asked the Minister for Health the average cost of providing comprehensive medical care under the general medical services scheme to persons between 16 and 25, old age pensioners and others.

The average cost in 1983 of health services provided for a person aged between 16 and 25 years by virtue of his being eligible for a medical card is estimated to be roughly of the order of £27. The corresponding estimate for an old age pensioner is £110. For a person who is not in either of those categories, the average cost is estimated at £60. These estimates are tentative. They are based partly on information relating to years prior to 1983.

In view of this, does the Minister not consider that the savings which he is alleged to be making are very tiny compared with the overall cost of the medical services? In effect, he is simply transferring the cost of treating students to the hospital services.

The first part of the Deputy's argument about the size of savings is advanced in relation to all efforts to resolve any question of savings in relation to any services — Departments of Health, Education or Social Service. That argument does not hold up. On the second part of the Deputy's argument, since students avail of GP services only a couple of times a year, they are not likely to require, by and large, hospitalisation. There is no evidence that those who do not require GP services automatically arrive at the door of a hospital, demanding praticular services. The co-relation is not there and that argument will not stand up on examination in the months ahead.

We cannot have argument.

Could I draw the Minister's attention to a statement which he made, if I remember correctly, that there was a direct co-relation between hospitalisation of people holding medical cards and visits to GPs?

The co-relation is between people having medical cards and attending in the surgeries of general practitioners. The number of those who are subsequently referred to hospitals is rather interesting. The vast bulk of students who attend doctors, from the information available to us, attend about twice a year. The degree of hospitalisation is minimal, as one would expect for 16 to 25 year olds.

Does that not mean——

Might I remind the Deputies that the practice some years ago used to be that Deputies got information at Question Time and later made speeches on the information which they got. However, they appear to make the speeches now immediately they get the information.

From the Minister's argument regarding the non-taking up of these services and the very small number of times that a student goes to a doctor, is that not a good argument for retaining the medical card for the student population?

It is not an argument. It relates to the prospect of hardship involved. Forty per cent have total exemption from any cost in relation to their children at second and third level institutions and for the remaining 60 per cent the average cost would be about £15 or £16 per annum for attending a GP and perhaps another £10 for drugs — about £25 a year. There is also income tax relief on this.

The Minister stated that there was no evidence that persons who did not have medical cards would use the casualty services. Would he not accept that students are a special case, particularly students living away from home? He gave the example of his own family who are living at home, so he may not be aware of the problems created for students living in flats, say in this city who find themselves ill and without the money to go to a family doctor. Surely, the Minister will accept that they will go to hospital outpatient departments as an alternative and that this will prove very costly? A number of times this afternoon the Minister has stated that we are talking about two visits to the GP per year. Surely he will accept that an average of two visits per year does not mean that parents will be faced with only the cost of two visits. It means that many parents will be charged for ten or 12 visits and others will have no charges. Indeed, on the question of hardship, will the Minister not accept that in many cases — and particularly in regard to those living away from home — the hardship arises only when they become ill and the CEO is not in a position to anticipate the students who will suffer hardship?

I have yet to know of members of the medical profession who, in the case of students suffering from sudden illness, demand that they be given an advance payment there and then. Perhaps some do, but as a generality I do not know that this happens.

What about the cost of drugs?

I would stress that the hardship provision in the regulations are designed to take care of the situation outlined by the Deputy. It is no different from the case of an unemployed worker from the country who is living in Dublin. He too, in my opinion——

He should have a medical card.

His particular requirement is that he should apply for a medical card. I do not see why a differentiation should be made between him and somebody who is attending a third level educational centre and living in Dublin. That is a matter of normal equity within the delivery of the system.

I am passing on to the next question. I am sorry, Deputies.

Could I ask a question?

I am not going to allow a further question. I am sorry, Deputy.

Just one final question. In view of the figures of £27, £110 and £60 with respect to general medical services for those from 16 to 25 years of age and old age pensioners and those in between, could the Minister explain the reasons for the difference in the costs? Does he think that an old age pensioner costs more, or someone in the in-between category?

There is a different means of assessing students and unemployed people. I understand that students are assessed on their parents' means and the unemployed on their own means.

It depends on the extent to which the unemployed person is in receipt of income. He may not be drawing any unemployment assistance and in that instance an assessment would be made of his income within the house. I stress that an unemployed young person who applies for unemployment assistance has an assessment of his board and lodgings taken into account and a value put on these by the social welfare officer who is investigating the case. This is done prior to the person being given a qualification certificate for unemployment assistance. I do not see why there should be total non-assessment for the issue of medical cards.

Even if the Minister——

Would the Minister please answer Question No. 11?