Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 19

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Dundrum Asylum.

General Mulcahy

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £10,223 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun Costaisí Coinneáil-suas Geilteanna Cuirpthe i nGealtlainn Dúndroma.

That a sum not exceeding £10,223 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1931, for the Expenses of the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Asylum.

The increase in this Estimate arises out of the fact that during the end of last year and the beginning of this year patients in the asylum from Northern Ireland were transferred from it by the Government of Northern Ireland, the numbers being sixteen males and four females. Deputies will see on page 153 of the Estimates that the repayment from the Government of Northern Ireland last year was £2,560. We lose that now as an appropriation-in-aid. There is a nett increase of £1,669, but Deputies will understand that with 116 patients now as against 136 when the patients of Northern Ireland were in the asylum, it has not been possible to reduce the overhead costs in the same proportion.

Mr. O'Kelly

I think there is not much that can be said on this Estimate. While we realise that the nett increase arises from the fact the Minister states, that patients from the Six-County area have been transferred to some institution in that area, nevertheless we feel that the Estimate for this institution appears to be too high. The Minister has stated that the number of patients now in the institution is 116. The figure in the Estimates is 118. These 116 patients are costing us over £15,000. That figure seems to us to be too high. The number of officials given for this year is 58, and the number of patients 116. That means one official for every two patients. Even though we realise that an institution of this kind is of necessity bound to be costly, that the cost of the upkeep of the patients in it is bound to be costly, nevertheless it appears to us to be rather too high a figure to have 58 officials for 116 patients. To my mind, £15,000 a year is too much for an institution such as this to cost.

This is one of the institutions that was taken over, and we realise that a number of the officials there are probably of long standing. I suppose that in due course some of them will be going out on pension, and so on, and in that way the number may be reduced. This year the figure is 58 and last year it was 61. Probably the transfer of the patients to the Six-County area may account for that reduction, but it appears to us that there is room for a further reduction. Perhaps the Minister is as keen on a reduction as any of us, but it is no harm to emphasise the fact that this is a costly institution and that if anything can be done to reduce the number of officials—the present number seems to be too great for the number of patients to be cared for—and thereby reduce the cost of the institution, it would be of advantage to the taxpayer in general.

There is an item of £386 to which I would like to refer. £386 is not such a great lot in a nation's expenses or revenues—or half a nation's, or two-thirds of a nation, or whatever we are—but it is the figure that appears here in connection with the farm and garden. I do not know anything about the farm or garden at Dundrum, but if there is anything like a decent farm there, and if there is a live competent steward in charge, there is in the institution, taking the inmates and the officials together, a good market for what is produced in the farm and garden. In the case of some other institutions that I know—institutions. I admit, with a much larger number of officials and inmates than this—they make their farm pay. I wonder if it would be possible to have this item of £386 wiped out? I do not know whether it is put down as an annual subsidy for the farm and garden, but if it is I think it might be wiped out. That is a suggestion that, I think, the Minister might consider.

Mr. Esmonde

If Deputy O'Kelly turns to the appropriations-in-aid he will find that the income from the farm and garden is put down at £595, so that if you deduct their cost from that you will find that the farm and garden are bringing in a net income of over £200 a year.

Dr. Tubridy

I would like to know what the advertisements are for.

General Mulcahy

I do not know exactly what the advertisement are for. It may be that they advertise the cabbages they have to sell, and that these bring in some of the £595 under Appropriations in Aid. I cannot speak of the range of advertisements the asylum might enter into. I fully appreciate the general point made by Deputy O'Kelly. I can only say that you have a particular class of patient being dealt with in the Dundrum Asylum, which is a rather elaborate institution. I do not know that there is any other way of reducing the cost per head of inmates except by taking them out of the present institution and dealing with them in some other way. The question of economy has been engaging the attention both of the officers of the asylum and of the Department, and I think they are coming to the conclusion that a further reduction can hardly be brought about while the present institution is being used for the housing of the 116 patients. Pending a change, I do not think that economies can be effected.

Vote put and agreed to.