inquire into the RTE programme on moneylending amounted to £29,420 at 31st March, 1971. I understand that a further sum amounting to £2,303 has been charged in 1972-73 making the total £31,723 including £24,438 in respect of counsel’s fees and £4,918 for stenographer’s fees. 718. Chairman.—Paragraph 94 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Stores A test examination of the store accounts was carried out with satisfactory results. In addition to the engineering stores shown in Appendix II as valued at £3,283,949 on 31st March, 1971 engineering stores to the value of £32,035 were held on behalf of other government departments. Stores other than engineering stores were valued at £525,052 including £137,720 in respect of stores held for other government departments. Including works in progress on 31st March, 1971 the expenditure on manufacturing jobs in the factory during the year amounted to £62,880, expenditure on repair work (other than repairs to mechanical transport) to £176,018 and expenditure on mechanical transport repairs to £26,800.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Section 4 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1921, as adapted, requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit on behalf of Dáil Éireann stock and store accounts kept by Government Departments on the direction of the Minister for Finance and to report the result of this audit to Dáil Éireann. The purpose of this audit is to ascertain that adequate regulations have been made for control and stocktaking and that these regulations are duly enforced. This paragraph reports to Dáil Éireann that the store accounts kept by the Department of Post and Telegraphs were duly audited by my office in the year 1970-71 as required by statute and that adequate regulations for control, et cetera, are being enforced. The paragraph also gives the value of engineering and other stores on hands at 31st March, 1971, including stores held on behalf of other Departments. 719. Chairman.—In view of current shortages, is your stores situation satisfactory? Have you the stores you require? —It is not entirely satisfactory at the moment. We are short a certain number of engineering stores but we expect that position to come right. This is due to accelerated demands but we expect the position to right itself within the next six weeks or so. 720. Deputy Bermingham.—Is there a shortage of such things as uniforms for postmen? —No, not that I am aware of. 721. Chairman.—Paragraph 95 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Revenue A test examination of the accounts of postal, telegraph and telephone services was carried out with satisfactory results. The net yield of revenue for the years 1970-71 and 1969-70 is shown in the following statement:—
£29,850,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £853,760 at 31st March, 1971 as compared with £814,710 at the end of the previous financial year. Sums amounting to £4,687 due for telephone services provided in previous years were written off during the year as irrecoverable.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Section 2 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1921, as adapted, requires that all accounts of revenue and other moneys payable into the Exchequer shall be examined on behalf of Dáil Éireann by the Comptroller and Auditor General in order to ascertain that adequate regulations and procedure have been framed to secure an effective check on the assessment, collection and proper allocation of revenue and to satisfy himself that such regulations and procedure are being carried out. This paragraph reports to Dáil Éireann that accounts of the revenue from Post Office services have been examined with satisfactory results. The paragraph also gives the net yield of revenue from each of the three services in the year under review together with comparative figures for 1969-70. 722. Chairman.—Paragraph 96 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Postal, Telephone and Telex Revenue It was observed in the course of audit that moneys for Post Office services were owed by a group of companies which went into liquidation in November 1970 and I have inquired from the Accounting Officer regarding the matter.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Paragraph 16 of this report draws attention to the fact that moneys were due to the Revenue Commissioners by a group of companies which went into liquidation in November, 1970. The amount due to the Revenue Commissioners was £434,745 and the Committee will recall that this matter was discussed with the Accounting Officer for Vote 7—Office of the Revenue Commissioners, last July. Paragraph 96 deals with moneys owed by the same group of companies for Post Office services. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the amount due in respect of these services is £72,568 and that claims have been made on the liquidator for the full amount. I understand that the liquidation proceedings are not yet complete. 723. Chairman.—Paragraph 97 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer Post Office moneys were paid into a special deposit account in the Central Bank during the bank dispute in 1970. Interest amounting to £41,468 was received and has been brought to account as an exchequer extra receipt.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—The Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer, £41,468, was the interest earned on a deposit account opened in the Central Bank by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs during the bank dispute in 1970. Normally these moneys are paid into an account in the Bank of Ireland but because of the dispute it was not possible to lodge them in that account. 724. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Have the Post Office reverted to the old system of lodging with the Bank of Ireland? —We lodge to the Exchequer, yes. This was purely a temporary arrangement. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out, the interest received was transferred to the Exchequer when the strike ended. It was brought into the finance accounts. 725. Chairman.—Paragraph 98 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Post Office Savings Bank The accounts of the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ended 31st December, 1970 were submitted to a test examination with satisfactory results. The balance due to depositors, inclusive of interest, amounted to £173,323,964 (including £33,900,981 in respect of liability to Trustee Savings Banks) on 31st December, 1970 as compared with £147,761,301 at the close of the previous year. Interest accrued during the year on securities standing to the credit of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund amounted to £11,590,741. Of this sum £6,599,072 was applied as interest paid and credited to depositors, management expenses absorbed £594,067 and the balance, £4,397,602, remained as a provision against depreciation in the value of securities.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph gives information on the operations of the Post Office Savings Bank in the year 1970 with comparative figures for the previous year. The sizeable increase in the balance due to depositors (£25.6 million approximately) was due mainly to the dispute in the commercial banks which lasted from April to November, 1970. 726. Chairman.—That concludes the Vote and the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Savings Bank accounts have been circulated to members. Thank you, Mr. Ó Colmáin. The witness withdrew. VOTE 47—SOCIAL WELFARE.Mr. F. A. Hynes called and examined.727. Chairman.—The comments by the Comptroller and Auditor General are at page xxxvi. In this case I think we will take his comments first. Paragraph 105 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead E—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952 Payments from this subhead to the Social Insurance Fund in the year under review amounted to £20,137,000. These payments are subject to adjustment when the audited accounts of the Fund are available.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with the Vote contribution to the Social Insurance Fund. The adjusted contribution for 1970-71 based on the audited accounts of the fund for that year is £20,638,753. Allowing for an overdraft of £50,315 from voted moneys at 31st March, 1970, the payment of £20,137,000 made in the year under review represents an under-draw of £451,438 which fell to be adjusted in subsequent accounts. 728. Deputy Bermingham.—Does that mean that that amount of money was actually due to the fund? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—Sufficient was paid out. There is a running balance from year to year. The Department will not know what exact contribution is required by the fund until the accounts are audited. Sometimes there is an overdraw, as happened in March, 1970. They got too much money. This year they got too little. 729. Chairman.—Paragraph 106 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead M—Miscellaneous Allowances The charge to the subhead, £119,912, represents old age care allowances for non-pensioners and deserted wives’ allowances which became payable as from 1st October, 1970, under the Social Welfare Act, 1970.” Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with allowances which became payable for the first time in the year under review. The charge to the subhead £119,912 comprises £118,871 paid in respect of deserted wives’ allowances and £1,041 for old age care allowances. 730. Deputy H. Gibbons.—What exactly is the £1,041 for old age care allowances? Is it the dependant relative supplementary allowance? —No. It is an allowance payable to an incapacitated person aged 70 or over, who is receiving full time care and attention from a prescribed relative who resides with him. The dependant relative allowance is somewhat similar. 731. People who are not actually pensioners? —It could be. There is a means test. 732. Deputy Bermingham.—It would be hard to see a person who did not qualify for a pension getting this allowance? —People who cannot qualify for a pension because their means are somewhat over the limit. This allowance is specially for them. 733. If they were over the limit they would still qualify? What is the limit? —It is hard to keep the details of these things. Old age (care) allowance applies only to incapacitated persons who are not already in receipt of a pension from the Department. Incapacitated persons already in receipt of non-contributory old age or blind pension, a contributory old age or, being aged 70 or over, a retirement pension, an invalidity pension or a contributory widow’s pension, may have their pensions increased by £3 a week if a prescribed relative is residing with them. They have means not exceeding £351.75 a year. 734. Deputy H. Gibbons.—Is this payment distinct from that paid by the health boards? —Yes. It has nothing at all to do with health boards. We do it through the Department. 735. How is the application made for it? —On a prescribed form or it may be by letter. We investigate the case and, as I said, there is a means test. The level is a little bit higher than for the old age pension and you get the application form and you just mark it up “Old age care allowance”. It is definitely done by the Department in the ordinary way. 736. Deputy Bermingham.—There would seem to be some overlapping. —Not necessarily. The allowance came in about three years ago—October 1970. It followed the prescribed relative allowance by about a year. It has nothing to do with pension. It is for persons who could not qualify for a pension because their means are somewhat over the limit, and for persons who are incapacitated also and are living with someone who looks after them. 737. Deputy H. Gibbons.—But it is normally paid as an increase in the pension? —That is the prescribed relative allowance. That is an increase in the pension but this is a separate scheme altogether. I never heard of this before. —It came in about three years ago. 738. I understood it had been superseded by the community care under the Health Acts? —No. It may well be that a person receiving that care would not qualify for this. The means test would come into it again. Frankly, I do not know if allowances paid by health boards are regarded as means for our purposes. 739. The disabled person’s allowance is taken as means under your scheme? —No. 740. Chairman.—Paragraph 107 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Overpayments of Social Assistance and Social Insurance Benefits Sums recovered in respect of overpayments of social assistance charged in prior years’ accounts were:—£22,807 in cash credited to appropriations in aid and £17,810 withheld from current entitlements. Overpayments amounting to £9,079 were treated as irrecoverable. Assistance overpayments not disposed of at 31 March 1971 amounted to £101,458 as compared with £85,358 at 31 March 1970. Overpayments of benefits from the Social Insurance Fund outstanding at 31 March 1971 were of the order of £120,000 as compared with £81,000 at 31 March 1970. Sums recovered during the year amounted to £22,142. One hundred individuals were prosecuted during the year for irregularly obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance or benefits. Convictions were secured in ninety-five cases.” Have you anything to add Mr. Mac Gearailt? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—I have nothing to add. 741. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead D.—Insured Persons’ Medical Certificates— what exactly does this subhead cover? —Payments to doctors who give insured persons medical certificates for sickness benefit. How much do you pay per certificate? —The system is a bit complicated. There is a lump sum provision of £263,150. This is calculated by multiplying the number of persons effectively insured by a fixed capitation fee. It excludes those insured at Army rates, voluntary contributors and persons insured only for widows’ and orphans’ and old age pensions. The figure of insured persons is based on a count of the men’s insurance cards exchanged—that is, handed back to the Department—in January, 1968, and women’s cards exchanged in July, 1968. The capitation rate of 7s. 4d. (36⅔p). was increased from 1st February, 1971 to 43p. For the purpose of payment the country is divided into three areas—borough, urban and rural. A borough area is any area being an urban district or town and a rural area means any area which is not a borough area or an urban area. The work done by each medical certifier is assessed on a unit system, one unit being allowed for each medical certificate and two for each special report. The number of units is increased by 40 per cent if the certifier is resident in an urban area and by 90 per cent if he is resident in a rural area. This increase is to compensate for any increased travelling by certifiers in connection with the issue of medical certificates. The value of each unit is ascertained by dividing the amount available for medical certification for the quarter year by the total number of units, including the increases for certifiers resident in urban and rural areas, credited to all certifiers for the quarter. The amount payable to any individual certifier is calculated by multiplying the unit value by the number of units credited to the certifier. The rate paid per certificate up to 31st December, 1970, was 8.2p borough, 11.6p urban and 15.7p rural. It is, as I say, a complicated system. 742. Deputy Bermingham.—Did you ever experience any difficulty where a man who would not be a holder of a medical card would have difficulty in getting a certificate? —No, only when there is a threat of a strike by doctors. 743. If a man goes and declares himself to a doctor it is obvious the doctor could not examine him and give service for these kinds of figures? —They have been doing it for a number of years. They have been refusing to do it too. —I have never known of a case except where they were looking for an increase. Those figures I gave are higher now because of the increases given in 1971. 744. If a man has a medical card the health board pays the doctor for looking after him. If he has no medical card he pays the doctor himself. This is the system. I know people who cannot get medical certificates. You appreciate that the position I speak of could arise. You mentioned a figure of 11p for a certificate? —In urban areas. No doctor would act for that kind of money any more. —The doctors are under contract to the Department to give these certificates. They sign a contract and we have no difficulty. 745. It is very normal procedure for an ordinary working man who falls sick to wait a few days before he goes to the doctor. Then he is in serious trouble if he is depending on the 11p to get a certificate. —Such a person does not pay that. We pay the doctor on the contract and doctors must give such a person a certificate. Deputy H. Gibbons.—The primary purpose why a person goes to a doctor is for treatment of an illness and not simply to obtain a certificate. —That is not our function. 746. Deputy Bermingham.—I appreciate what the witness has said but I have met this difficulty. Eventually when the man receives a medical card he is three or four weeks without treatment. —If the Deputy comes across that type of case and reports it to me I will have it investigated. We have no difficulty in that regard. In fact, our complaint is that doctors give certificates away too freely and enable people to malinger. We did have trouble when there was a threat of a strike but we would make arrangements in those cases to accept notes from the people concerned. During the recent junior hospital doctors dispute we had arrangements made throughout the country to accept another kind of evidence. 747. Chairman.—The witness has just made a very serious statement. He stated that doctors give certificates too easily and in doing so are assisting malingering. If a Department official feels that is so what has the Department done about it? —Down the years we have done quite a number of things. We have spoken to doctors. If we find a doctor was guilty of this practice we fine him and threaten to strike him off our register as a certifier. We have also had communications with the IMA and discussed the matter with local branches of that organisation. We have also given talks where we felt doctors were not being strict enough in this regard. 748. Have you fined any doctors in the year under review? —I cannot answer that question without inquiry. I would not think so. We have had a few fines but not in recent years because we have taken other steps. The witness has made a statement that doctors were fined but can he tell me if any doctors were fined in the year under review? —Not that I am aware of. I will have to make inquiries but I do not think so. As I have said this has been going on for many years past. I have been asked what steps were taken and I am now indicating those steps. As a result of our action we are satisfied that there has been a good deal of tightening up. That is my evidence in that regard and we do not have any evidence here in relation to the last three or four years. 749. This Committee expects when statements are made by an Accounting Officer that they will be factual and that they can be backed up. The witness has made a statement about malingering and doctors and in my view it was a serious statement. I would like to have the facts which are the basis for that statement. —What I did say—and I am not now defending myself—was what our experience was in the past. We were worried about doctors giving certificates too freely rather than not giving certificates. That was our concern and we were concerned about growing evidence of malingering. We did prosecute people. 750. Had you any prosecutions for the year under review? —We had a few. 751. You had 100 prosecutions in 95 cases. What were they for? —Some were for fraudulent claiming of unemployment benefit and others for fraudulent claiming of sickness benefit. As far as sickness benefit cases are concerned we are lenient. In a lot of cases we do not prosecute. We simply stop payment of the benefit and try to recover the overpaid benefit by means of reduction from future claims in small amounts. We are lenient because we have to take into account the condition of health, family circumstances and background. We are not too tough as a rule. We would rather have less prosecutions in such cases and unless it is a very blatant case we do not prosecute but deal with the individual concerned by means of a warning. If we find that a doctor concerned is negligent in issuing certificates we warn him or fine him. If the Chairman wishes I can give details of some cases. Perhaps the Committee can have such details when it is considering the 1971-72 accounts. 752. Deputy H. Gibbons.—There is a medical referee system in operation also? —Yes. We refer people about whom we are suspicious to a medical referee after they have been receiving sickness benefit for a certain period. We have found that over 30 per cent of those called for medical examination by such a medical referee immediately stop claiming. About 20 per cent are found fit for work after examination and the others continue in benefit. As benefits have risen in amount there is a greater temptation for people to stay in benefit. In the past many people went back to work before they were better but as benefits increased the duration of illness has also tended to increase. There is also a temptation in some parts to malinger but this is a fact of life which we have to live with. 753. Deputy Bermingham.—Do you find that very often the medical referee is at variance with the doctor? —Yes. And in some cases after the medical referee has given a decision against a person that the local doctor continues to give certificates? —Yes and insists that the man is still unfit for work. 754. When a case on appeal goes on for a long time we find that the appellant who might win the appeal is without benefit for a long period. —I do not think that happens very often on appeal. In a very doubtful case we call in an outside specialist to have the person concerned examined. Some times the specialist disagrees with the local doctor. Even after the specialist agrees with the Department’s doctor it happens that the person’s own doctor continues to issue certificates. It is a clash of medical opinion in those cases and we cannot do anything about it. 755. Deputy H. Gibbons.—On subhead E.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952—what exactly does the Social Insurance Fund cover? —It covers all insurance benefits, sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity allowances and grants, retirement pension, old age contributory pension and widows contributory pension. Those are the main schemes. Anything based on insurance contributions is covered. Occupational injury benefits and wet time insurance are covered by separate funds. 756. Chairman.—Before we move to Appropriations in Aid I should like to return to the note on A, B, C, D, F, H, I and J. You have a Supplementary Estimate of £8,750,000 and that came up in March. I suggest that the note on this is unnecessary. —I think the note still stands. That supplementary covers the previous year’s budget increases. Admittedly if there were any excesses or deficiencies they would have been taken up. We appreciate the specific accounting difficulties you have in your Department. They are complex to say the least of it. The note suggests that the estimate was not as close as practicable. —I do not know who put that note in. 757. It is a very small point. Under Appropriations in Aid at No. 1, I see “Estimated as closely as practicable” again. We must take it for granted that you are doing that? —I think we can agree that the note is superfluous and we will leave it out in future years. We understand the exceptional difficulties this Department have in estimates. —I think we have been pretty successful down the years. We have very seldom been out by very much in any of our estimates. It probably arose in former times when normally the estimates would be very tight in the service but your Department found that you could not meet the standard of another Department. Nowadays all Departments have their complications. —In the case of unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance there are fluctuations and we cannot foresee fluctuations in that field. Sometimes more pensioners die in a given year than in other years. A severe winter might be fatal to a lot of pensioners and we would have a small surplus. 758. Deputy Bermingham.—I would like to ask about delays in the Department. I very often find that a form comes back from the Department but it is six weeks before the person gets the money. I appreciate that there are difficulties in many cases. Perhaps the person quotes the wrong number. Could something be done about these delays? —We are constantly trying to eliminate delays. This year it has been very difficult because of the exceptional Budget arrangements. We had to bring in the increases much earlier than in previous years. This caused a big backlog. Last year there was also a rather unusual happening. We increased the rate of retirement pension to the same rate as the contributory old age pension in October, 1972, and about 8,000 to 10,000 people who were then drawing invalidity pensions switched overnight from invalidity pension to retirement pension. This caused a backlog of claims. 759. I am concerned with the person who has been working for 20 years. It seems to me, from my limited experience, that when a person who has never had a claim with your Department over 20 or 25 years gets sick, his case operates a lot slower than that of a person who is on and off your books? —It may be because he is not familiar with the routine. This is a point we are concerned with. We are opening information centres in various parts of the country. We opened one in Cork last Monday and one in Limerick. We have already got information centres in about six or seven other employment exchanges. 760. Do you intend to open them in most towns? —In most towns. As soon as we can get accommodation and staff trained. 761. It is very frustrating for a family who normally get the cheque by post when they do not get the cheque. —We used to deliver benefit cheques through local agents. A decision was taken some years ago to terminate the agency service and let it die out by not filling the vacancies as agents died or retired. This seems to work pretty well where it happened but people complain that they lose contact with the agent, with the source of inquiries and information. On the other hand when some agents got the cheques they did not deliver them promptly. 762. I am not talking about agents but about persons dealing directly with your Department. Another thing is that when a person comes to the stage where he has not enough stamps for benefit the cheques stop coming and he does not know what is happening. This is a bit callous. —I do not think there is anything deliberate in this. There is a big number of cases. About 60,000 cheques a week go out. I appreciate that there are difficulties but something will have to be done. —We have been trying to improve the administration and to bring in new systems and procedures. We have installed a computer which we are testing. It will be used mainly in connection with our pay-related benefits scheme next April. Our procedures and systems are under review at the moment. In addition we have a campaign planned for the provision of information centres throughout the country in every sizeable urban area. We hope this will help people in filling in their claims or in making inquiries. They will be connected by direct telephone to Dublin so they can get immediate information about any claim. This should cut out a lot of the complaints and the annoyance caused to people because they do not hear from us by return or because the expected letter does not arrive for a few weeks. I suppose it would be too hopeful to suggest that we could eliminate delays entirely. You will always find the odd case where there will be trouble no matter what you do. There is the human factor. 763. Deputy H. Gibbons.—In most of the cases in my experience there is failure to fill forms correctly or people who have not drawn benefit before carry their forms around with them until they see the doctor or somebody else. The form is so big that it frightens them. A smaller form with information on it should be made available. —Even if we get a note the claim can be initiated. You cannot pay sickness benefit until the second week. You must get the second certificate in. The system will not operate unless the certificate arrives. If the certificate comes regularly every week the sick person gets the cheque regularly. If the claim is not filled in properly we send it back to him but we start work on it and when the certificate comes in he is paid. We need to know—and people sometimes leave this out—particulars of the family. We cannot pay at the full rate until we know the exact particulars of the family. 764. You send out the form on receipt of the first certificate? —If it has not come in with the certificate. 765. Would it be possible for a patient to get a form to use when he gets ill instead of issuing a form to him? Deputy Bermingham.—Would it be possible to have a separate first certificate or notification of illness or a short form as a separate thing at the bottom of the page which the patient could fill in and then the doctor could fill in the top part? Deputy H. Gibbons.—There is this space on the certificate for the doctor to use. Deputy Bermingham.—This information could be incorporated in the first certificate. —We are considering that in relation to the computer but there is a complication. One of the difficulties is that it might make the book of certificates we give to certifiers too big and they might complain. The certifier carries the books around with him and if we make the book too big the certifier immediately complains about the extra weight. We have been considering this and we are trying to find a suitable form in which to combine the ordinary certificate and the claim form. The witness withdrew. VOTE 48—HEALTH.Mr. B. Hensey called and examined.766. Chairman.—Paragraph 108 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead G.—Grants to Health Authorities I referred in previous reports to the payment of supplementary grants to health authorities towards the reduction of the amount of health expenditure falling on local rates. The original estimate for the year under review provided for supplementary grants totalling £5,200,000 including a special supplementary amount of £2,500,000 to limit the increase in the health rate in any area to 10 pence in the £ in that year. A further sum of £4,850,000 was made available by way of supplementary estimate to meet increased expenditure by health authorities during the year.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Mac Gearailt? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph draws attention to the provision made on this Vote in the year under review for supplementary or special grants to health authorities towards the reduction of the amount of health expenditure falling on local rates. The charge to the subhead, £37,753,562, includes advances of grants approved for 1970-71 amounting to £36,882,616, of which £7,625,000 is in respect of supplementary grants. Also included is £634,800 in respect of further instalments in respect of 1969-70 grants, £121,646 for balances of grants for prior years and £94,066 in respect of the diabetes free drugs scheme. 767. Chairman.—Paragraph 109 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead Q.—Expenses in connection with the Implementation of the Health Act, 1970 Under the Health Act, 1970 eight health boards were established on 1st October, 1970 to undertake the administration of the health services in the State as from 1st April, 1971. This subhead provides for the costs of the establishment of the boards including salaries and training of Chief Executive Officers and other senior officers, travelling expenses of members and survey of administrative structure.” Have you anything to add Mr. Mac Gearailt? Mr. Mac Gearailt.—This paragraph deals with the setting up of the eight health boards to administer the health services from 1st April, 1971. The charge to the subhead, £82,906, includes payments totalling £55,400 made to a firm of consultants retained to advise on management structures and administration and to help with staff selection and training. Also included are sums amounting to £18,904 for salaries and training costs of chief executive officers and other senior officers. 768. Chairman.—This is an important Department and the Committee will be coming back to it soon on the 1971-72 accounts. Members have received the Hospitals Trust Fund accounts and other items of documentation. If there are no questions we will move on to the next Vote. VOTE 49—CENTRAL MENTAL HOSPITAL.Mr. B. Hensey further examined.769. Chairman.—On Appropriations in Aid—I should like to ask the witness what “Miscellaneous” consists of? —The breakdown in Miscellaneous receipts is as follows: receipts from staff members for rations, £461; value of farm produce used in the hospital, £1,160; receipts from leatherwork et cetera obtained from occupational therapy in the hospital, £713; sale of hay, £209 and sale of offal et cetera, £39 making a grand total of £2,582. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
