Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 11

Registration of Maternity Homes Bill, 1934—Report Stage.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 1:—

1. In page 3 to insert before Section 5 (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) For the purpose of this section premises shall be deemed to be unsuitable for use for a maternity home if they are—

(a) used immediately before the date of the application for registration for the treatment of contagious or notifiable diseases;

(b) in an insanitary condition;

(c) situated in an area which in the opinion of the authorised officer renders them unsuitable for use for a maternity home.

Section 5 provides for the circumstances under which registration of a maternity home may be refused. One of the reasons for refusing it is if the applicant is not a fit and proper person to carry on the home, or that the premises where the applicant proposes to carry on the home, and in respect of which registration is sought, are unsuitable for use as a maternity home. The other is an administrative reason for refusing registration. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to extend and define more clearly the grounds upon which registration may be refused. It is sought in the amendment to ensure that if the premises have been previously used for the treatment of contagious or notifiable diseases they should not be registered as a maternity home. The object of that is to prevent institutions of one kind or another, which have been used for entirely different purposes, being converted into a maternity home. The section as drawn provides that registration may be refused if the premises are unsuitable. The term "unsuitable" seems to be a rather loose one, and while it may be comprehensive because of its looseness, when the Act is in operation it may not be possible under the term "unsuitable" to bring within its scope an insanitary house. The suitability might be held to apply more to the structure than to the sanitary condition of the building. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to ensure that when construing "unsuitable" it shall be deemed to mean an insanitary house and that an insanitary house will be automatically deemed to be an unsuitable house for the purposes of the Act.

Section (c) of the amendment is another endeavour to extend the reasons for which registration may be refused. Under the section as it is in the Bill, it is possible to refuse registration because the premises are unsuitable. You may have the case of premises very suitable from the point of view of structure, of sanitation and of accommodation, but situated in an entirely unsuitable area. It might be possible under the section as drawn for a person to seek permission to register a maternity home which would be flanked on one side, let us say, by a disreputable licensed premises; on the other side, by a well-populated betting shop, and having at the back, say, a permanent fancy fair. If an application were made to register a maternity home of that kind it does not seem to me that it will be possible to refuse registration, because once it was held that the premises were suitable I think anybody construing the section would be bound to consider the premises as distinct from the neighbourhood. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to make it possible to refuse registration where it is sought to register a maternity home in an area which is considered to be unsuitable for the purpose of establishing a maternity home.

Dr. O'Higgins

With regard to this amendment, there is nothing in it which is not perfectly reasonable and perfectly defensible, beyond the fact that it appears to imply a complete lack of confidence in the people who have the powers of deciding what is suitable and unsuitable. You have got to develop a sense of respect for experts and advisers and other people who have attained to a position of responsibility, because of their success in minor and in middle and in major positions as they went up along. I think it is very unwise to imply, by Parliamentary interference, that when the word "suitable" is used in an Act licences will, in fact, be given for houses in which there have been, we will say, contagious diseases, or houses which are unsuitable from the point of view of their sanitary conditions. I think it should be accepted that the people responsible for the issue of licences will take due precautions to ensure that neither houses contaminated with infectious diseases, nor houses which are dangerous to health by reason of the fact that they are insanitary, will get licences. It should not be necessary to insert an amendment in order to tie people down to do the particular class of work which their office compels them to do. Their holding of the office goes to demonstrate that they have the amount of knowledge necessary for the position they fill.

Dr. Ward

Regarding this amendment, it is desirable to point out that there is a danger in specifying in the Bill the conditions which would render premises unsuitable, unless we are in a position to visualise all the possible conditions that might be deemed to render premises unsuitable. There may be several other conditions, not mentioned in Deputy Norton's amendment, which it would be necessary to include. If Deputy Norton's amendment were adopted the conditions mentioned in the amendment would be the only conditions that would render premises unsuitable in the future. I think Deputy Norton should agree that some responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the local authority and their authorised officers, and it is to take power to control the selection of the authorised officers, and it is hoped to be able to secure the services of medical officers of health as authorised officers for the purpose of administering this Bill when it becomes an Act. In the ordinary course of things the county medical officer of health would take into consideration all the points that Deputy Norton has in mind, and I think it would be a much safer course to adopt than to try to define in advance all the possible objections to premises that might be suggested for this purpose. The wording of the amendment itself might constitute difficulties in administration. Clause (a) reads: "If used immediately before the date of the application for registration for the treatment of contagious or notifiable diseases." Persons suffering from notifiable or contagious diseases might have been in the premises but perhaps not under treatment. I do not know what Deputy Norton had in mind, but I suggest that only a fever hospital would come under the terms of paragraph (a). Again, the question of defining contagious diseases as distinct from infectious diseases, and the question of deciding whether there might not be objectionable diseases that would not come under the heading of either contagious or infectious, would constitute tremendous difficulties. I think it would be much better to leave those matters to be decided by the local authority on the report of the responsible officer. The Minister will take steps to ensure that responsible officers appointed to administer this Act or to secure the enforcement of it will be officers who will have expert knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Norton

I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that there is a disposition at all events to construe Section 5 as widely as possible, and to take in any possible objections with which the amendment endeavours to deal. While I do not at all question the zeal of the local medical officers or the county medical officers of health, and while I agree that those are people who, in the main, endeavour to ensure that Acts are complied with to the fullest possible extent, I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Dr. O'Higgins are quite aware of the fact that many medical officers are prohibited from doing things which they would like to see done, merely because of some flaw or defect in a particular Act of Parliament. I am sure, for instance, that Deputy O'Higgins is familiar with the difficulties which have arisen in connection with the Act of Parliament which empowers local authorities to insist on a house being connected with sewerage systems. I am sure he, as a county medical officer of health, is familiar with certain difficulties of that kind. When you come to the courts to get an interpretation of that Act, it is extremely difficult, because of defects in the Act, to get done what the legislature intended should be done. I foresee in connection with this Act possible litigation designed to compel a local authority to register a maternity home on the grounds that there is nothing in the Act which prevents a maternity home being registered so long as it is structurally suitable; and that a local authority might be debarred by an injunction of the court from preventing a maternity home existing in an area which was considered to be unsuitable. The amendment is not designed for the purpose of insisting on medical officers doing their duty. It is rather designed to help them to carry out their duties with a maximum of efficiency. That is the only object of the amendment. However, if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that he can prescribe regulations which will bring the matters contained in the amendment within the scope of the Bill, I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) As soon as may be but in any event not later than six months after the appointed day the local authority shall appoint such and so many suitable persons as may be necessary to secure compliance in the functional area of such local authority with the provisions of this Act and every such person so appointed shall be an authorised officer of such local authority.

(2) Every authorised officer shall take such steps as may to him seem necessary to secure due compliance with the provisions of this Act and shall furnish in such manner and in such form as may be prescribed a report regarding the maternity homes in the functional area of the local authority.

The object of this amendment is to provide for the appointment of an inspector by the local authority. So far as I can judge from the Bill, while there is authority for an authorised officer of a local authority to inspect maternity homes within the functional area of such local authority, and while it is permissible for an inspector to do the same, and while it is provided that any attempt to impede either officer in that kind of work is an offence punishable by fine, it does not seem to me that any specific provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of an inspector or for the appointment of an official of the local authority to carry out the inspection. It may be possible, when this Bill becomes an Act, for the local authority to say: "We already have too many officials, in our opinion. We do not want any more. This is a useless piece of legislative timber which we can afford to ignore, as we have so successfully ignored others of the kind, and there is no need to administer the Act at all." The amendment seeks to make it compulsory on the local authority to appoint such suitable persons as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act; it seeks also to ensure that the authorised officer shall take steps to secure that compliance, and to furnish a report on his efforts in that connection. The Bill, so far as I can read it, does not seem to make any provision for the appointment of an inspector. I think that should be made a mandatory provision in the Bill.

Dr. Ward

I am advised that this amendment is unnecessary, inasmuch as the Bill as it stands casts on the local authority the implied duty of securing its enforcement, and for that purpose should take the necessary steps to provide for the inspection of maternity homes and the inspection of the records by an "authorised officer." I might direct the attention of the Deputy to Section 3 of the Bill, which reads:—

Every local authority shall cause to be kept in the prescribed form a register (to be called and known as the register of maternity homes and in this Act referred to as the register) and there shall be entered therein the matters required by this Act to be entered therein and such other matters as may be prescribed.

If the local authority is bound under Section 3 to do that, then to do it they must set up the necessary machinery to carry it out. As the amendment stands it would require the appointment of special persons whose appointment would not be subject to the sanction of the Minister. I doubt if the amendment is in order. The amendment says that "as soon as may be, but in any event not later than six months after the appointed day the local authority shall appoint such and so many suitable persons", and so on. Automatically at once you appoint them without any Ministerial sanction if this amendment were passed, but under Section 1 of the Bill an authorised officer is defined as "an officer of the local authority in relation to whom such expression is used authorised by such local authority with the approval of the Minister", and so on. The amendment appears to me to be in conflict with Section 1. Why Deputy Norton has not put down an amendment amending Section 1 to bring it into conformity with the new conditions I do not know. The second paragraph of the Deputy's amendment would empower every authorised officer to "take such steps as may to him seem necessary to secure due compliance with the provisions of this Act and shall furnish in such manner and in such form as may be prescribed a report regarding the maternity homes in the functional area of the local authority."

It does not appear desirable that the authorised officer should have such wide discretion as the amendment proposes. The enforcement of the Bill will be a matter for the local authority, and the power of the authorised officers will be the power given to them expressly by the Bill for the inspection of maternity homes and the inspection of records. I think it can be safely assumed that the officer must necessarily report to his own authority when he inspects a home. In view of all the circumstances it would be difficult to prescribe a form of report. The idea behind the amendment appears to be based on the assumption that the local authorities may be negligent in the performance of their duties. They may be. But if the local authority is negligent in the discharge of its duties in relation to this or to any other matter the Minister has always the remedy. If the local authority should fail to put such an important measure as this into operation the Minister will apply the necessary remedy and that difficulty will be got over.

Mr. Norton

I want to put this point of view to the Parliamentary Secretary. Here is a Bill designed to make provision for the registration and inspection of maternity homes, and for other matters relating to such homes. It seems to me an extraordinary procedure that no specific provision has been made for the appointment of an official or officials to carry out the inspection of maternity homes. The whole purpose of this Bill is inspection and registration. Yet in a Bill of 15 sections there is no single provision made for anybody to do the inspection. That is a flaw which is not got over by anything the Parliamentary Secretary has said. Section 3 is admittedly putting on the local authority the duty of seeing that a prescribed form of register shall be kept. But that does not seem to me to go far enough, and I think there should be some provision made in the Bill for the definite appointment of inspectors. There is no reason why special persons should be appointed to administer the Act. The existing officers might administer the Act in the same way as they administer other Acts, but the local authority should have somebody appointed to ensure that somebody is working, in order to keep the register in a prescribed form and to make the necessary entries. But under Section 3 it would be possible for a clerk who never left the office to fill in particulars of this kind in a register while making no inspection. By doing this the local authority would be complying with Section 3. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is serious when he says that the definition of "authorised officer" is not set out in the amendment. It is set out in the definition section. In order to be an "authorised officer" under the definition section, it is necessary to secure the approval of the Minister, and the appointment of the officer could always be subject to the approval of the Minister. I am afraid the case against the amendment is weak when that reserve is brought up against the amendment.

Dr. Ward

That is the legal argument.

Mr. Norton

I see in the amendment the full necessity of the local authority making the appointment. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what power he has or what power he can get under this Bill—the power of insisting that the local authority carry out its duties and appoint somebody to make the inspection under the Act?

Dr. Ward

I have nothing to add to what I have already said. Section 3 places the responsibility on the local authority to carry out the terms of the Act. But the local authority is bound under Section 3 to put the Act into operation. But in order that the Act may be put into operation the local authority must necessarily set up the required authority. It is not intended to apply new officials at all but to use the existing officials. Suitable existing officials will be earmarked for this work. There is no reason to think that the local authority will refuse or neglect to appoint the authorised officer for the purpose of reporting and inspection. They are bound to put the Act into operation. They cannot put the Act into operation without appointing an authorised officer. My advisers state very definitely that there is no necessity for this amendment. I have great respect for Deputy Norton's opinion of the law, but I must accept the advice of the legal advisers who are interpreting this section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.