On the section, Sir, I propose, on Report Stage, to introduce an amendment to delete Section 2. Section 2 provides for the exclusion of Dublin City and County from the scope of the Bill, and, having fully considered the matter since the Second Reading debate, the desirability of bringing Dublin into line with the rest of the country appears to be beyond question. As Deputies are aware, in Dublin City and County a county scheme has not been adopted under the 1923 Act, and the old code of public assistance operates in Dublin City and County with some special provisions provided under the Dublin Poor Relief Act of 1929. Further amendments, consequential on the deletion of Section 2, will have to be drafted and circulated and considered on the Report Stage.
Air Navigation and Transport. - Public Assistance Bill, 1939—Committee Stage.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to delete the section on the Report Stage?
Yes. I am merely mentioning it now.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, in line 34 and line 35, after the word "surgical" where it occurs in those lines to insert the word "optical".
The decision on this amendment, Deputy, will cover amendments Nos. 14 and 16.
I understand, Sir. The purpose of this amendment is to clear up what is meant by the definition of "medical assistance" and to include something that may not be included in the section as it stands. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the boards of assistance at the present time are able to give assistance in the way of optical treatment to poor law patients, when the occasion requires, and it does not appear here whether that power is still retained.
As the Deputy says, the matter turns on the meaning of "medical assistance". As I understand the meaning, and as the Parliamentary Draftsman and my legal advisers understand it, surgical treatment includes optical treatment; so that there appears to be no need to make the amendment suggested by the Deputy. It is already included, and the powers that the boards of health have at the present time, in relation to the provision of optical treatment, will be continued under the Bill.
That satisfies me. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that there is no need to include the words, and that it is not a question of having any objection to including the words, I am satisfied.
They would be superfluous.
I formally move amendment No. 2, standing in the names of Deputies Keyes and Corish:—
In page 5, line 1, to delete the word "general" and substitute the word "public".
I am sorry that Deputy Keyes is not here, because I cannot clearly understand what he had in mind in putting down this amendment. The words "home assistance" are inserted here to provide a convenient term by which to refer to the form of assistance which was formerly known as outdoor relief. Frankly, I confess that I do not understand what the Deputy had in mind, but at any rate, from a close examination, there does not appear to be any need to have the amendment inserted, and in fact it would be confusing.
There seems to be some doubt as to whether the manner in which home assistance is to be given remains the same as hitherto. Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that there is no contemplated change in that?
No; not yet.
Very well.
I formally move amendment No. 3, standing in the names of Deputies Norton and Pattison:—
In page 5, line 2, before the word "otherwise" to insert the words "whether in cash or in any other form".
That amendment is intended to make clear that assistance should have been in the form of cash as well as provisional assistance. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I understand that that would be the position.
The insertion of this amendment would have no practical effect. It is merely a definition; it is not an operative section. Perhaps the Deputy would refer to Section 37 (2). For the Deputy's convenience, I shall read it for him. It is as follows:—
The Minister may by order make regulations governing the granting of home assistance and, in particular, regulating the nature of home assistance either generally or in respect of any particular class of person, and prescribing the times and places at which and the conditions subject to which home assistance may be granted.
As the Deputy sees, under Section 37 (2), the manner in which assistance may be granted will be prescribed by regulations to be made under the Act, but the insertion of this amendment in the definition clause would not serve any purpose whatsoever
Mr. Brennan
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us the definition of a "joint district"? It says here that it has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government Act, 1927. I understand that it is the old joint poor law districts that were brought together during the amalgamation schemes, but the matter arises very frequently afterwards, and I should like to have a clear definition now so as to avoid misunderstanding later on. I understand that it means, in fact, a county, but I should like to know whether or not I am right.
Well, no. The expression "joint district" has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government Act, 1927. It may not be convenient at the moment for the Deputy to look up that Act, and I shall read it for him. The clause concerned is as follows:—
The expression "joint district" means, as the case may require, either (a) an area in a county consisting of a county health district which has no urban district adjoining thereto and situate in such county, or (b) an area in a county composed of a county health district and every urban district adjoining thereto and situate in such county:
Provided always that where an urban district adjoins two or more county health districts situate in the same county as such urban district, the Minister shall determine to which of such county health districts such urban district is for the purpose of this sub-section to be deemed to adjoin, and thereupon this sub-section——
I am referring now to Section. 8
——shall apply in such county as if such urban district adjoined only the county health district so determined by the Minister.
I am quite sure that the Deputy cannot follow all that clearly but when he sees it set out, and has time to study it between now and the Report Stage, I think he will be satisfied.
Mr. Brennan
My difficulty will arise in dealing with Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9, where we have such phrases as "public assistance authority,""public assistance district" and "joint district." I take it that a joint district means, in practice, a county. Of course, there are certain other difficulties and differences that may arise where there are urban areas but, in fact, the general rule is that all counties, with a few exceptions, are joint districts.
In general, a county is a joint district.
Mr. Brennan
Sub-section (2) of this section states: "In every public assistance district, public assistance shall be administered by the public assistance authority specified in that behalf by this Act in respect of such district." Now, I must also refer to sub-section (2) of Section 9, for the purpose of getting this matter clarified. Sub-section (2) of that section states: "The public assistance authority for a public assistance district consisting only of a joint district shall be the council of the county with which such joint district is co-terminus or in which such joint district is situate." Relating those two clauses, we find that sub-section (2) of Section 7 sets out that in every public assistance district, public assistance shall be administered by the public assistance authority which means the county council. Is that intended?
That is right.
Mr. Brennan
Is the machinery that already exists for the administration of public assistance to be taken from the board of health as such and given back to the parent body, the county council?
Yes; that is the intention.
Mr. Brennan
Does the Parliamentary Secretary feel that he has machinery to do that? There are some sections following which would let us out of the difficulty which that creates if they were permitted to appoint a public assistance board, but according to my reading of the Act they are not.
Might I remind the Deputy that this Bill when it becomes an Act will not be operative until the appointed day, and that the appointed day will not be fixed until other legislation that will be necessary for the implementation of this Bill has been presented to the House and passed by the House? That legislation will include the Managerial Bill and the Local Government Bill. When that legislation has been passed, and the managerial system has been adopted, the difficulties that the Deputy has in mind I think will not arise.
Mr. Brennan
I have been endeavouring to study that matter, but I am afraid they will arise. I do not see any way in which they can be avoided. We have this joint district business running right through the Bill, and we have the other matter of the county council being the public assistance authority. Then we have the matter of the existence of boards of health, and they are going out of operation as far as public assistance is concerned immediately this comes into force. We have at the same time the question of the transference of officials. To be quite candid, I cannot reconcile all these provisions. I do not know what is going to happen under the Bill even with the very best intentions and even under the managerial system. The thing appears to me to be mixed up to some extent, and I cannot understand it. I want to know in particular, in regard to sub-section (2) of Section 7, is it seriously intended that the county council of a county is going to be the public assistance authority carrying out the detailed administration of public assistance?
Not only is it seriously intended, but it is clearly set out in the Bill. It is also set out in the Bill that the county council shall have power to appoint a committee or committees to administer public assistance for the district, or any part of it.
Mr. Brennan
I agree.
There is no doubt about it. It is clearly set out that the county council will be the public assistance authority.
Mr. Brennan
They have the right where there is another type of district, not a joint district, to appoint an assistance board. I can follow that. They can appoint an officer of the board or various officers if they so require them. The county council apparently cannot appoint the board but they can appoint a sub-committee.
And give it full statutory powers.
Mr. Brennan
I agree, but is that a desirable thing to do?
How is it any more undesirable than the appointment of a board? Is it the word "committee" to which the Deputy objects?
Mr. Brennan
It is not the word "committee" but, after all, if you appoint a public assistance board under the Bill, you must appoint people who are elected by the people. If you appoint a committee you are not tied to that. You may appoint clergymen or outside laymen to carry on. I do not think that is sound.
Does that mean, in effect, that the Deputy is not prepared to give the county council, the duly elected representatives of the local people, the right to appoint a committee, that he cannot trust them? After all, it is not the Minister who will appoint these public assistance committees. It is the members of the county council themselves. Surely the Deputy does not ask the House to believe that a county council cannot be trusted to appoint responsible people as members of a committee to administer home assistance?
Mr. Brennan
I do not think there is any necessity to introduce that point. I am endeavouring to be helpful as far as I can. I certainly do not think that county councils would not appoint the right people but I do not think a committee of that sort is good business.
Of what sort?
Mr. Brennan
A public assistance board of elected public representatives should be your aim because, mind you you are going to couple with this the managerial system which is going much further than this. It is a much tighter administration.
Is it not open to the county council to appoint nobody but elected members?
Mr. Brennan
Is it open to them after they have appointed a committee to give that committee officials? Is that open to them under the Bill?
Officials will be dealt with in the Local Government Bill.
Mr. Brennan
Officials of the public assistance boards are dealt with in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary would help to clear up the position if he were able to tell us whether the public assistance committees visualised by the Bill will have much the same powers as the present boards of assistance, not alone in regard to public assistance, but generally. Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate how the other duties at present discharged by the boards of assistance will be discharged in future?
The extent of the powers and the duties to be conferred on public assistance committees will be a matter for determination by the county council. They will have full discretion.
That is for the appointment of doctors as well as public assistance officials?
They have not the right to appoint doctors.
I mean transferring doctors.
The difficulty is that there are three Bills to be brought in. It is very difficult for us to visualise this Bill in the absence of those other Bills—a Bill for general rating and a Bill dealing with the county managerial system. I understand that, in general terms, in future there will be only one public assistance authority in a county. What would be the position in the County of Cork where there are at present one county council and three public assistance boards?
So far as the City of Cork is concerned and the portion of Cork County that is at present attached to Cork City under the county scheme, there will be no interference.
No change?
No change. The rest of the county will be administered either by the county council directly or by committees appointed by the county council—as many committees as the county council may think well of appointing.
We would be very glad to get rid of the city, if you can possibly manage it.
That does not arise here.
Mr. Brennan
Will this be the situation: that when this Bill is in operation, there will be a public assistance board operating; that in a case of Cork versus the district around Cork there will be a public assistance board, with officials designated and appointed to that board to do their work? Outside that, in the remainder of Cork, public assistance will be done by small committees. Is that the intention for the whole country? Under Section 10, in every public assistance district which consists of a county borough and a joint district, those two are permitted to appoint a public assistance board and appoint officers for that board. They will have officials to carry on public assistance, but outside that a county council will have to carry it out through local committees. Is that the intention? At least, that is what is in the Bill.
Take North Cork. That has a very distinct board from the South Cork Board of Public Assistance and the West Cork Board. I think Deputy Brennan is trying to find out if a public assistance board has officials at the moment. There is no difficulty with the county council in appointing a committee to function as a public assistance board with the same authority as if they had to pay the officials, and the same thing applies to West Cork.
Is it not the county council that appoints the present committee? There is no difficulty.
Mr. Brennan
At the present time in County Roscommon there is only one public assistance authority, that is the county board of health, which has its own officials. Now public assistance is going to be taken from the board of health, but the officials are going to remain in the board of health because they have other work to do.
Nonsense.
Did the Deputy read the Bill at all?
Mr. Brennan
Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain it?
The officials will be transferred to the county council as the public assistance authority under the Bill.
I can see difficulties where you have two different headquarters, and the headquarters of the board of health may be 30 miles from the headquarters of the county council. If the county council take over the committee of public assistance, they will look for some assistants to look after public assistance work while the remaining officials look after the county board of health work.
Cannot the county council adjust that?
Mr. Brennan
It will mean extra officials, because the public assistance committee will remain in the headquarters of the county council. I suppose that will come in under the managerial Bill.
What is worrying me is whether it is the county council or the Cork Corporation to whom these powers are going to be transferred, or does the Minister think it is now high time to carry out the wishes of the county board of assistance in this matter?
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (2), page 6, lines 14 and 15, to delete the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act in relation to existing county scheme authorities".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 5:— In sub-section (2) (c), line 32, after the word "situate" to add the following words "and wherever an urban district is situated within the public assistance district, administered as a joint district, such urban district council shall be entitled to elect one representative on such joint board".
This amendment arises on the question I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the administration of the Boards of Public Assistance in the County of Cork. In the County of Cork there are several urban districts and I am particularly concerned with the South Cork Board of Public Assistance where the county is joined on, not only to urban areas, but also to the County Borough of Cork. We are already chafing under the weight of carrying the burden of the City of Cork, which takes two-thirds of our rates and only contributes one-third. That is not so much the object of this amendment as to get representation for the urban district in that area and the other areas of Cork on those boards. Six urban areas in South Cork—Kinsale, Macroom, Youghal, Midleton, Cobh and Passage—have no representation whatever on these boards. They have to pay rates and have to pay the cost of collecting the rates. They have no voice in the striking of that rate nor have they any voice in the administration of the spending of that money and I think it is only a fair principle of equity that these authorities should get representation on the general board of public assistance. I am asking that the Minister would give each urban district in the area one representative from the urban body on the joint board. I think it is very fair and I am not asking anything very much. I am sure the Minister will see it is a matter that he can easily accede to without breaking through any of his rules or in any way infringing upon the principles of the Bill.
I rise with a rather different object from Deputy O'Neill.
If it is a different object, it must be raised on the section. An amendment is now being discussed.
My objection to Deputy O'Neill's argument in connection with the urban districts having separate representation is that already the urban districts elect the county councils. They are portion of the electorate for the county councils and they have their voice there. I think it would be nonsensical to increase the powers or the representation of the urban districts by having them, in the first place, electing the county councils, or at least having a share in electing them, and then afterwards having separate representation for themselves on urban bodies. I think that would be nonsensical.
They have already representation on the board.
They have.
Before Deputy O'Neill finally leaves us, I had better tell him that it is not proposed to accept the amendment. Deputy Corry has. I think, fairly fully dealt with the request for acceptance of the amendment to give special representation on the board of assistance to urban areas. I do not know if Deputies have yet grasped the fact that there will be only two boards of assistance in the State— the board of assistance in Cork and the board of assistance in Waterford, where we have a county council and a corporation co-operating for public assistance purposes. They have already adopted a scheme under the 1923 Act. As Deputy Corry very truthfully says, the urban ratepayers have an opportunity when electing county councillors to secure the proper representation they are entitled to on the county council. My experience is—it may not operate in Cork, but it does in the North of Ireland, which is considerably different from Cork in many respects— that in the North of Ireland people living in urban areas secure an undue proportion of representation on county councils. That is my experience.
It must be only the North.
On the Cork Board of Assistance there are ten representatives of the county council: I do not know how many of the ten belong to urban areas but, at any rate, they were appointed by the county council. Candidates who stand for election in urban areas to the county council are not confined in their vote to the urban areas. They very often get votes from the rural areas. I do not think that any case could be made for giving special representation to the urban areas on the board of assistance, in addition to the representation that the people themselves have vested in them as representatives on the county council.
The Minister has said that people in the urban areas are entitled to get representation. We can understand that, but, if they do get representation on the county council it does not follow that they then secure appointment on public assistance committees. I do know counties in which representatives have been put on, but in other counties representatives have not been put on. I suggest that Deputy O'Neill is asking too much when he says that for every urban area there should be one representative, but I think that where there are two or three urban areas there should be a representative for the group. There should be some provision in the Bill to bring that in, as the urban problem in so far as home assistance is concerned is entirely different to the problem which prevails in the rural areas. I am on the public assistance committee by rural votes. If the rural representatives want to get representation they can get it.
I do not want to interrupt, but does the Deputy appreciate that this amendment refers to boards of assistance and that there will be only two such boards. The amendment does not affect his area at all.
It does peculiarly refer to Cork, and I will ask the Minister, even if he is not accepting my amendment, to consider the position. I think that the position of South Cork, particularly as we are carrying the burden of Cork City on our shoulders, is one for special attention. I ask the Minister to give this special care and he will see further on the weight of my arguments. We have representatives of the urban areas on this board of assistance and we do not seem to get any under this Bill. I will ask the Minister to consider that and I will withdraw the amendment if he will give some assurance.
I am sorry I did not permit the Deputy to go.
The Deputy I understand was going to resume.
There is no use holding out any prospects, as the amendment could not be accepted. If he feels he has any real solid substance in his argument, I would suggest that he bring his weighty arguments to bear on the members of the Cork County Council and if he can persuade them that the urban areas are entitled to bigger representation on the county council than they are getting, it is a matter for their discretion, but he need not press for special provision to be incorporated in the Bill that the urban areas will get special representation.
The Parliamentary Secretary will see that county councils are specially precluded from nominating anybody except members of the county council. If there was a member on the county council who was represented in urban areas he would have no representation under the Bill. It happens in a number of cases that if you had a representative of every urban area in, say, the South Cork district, there would be no rural representative at all.
There is a representative there from Cobh, Mr. Corry; one from Midleton, Mr. Brasier, and one from Bandon, Mr. Crowley.
There is no such thing as a Bandon urban area, there is a Bandon County Council area, which includes a couple of urban areas, but neither of the urban areas has anybody there to represent them. I am afraid the Minister does not see that these urban areas should have representation on the central body.
You do not want the Minister to come along and insist that the representatives from the council should be elected on the county council so that they may later be placed on the board of assistance. Deputy O'Neill was a representative of the county council on the board of assistance and he walked away and left us and left the Kinsale urban area without a representative on the county council who could be put on the board of assistance. That was Deputy O'Neill's fault.
I was on the county council as the elected representative of an urban area. I want to get on the board of assistance as a direct nominee of the local urban area. I will not pursue the matter.
Surely to goodness the Deputy does not want two votes, one in respect of the county council and one in respect of the board of assistance?
I move the rejection of the section. I have just been made wise by the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that there will be only two boards of assistance—one, the board of assistance for South Cork and Cork City, and the other that for the City of Waterford—so that this section is only carrying on an injustice, a gross injustice, to the unfortunate rural districts concerned. This section is put in with one purpose alone as a definite decision of the Local Government Department that this injustice is to continue. The unfortunate position is that, whilst two-thirds of the rates in the South Cork Board of Assistance joint area are contributed by the rural district and one-third of the rates are spent in the rural district, one-third of the rates are contributed by Cork City and two-thirds of the rates are spent in Cork City. I think that the agricultural community are entitled at least to a fair crack of the whip. I do not think it is just to the agricultural community to throw this burden on them. In putting in this section—which is put in definitely and solely to cover these two joint districts, the joint district of Waterford City and county, and the joint district of Cork City and South Cork—the Local Government Department and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown their intention of carrying on this injustice to the unfortunate people of those districts. I cannot agree with the section, and I move its rejection.
Mr. Brennan
I think there is a great deal to be said for Deputy Corry's point of view. I think that if the Parliamentary Secretary were to canvass the opinion of Cork, Waterford and other places in which a situation like that exists, where a town and a portion of a rural district are included, the rural district paying the greater portion of the rates while the city reaps all the benefits, he would, I think, be convinced that something ought to be done to relieve that situation. I know one particular town in County Roscommon which is getting more public assistance than all the others put together.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Mr. Brennan
I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider the question raised by Deputy Corry. It is obviously an unfair position where you have a large urban district and a county borough authority, such as they have in Cork and Waterford, together with a much larger rural district. There ought to be some compensation in the shape of a low rate for public assistance purposes in the rural district, if the greater portion of the money is to be spent in the urban district.
Deputy Brennan thinks there is a good deal to be said for Deputy Corry's point of view. It is a new alliance.
It is unique.
Mr. Brennan
Is there anything wrong about it?
Nothing wrong, but what I wonder at is that it did not dawn on Deputy Brennan during the last 15 years that there was anything wrong with this scheme.
Mr. Brennan
We are amending it now, but apparently we are not going to do so.
We are not amending it. We are implementing what the people of Cork City and county agreed to in 1924.
Question.
Mr. Brennan
If it requires amending, now is the time to amend it.
Has Deputy Brennan received any representations from Cork that it ought to be amended?
Mr. Brennan
None whatever.
We have heard the viewpoint of the rural area affected in Cork expressed. There is an urban area affected, too, and the viewpoint of that urban area is entitled to at least as much consideration as the rural area.
Mr. Brennan
When they are getting two-thirds of the benefit, while paying one-third of the money, they ought to be well satisfied.
The Deputy might leave the position of Cork to the Cork Deputies. They are very well able to speak for themselves, and, as a rule, when one speaks, they all speak in rotation, so that the subject will be fully and adequately discussed, without any interference from Deputies from other constituencies. What I want to do, as I told Deputy Corry when he raised this point on Second Reading, is to preserve the agreement we made in Cork on the ground that it is not so easy to get the people of Cork to agree, and that I am reluctant to march boldly in and dissolve this happy unity which we have had for the past 15 years in Cork.
A happy unity!
If they want to divorce the rural area from the urban area, I think they should take the first steps about a divorce themselves. I am not going to interfere and force divorce upon them. They have got on comparatively well. It has been a comparatively happy union, as happy as one would expect considering the elements constituting the joint board, and I advise the House to leave them alone.
The Parliamentary Secretary speaks as if this were a completely agreed and happy affair. It is not, and nobody should be better aware of that fact than the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department of Local Government, who have, during the past few years, received several protests from that joint board against this unnatural state of affairs in which the unfortunate agricultural community have to pay eightpence out of every shilling, and in which, out of every shilling spent, eightpence is spent in the city while fourpence goes back to the country. That is an unfair and an unjust position.
Explain the whole thing now.
I welcome Deputy Hickey's interference and if he can put the case for the city, I should like to hear it, but certainly, while I am here as a representative of that area, I will do my duty by it. This section is definitely brought in to continue that injustice. I had hoped that, when we were getting changes in local government, the appeals and resolutions repeatedly sent to the Department on the matter would be dealt with, but, instead, we find this section included for no other purpose than to continue that injustice and to make it a permanent feature. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the section. I think it unfair and unjust to ask any body of men to contribute to the support of another body of people who are very well able to look after themselves.
I can recollect, at a very early period of the existence of the present Public Assistance Board in Cork, the very frequent protests made against the very serious charge upon the rural area, an area which has passed through very lean times and which still has to carry on under this injustice. I do not think there is any similar anomaly throughout this country—certainly, it does not exist in County Dublin—of a rural area having to pay the lion's share of the contribution towards local assistance and reaping the smaller amount, while the city, where all the industry is, and which is supposed to be the wealthier portion, pays the smaller amount and reaps the greater volume of public assistance and is paid, as perhaps is right, on a higher standard. The board of public assistance has adopted a very efficient means of administering this, and it would perhaps be well if other counties followed their example, in as much as public assistance is not given to any new applicant unless he is first recommended by the superintendent or the home assistance officer. The most careful supervision is exercised by that board, and I am glad to say that there is a certain amount of unanimity——
That obtains in every county.
It does not. It had to be inaugurated in Cork. It was inaugurated by another board with which I was connected, the North Cork Board of Assistance, by which it was administered very efficiently. The most careful supervision is exercised by the senior officials in the administration of public assistance. I support my colleague Deputy Corry on the opposite side in his efforts to get this section amended. We are both representing the same area and there are occasions in which we do find a certain amount of unanimity. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the innumerable protests that have been made by the board of public assistance against that injustice and these protests have always been carried by a large majority. I do not expect my friend, Deputy Hickey, the Lord Mayor of Cork to join us in this. The Deputy is only human. If he can grab for his own area a larger volume of money I can hardly blame him. I think the Minister ought to accede to our request and to remedy that injustice.
I think Deputy Corry and Deputy Brasier know well that the major revenue they have for the Cork County Council is from the suburbs of Cork. We are trying for some time to extend the Cork Borough boundary.
But the suburban residents do not want it and it is no wonder when they see the excellent results of the administration in the county council and compare them with the administration of the Cork Corporation. The county council administration is much more efficient than that of the Cork Corporation and much cheaper.
The residents of the suburbs are against this extension of the boundary.
The Cork Corporation are paying £1,500 in rates to the Cork County Council and that is because of the narrow borough boundary in Cork——
Deputy Hickey should not exaggerate.
Will the Deputies challenging a division please stand in their places.
Deputies W.J. Broderick, Brasier, Daly and Corry, stood in their places.
There are not sufficient Deputies challenging a division. Only four Deputies stood up and they will be recorded as dissenting.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, line 20, to delete the word "three" and substitute the word "seven".
The provision made in this section for the appointment of committees limits the membership to an entirely insufficient number. It is with some hesitancy that I invite members to visualise the position in Cork under this provision. The county covers a very extensive area. The complaint there, and perhaps in other counties, is that boards of assistance with a membership of ten are not sufficiently large for the purpose of local knowledge and local needs. The Parliamentary Secretary will, of course, say that it is open to county councils to appoint committees of a larger membership than three. But in case committees would be appointed of not more than three members, the position ought to be met in the Bill. The committees appointed should be sufficiently large and well-informed to administer this service as it ought to be administered.
Section 11 provides, as Deputy Murphy has appointed out, that a public assistance authority may "from time to time appoint such and so many committees as they think fit for purposes connected with the exercise or performance of all of their powers, duties and functions...." It is conceivable, and to my mind fairly probable, that county councils will appoint a number of committees within their administrative areas to deal with different aspects of public assistance— dispensary committees, hospital committes and committees to supervise boarded-out children, to mention only a few. To me, it would appear to be desirable that they should appoint such committees in comparatively small areas if immediate contact is to be kept with the people concerned. Taking the parish or dispensary district as the unit, if the county councils appoint two or three sub-committees for the purpose of administering different forms of assistance and if they are bound by statute to appoint a minimum of seven members, I doubt if sufficient persons would be found in the smaller districts to man all the committees that might be set up under the Act. I do not think there is any danger whatever to administration in making three the minimum number to serve on such committees. The machinery might, possibly, break down if the minimum were made as large as seven. I do not think that the proposal is a wise one and, consequently, I suggest to the Deputy that he should not press his amendment. On consideration, he may see that there is a strong case against it.
So far as I understand the machinery to be set up under this section, we are not concerned with hospital or dispensary committees but with public assistance committees——
"Public assistance" includes assistance in the various institutions, hospitals and dispensaries.
Yes, but the Parliamentary Secretary visualises the appointment of a number of committees. Some committee will be invested with responsibility for administering home assistance and it would seem to me that a committee of three for that purpose would be wholly inadequate and might result in injustice to the poor. That is my concern in the matter and I think the Parliamentary Secretary might look into it again and see if he can meet my point in some way. I am not tied to this particular amendment but to have three persons dealing with home assistance in a rural district or dispensary district might be very unsatisfactory to the recipients of home assistance.
Mr. Broderick
I am not as much concerned with the membership of the committees as I am with the necessity for the formation of these committees. I am not aware of any committee which exists in County Cork but I am aware that a considerable amount of hardship is imposed on people who know not where to go to get assistance or to get instruction as to how they are to get into a hospital. Occasionally, they meet officials who are far from sympathetic and I think that that is an exceptionally weak link in the whole administration of home assistance and hospital treatment. The poor people who have to avail of these services have nobody to guide them or assist them but officials. I feel very much the omission to establish these local committees which would have local knowledge and sympathy with the unfortunate people who are seeking the assistance of these institutions.
Deputy Broderick is not aware that, under the 1924 Act, there was power to have such committees appointed. I doubt that any local authority availed of that power. On Second Reading I said that there was a big danger in this provision, and I say so still. There is nothing in this section which limits the membership of these committees to three.
I am aware of that.
It can go up to ten or a dozen, but the larger the number of people you have administering public funds without any responsibility to the electorate, the more danger there will be in such committees. Every local authority is, I think, aware of that. Where you have very small county councils and a large number of committees administering public funds without any responsibility to the people, you may get an undesirable position. It has been found that persons who act in this way have not the same responsibility as elected representatives of the people. That is the danger in this whole section.
Mr. Broderick
I am perfectly aware of the provision in the 1924 Act. I did not refer to it save to point out that these committees do not exist. In Deputy Allen's view, the question has resolved itself into one of increased expenditure. I have not dealt with that point, but these committees have merely power to recommend; they have no power to pass expenditure. That is, so far as the 1924 Act is concerned. In this Bill they may have such power, and it is undesirable that anybody should have that power without responsibility to the ratepayers. Under the 1924 Act they have merely power to recommend. I am reminded by a colleague that, even in this Bill, they have not any executive power. They have only power to recommend. I have not read the Bill, and I do not know if I am correct in that.
They have full power if the county council, with the consent of the Minister, so decide.
Mr. Broderick
The county council or the board of assistance?
Under this Bill, the county council, in all areas outside this famous Cork area, and Waterford.
Mr. Broderick
Does not that bring you up against an extraordinary position? If the Parliamentary Secretary's statement is true, it makes confusion worse confounded. Am I to understand that the position is this, again using the headline of Cork: that the county council would have the power to appoint committees for which the City of Cork would be jointly responsible? If that is so, then we are going to have an extraordinary state of affairs.
The Deputy misunderstands what I said.
Mr. Broderick
The statement made was, as I understood it, that those committees would be appointed by the county council.
I said, outside the famous area that we have been discussing so long, affecting Cork and Waterford. I do not think the Deputy was present when we were discussing that.
There is one aspect of this to which I wish to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. He said he hoped that these committees would be set up to cover rather small areas, indicating parish or dispensary areas. There is nothing in the section, or in the Bill, so far as I can see, which would prevent a county council from establishing such committees in, say, electoral areas. An electoral area, as the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputies know, can be a pretty wide area, particularly in a large county. If you are going to have a committee of the kind visualised in sub-section (3), you may have one consisting of three or four members. I agree that under the section you could have one consisting of 23 or 24 members, but the section says "not less than three". We may assume, then, that in or about three will constitute the personnel of a committee.
Not necessarily.
I agree that you could have a committee of 23 or 33.
It will depend on the wisdom of the county council.
Yes, in so far as it has wisdom. I suggest that it is possible to comply with the section by appointing a committee of three or four people. If such a committee is to administer public assistance in an electoral area, as distinct from a dispensary or parish area, you are going to have a very small committee to look after the needs of home assistance applicants over a very wide area. I think that would be a great hardship on many of those applicants. It would be impossible for such a committee to ascertain accurately the circumstances of the recipients or potential recipients, or to investigate them with the thoroughness that you could get if there was a larger committee functioning in that area, or if you had a committee functioning in respect of a smaller area. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should look into the matter with a view to ascertaining whether it is not possible to make the minimum something higher than three. Why not make it five?
If you have a committee of three, what number would be required for a quorum.
If the intention is to have a number of those committees functioning over a county it would seem to me to be necessary to make some provision as to a meeting place for them. Has that been overlooked?
If Deputies had read sub-section (5) they would see that the quorum, procedure and place of meeting of those committees shall be such as may be appointed by regulations to be made by the public assistance authority which has appointed them.
If you appoint a committee of three, which is possible under the Bill, then you will appoint by regulation a quorum. That will be either one or two. If you appoint the quorum to be three it means that if one is ill, or absent for some other reason, the committee cannot function at all.
This debate may be very interesting from the point of view of a purely academic discussion: of trying to make debating points, but really there is not much substance in it so far. The whole discussion is based on the assumption that the county council cannot be trusted to do anything. I do not accept that premises at all. The county council have full power to determine the number of committees, the number of persons who shall constitute each committee so appointed, as well as to make regulations governing the quorum, place of meeting, duties, etc., that the committees are to discharge. Is the position being definitely taken by the critics of this particular section that we cannot entrust these simple powers to the county council?
It is not, and the Parliamentary Secretary need not ask that question.
If that is not the position, and if the county council can be trusted to do all these things, then I do not think that we need waste the time of the House further in discussing it.
Is it not the board of public assistance, and not the county council, that will appoint these sub-committees?
We have been dealing with that question for hours. The trouble is that the Deputy has not read the Bill.
The board of public assistance will be the county council.
Why not make the minimum number more than three so as to get over any difficulty of the kind that has been mentioned. I suggest that a larger number would be more reasonable so that you may be sure of getting a quorum.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite fair in falling back on the county council all the time in endeavouring to draw a red herring across the discussion here. Now, this is not a county council meeting. This is the Parliament of the country where legislation is being framed. If this legislation proves unsatisfactory, the blame cannot be put on the county council hereafter. May I ask, what type of county council we will have when this measure is in operation? It is quite possible, and conceivable, that a county council will be simply one individual.
A situation might very well arise in which I would not be prepared to trust him. I know, of course, of all the virtuous people who have developed into super-men in this country. We have quite a lot of them throughout the country, but I am old-fashioned enough to prefer the collective wisdom of a public body, composed of people who know the local circumstances. Holding that view, I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has met the position at all.
The case has been put to the Parliamentary Secretary that the minimum number should not be as low as three. If the present minimum is insisted on, you may have a situation arising in which three or four will, in fact, represent the strength of the committee. The case has been made that three or four is an exceptionally small number in those circumstances, if the committee is to administer public assistance over a wide area. The Parliamentary Secretary asks can we not trust the county councils to do that. We can, generally speaking, but there are some things which ought not to be left to the discretion of the county councils. This is a national Parliament, framing legislation, and it ought to indicate broadly to county councils what the minimum number should be. We should not pass a function of this kind on to the county councils and say: "We trust you to do it." We should indicate broadly what the minimum number should be. The county councils are not such sacrosanct bodies at all. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister dissolved a number of them because they would not carry out their functions or because they functioned in such an unsatisfactory manner. County councils are not infallible or pontifical bodies at all. They have been found negligent on many occasions. We ought to indicate here that we regard five as the minimum number. The Parliamentary Secretary has made no case whatever for retaining the figure of three.
The amendment says seven.
We suggest taking it back and making it a minimum of five.
We will meet the Parliamentary Secretary.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the matter?
I have already considered it.
Then, if we cannot make the Parliamentary Secretary see reason we will make him walk.
You can do both with equal facility.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William J.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, John.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (3), page 7, at the end of the sub-section, to add the words "provided, however, that the number of members so appointed shall, at least, be equal to the number of persons entitled to be elected to serve as members of the said public assistance authority in respect of the functional area of the committee."
The sub-section provides that the public assistance committee appointed by the county council may be composed either wholly of members of the county council or partly of county councillors, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the public assistance committee should have at least as many members on it as there are county councillors for the district covered by the committee. In one particular county, at least, where a reduction in the membership of the county council was agreed to, the position, following the next local elections, if the changes contemplated had not taken place, would be that each member of the county council would be a member of the public assistance committee. This amendment aims at preserving a somewhat similar position. It would follow on much the same lines as have been already argued, and I think it is a reasonable amendment.
I must confess again that I cannot follow the argument, and I am not sure that the Deputy has brought out what he appears to have intended. The amendment conveys to me the idea that when these committees are appointed by the public assistance authority, at least half of them should be elected members of the local authority. If that is what the Deputy intends by the amendment, if that principle is adopted, it would mean that the whole idea of the appointment of these committees, especially in the smaller areas, would be definitely jeopardised. Let us take the case of boarded-out children. Members of a supervisory committee who are not elected members of a county council might be very useful members on such a committee. Again, if we are to have at least half of the members of such committees elected members of the county council, it will mean that such committees can only function for a fairly wide area. If, say, the average number would be seven, as the Deputy seems to anticipate, that would require at least three or four county councillors under the amendment, which would cover a very wide area. I do not think that there is any good case for the amendment. I think it is better to leave the discretion as to the personnel of the committees in the hands of the local authority.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before sub-section (5) to insert the following new sub-section:—
The law for the time being in force in relation to the qualification and disqualification of persons for membership of a county council shall, so far as it is applicable, apply to the persons appointed to be members of every committee appointed under this section.
It seems to me that the Bill, as it stands at present, makes no provision for the disqualification that obtains at present in regard to members of local authorities in connection with membership of committees. The Parliamentary Secretary and the House will be aware that members of local authorities who may suffer disqualification by being involved in contracts and transactions of that kind incur certain penalties. The purpose of the amendment is to see that that position is preserved in regard to the committees and that the disqualification would apply to members of the committee in the same way as it applies to local authorities at present.
The position is safeguarded by clause 6 of Article 12 of the Schedule of the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898. The same thing applies to the next amendment.
I agree with Deputy Allen that these committees are going to be very dangerous. They will have no administrative responsibility. It may be all right to say that they will have the necessary local knowledge of applicants, to determine whether they are entitled to assistance or not, but they may act very generously in that respect, and for that reason, it would be very difficult to keep home assistance within a reasonable limit. If there is a home assistance officer, and if he is doing his job properly, by making the necessary inquiries to determine the means of applicants, he will get all the information necessary to enable local authorities to do their duty and to decide whether home assistance is necessary or not. I anticipate that committees of this sort, not having the responsibility of keeping home assistance within reasonable bounds, will act very generously towards local people. They will be parish committees dealing with a limited number of people, and their recommendations will be very generous. I know that these recommendations will have to be confirmed, but it will be very difficult to control home assistance expenditure.
Then do not set up committees at all. It is optional with the county councils.
If it is only a question of setting up committees many counties may not be inclined to do so. As far as I understand it, this Bill visualises county managers and we do not know what their powers will be. If the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us at this stage if county managers will have to determine whether committees should be set up or not, or whether they will be set up by the elected councils, it would help. We should know that. To a certain extent we are legislating in the dark. That is what I feel about the matter. If we could have a picture of what the Government proposals on the whole matter were we would be able to discuss this Bill to greater advantage. Will the managers determine if such committees are to be set up or will the elected councils do so? If the latter were to decide the position would be fairly safe. It would be different if the managers were to decide. That is the problem to be faced. I admit that certain committees that perform certain functions can be very useful, for instance, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, in looking after boarded out children, but when they come to expend money in their own areas, the position might be different. It is well that it should be considered beforehand. Otherwise it might happen that the whole county managerial system might break down.
I should like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate if he would prefer that county councils should set up committees or if the innovation is to be tried out by county councils, if they so desired.
The present boards of health have power to appoint committees.
Yes, but the powers are not exercised. Does the Parliamentary Secretary attach importance to the setting up of committees, or is there anything to indicate that they will have merely a continuation of powers which already exist? Will he say whether he prefers to have committees set up or whether he prefers to have, matters of administration left to a single council such as a board of health? I think the point raised by Deputy Allen is one of considerable importance. If it is felt desirable, in the light of the two other Bills that are to be introduced on the subject of local government, to set up committees of this kind, it is important when considering this Bill at this stage to know whether, when we have county managers installed—if they are installed—it will be one of their functions to decide if these committees will be established or if the representatives of local electors will be permitted to decide that question, independent of the judgment of county managers? A county manager may well decide that he does not desire such committees, and he will function, or arrange matters in such a way that very little authority will be diffused to anyone as far as he can prevent it. What is the intention in that connection in respect to the two other Bills foreshadowed on the Second Reading?
I am not in a position to indicate the terms of the other Bills.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if he regards committees desirable?
Personally, I think such committees should serve a useful purpose, especially in relation to the supervision of boarded out children, and even in connection with home assistance, that is, if you get the best type of citizen to function on such committees. I believe a good machine could be set up, but whether it will become operative is another question. The power has been vested in the board of health but it has not been much availed of, and one would naturally be inclined to pre-suppose the same conditions applying in future. My personal view is that it would be a good thing if such committees could be got to take an interest in social affairs, and in the condition of poor people they have close contact with, and that they are in a position to advise.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Before Section 12 to insert the following new section:—
It shall be the duty of every public assistance authority for a public assistance district which consists of a county borough and a joint district in a county adjoining such county borough or consisting only of a joint district, to appoint in respect of each parish situate within the functional area of such public assistance authority one or more public assistance wardens to perform such duties as may be assigned to them by regulations made by such public assistance authority.
May I point out to the Deputy that Section 38 (4) covers the point he has in mind in the amendment. It states: "The Minister may by Order make regulations..."
Does the Minister suggest that that sub-section fulfils the purpose outlined in the amendment?
Yes.
That is merely an enabling section.
Wardens are already appointed under regulation.
What does the Minister intend under Section 38 (4)?
Some such machinery will be established, whether they will be called wardens or district committees, to discharge the functions of wardens. Some such machinery must be provided.
I am afraid it does not meet the position. While the Minister may have that power, there will be nothing in the Bill, which will subsequently be an Act, to ensure that it would be exercised. Certain provisions and certain powers are provided, but there ought to be a provision for the appointment of wardens to issue dispensary tickets and to fulfil functions at present performed by wardens. The amendment could be utilised to cover a district or parishes. I prefer the proposal in the amendment to the rather general and vague proposal in Section 38 (4), and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider it.
May I point out that the matter could be more properly dealt with by way of regulation. I draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that the amendment does not meet his purpose. It does not necessarily follow that a public assistance authority must perform the duty set out in the amendment. It merely defines the duty and the public assistance authority may fail or neglect to do it. The phraseology does not achieve the Deputy's purpose.
I do not pretend to be an authority in that respect.
I am merely drawing attention to the fact. Another point that will arise concerns the parish. That is an entity that has created some difficulty in the way of legal definition. The amendment does not meet the situation, which, I suggest, can and will be properly met by regulation. It is essentially a matter to be dealt with by regulation.
I am afraid I am not convinced that a matter of this kind can be dealt with by regulation rather than by a local authority. Better lay it down in appropriate language that a local authority would be obliged to appoint some persons, corresponding to wardens under the poor law system that prevailed hitherto. That would be the most satisfactory way to deal with it.
Tá
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John A.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Keating, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Daly, Patrick.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Hughes, James.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass. Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann. John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Munnelly, John.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Sullivan, John.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Ward, Conn.
I move amendment No. 12:—
Before Section 12 to insert the following new section:—
Not withstanding the repeal of the Poor Relief Act, 1862, effected by this Act, the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act shall apply in relation to the committees appointed under Section 11 of this Act in the same way as if such committees were public assistance authorities for the purpose of the Poor Relief Act, 1862.
Under this Bill the Poor Relief Act, 1862, is repealed. That Act contains a provision that a solicitor acting for a local authority, successors to the board of guardians, who was a member of that local authority, was subject to a penalty. The proposal enshrined in this amendment is to continue that position, but if the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that the matter is met any where else I am satisfied.
The point is not covered in the Bill for the reason that, if it is considered that the principle is a sound one—and I believe it is—it will have universal application to other authorities as well as the public assistance authorities. The matter will be dealt with in the Local Government Bill.
The coming Local Government Bill?
Yes.
Evidently the Minister can tell us that now.
On this particular point, yes.
Oh, on this particular point. I see.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that it will be provided for?
Well, now, that is going a little bit far. If the principle is considered to be a sound one—and I, personally, believe that it is—it will be dealt with.
Is it in the 1925 Local Government Act?
No.
If this amendment is withdrawn, would the Minister give us the assurance that it will be in the Bill? We could withdraw the amendment, if we got that assurance.
All right, do not withdraw it.
Well, if the Parliamentary Secretary wants a little bit of exercise, he can have it.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some assurance that the matter would be considered.
Certainly. I have given that already. The matter certainly will be considered, and I think it will probably be included.
I am satisfied with that.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1), page 10, line 2, to insert after the word "to" the word "be."
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (1), page 10, line 33, to delete the words "and the" and substitute the words "or any".
This amendment and amendment No. 17 hang together. The object of the amendment is to make it clear that a person with dependents comes within the definition. I think Deputy Norton raised this matter on the Second Reading.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In sub-section (2) page 10, line 38, to delete the words "and the" and substitute the words "or any".
I think that amendment No. 18 is met by the other amendment.
Yes.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (2) page 11, line 9, to delete the words "sudden and".
This is intended to widen somewhat the powers given by the section. A case of sudden and urgent necessity is more limited than a case of urgent necessity.
It seems to me to be superfluous.
Well, "urgent" is wider than "sudden and urgent." This is meant to extend the definition.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (2), page 11, line 13, to delete the words and brackets "(otherwise than in money)".
This has been met by the Minister.
I move amendment No. 21:—
Before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
The Minister may by Order make regulations governing the giving of assistance under this section, and, in particular, regulating either generally or in respect of any particular class of person the nature of the assistance to be so given and prescribing the times and places at which and the conditions subject to which such assistance may be granted, and where any such regulations are for the time being in force, assistance given under this section shall be given in accordance with such regulations.
The section deals with the giving of public assistance, and this amendment is designed to make the position clearer. I am advised by the legal advisers that this is a drafting amendment, and gives a better clarification of the position.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In sub-section (3), page 11, to delete all from the word "the" in line 15 to the word "Act" in line 17, and substitute the words "this section."
This is consequential on the previous amendment.
I move amendment No. 23:—
In sub-section (3), page 12, line 10, to delete the word "may" and substitute the word "shall".
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 go together. In the Bill, as drafted, where a public assistance authority is requested by the governing body of a public hospital to provide land for such hospital, the public assistance authority as a condition precedent to providing the land, may require the governing body to undertake to defray the whole or a specified part of the cost of providing the land. By the amendment, the governing body will be asked to undertake the whole of the cost of providing the land.
I move amendment No. 24:—
In sub-section (3), page 12, line 12, to delete the words "or a specified part".
On Section 21, Sir, I do not know whether this is the proper place to raise this matter or not, but there is power there to acquire land for a public hospital, and I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary takes power, in any other portion of the Bill, to acquire land for a dispensary building.
We do that.
In the original Act, the one thing lacking was this power to acquire land for the purposes of a dispensary, apart from a dispensary residence.
If the Deputy looks at Section 60, he will see that that is covered.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 12, line 16, after the word "person" to insert the words and brackets "(with or without his dependents)".
The amendment will empower a public assistance authority, when they decide to send a person eligible for assistance to another place, to send his dependents also if they think fit and to pay the cost of removal.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In sub-section (1), page 12, line 26, to insert after the word "persons" the words "at any place within the public assistance district of such authority which appears to such authority or officer (as the case may be) to be proper."
This deals with the point raised by Deputy Kelly in the debate on Second Reading. The amendment will empower the public assistance authority to bury the remains of persons mentioned in the section at any place within the public assistance district.
Within or without the public assistance area? I did not quite catch what the Parliamentary Secretary said but I take it that the amendment provides for the contingency——
Within the area of the public assistance district.
I wonder would that go quite far enough? In County Cork, there are three public assistance districts. There might be a situation where a patient would die in an institution in the city. That would be a public assistance area outside that from which the patient came. I should not like a situation to arise whereby the public assistance committee would not have power to bring the remains of that person back to his native district for burial.
They would have that power. Suppose, for example, a person dies in an administrative area outside that in which his family burial place was situate. The public assistance authority in the area where he dies would not have statutory power to send back the remains for burial outside their own area or jurisdiction but the public assistance authority in his native district would have power to send for the remains.
That satisfies me.
Does that apply in an inter-county area?
The county is the administrative unit.
Suppose his burial place is not in the district?
Taking the county as the administrative unit, the public assistance authority can bury him any place within the county. If the burial place is outside the county, the public assistance authority in the outside county in which the family burial place is situate, can have the remains brought home from the outside county.
I am satisfied that the amendment covers the point I raised on Second Reading and I think the power given to local authorities in this section will be ample to meet any situation which may arise.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (3), page 12, line 46, to insert the word "of" after the word "bringing".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment No. 30 should be taken first, if the Deputy desires to move it. It may have been met by the Ministerial amendment.
It is not met by the Ministerial amendment.
Perhaps the Deputy would move it.
It must be taken first.
I move amendment No. 30:—
I accept the amendment.
On behalf of Deputy Davin I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraph (a).
I should like to ask the Minister for some information as to what exactly is intended by this section. What is visualised in the section?
I do not think that I can visualise what is intended any more clearly than the phraseology of the section presents it.
Is it possible for a board of public assistance to undertake with the Board of Works to repair a roadway leading into an institution under this Bill? Is it possible for a board of public assistance to say to the Board of Works: "If you will make a grant to us, we will mobilise a couple of inmates and we will put them working on the road round this institution." Is that possible?
Theoretically, I think it is possible.
What is the idea?
I think I have an idea of what the Deputy has in mind. This particular provision has been incorporated in the Dublin Poor Relief Act and it has been borrowed from the Dublin Poor Relief Act for this Bill. It is not operated to any great extent and I am not particularly attached to the principle. If the general feeling of the House indicates that the principle should not be incorporated in this measure, I am quite prepared to agree.
It may be operated against men who are in receipt of home assistance.
This provision is operating in Dublin under the Poor Relief Act. At least it is the statutory provision made, but I do not think it has been operated to any great extent.
I earnestly hope not.
As it stands here it could operate against inmates of an institution.
Let the amendment go.
I move amendment No. 33:—
At the end of the section to add a new paragraph as follows:—
Where public assistance has been given by the said authority to destitute persons while awaiting compensation or weekly payment from his or her employer or insurance company for injuries received while in such employment or from any accident or any cause whatever, the employer or insurance company or such person liable shall pay as a first charge out of such compensation a sum of money on demand from the said authority equal to the amount already paid by the said authority in assisting the aforesaid individual.
In a case where excess home assistance is paid to a recipient pending a decision in court of workmen's compensation or for a road accident or anything like that, the local authority may pay for a number of weeks and the local authority sometimes has to proceed against the recipient to recover the excess home assistance paid and very often fail to recover. I suggest in this amendment that where the local authocity presents its bill, the person liable should discharge the amount out of the compensation.
My grouse in this matter is the other way; we invariably find that when a person—a widow—gets a widow's pension there is a peremptory order from the Department of Local Government put through to stop the amount of money she has got during the period she was waiting for help.
This has nothing to do with pensions.
I quite understand that it has nothing to do with pensions, but it is the same principle. In a great many cases some of these people, in consequence of the fact that they have not been working regularly, get a very small amount of compensation, and when they get the amount of money due to them they want it very badly. I suggest that the amendment ought to be withdrawn.
It may be a considerable sum.
It is usually the other way.
A man may be injured on the road through a motor accident and pending the fixing of liability for that accident he may be paid home assistance for a period—a month or two months. Of course, the person who is liable for the accident should pay him, but the liability has not been fixed, and pending the fixing of the liability the local authority relieves him of destitution.
I am sorry. I misunderstood your point.
The local authority should have power to recover out of the amount of compensation. Very often when the local authority proceed to recover in court they do not collect. I think that if the local authority presents a bill to the person who is liable it should be discharged out of the compensation.
Is it to be taken from the injured person or from the insurance company?
From the insurance company or the person liable for compensation. It must be taken into account, in determining the amount of compensation, that there is a sum of money to be discharged for home assistance given pending the decision of the case.
I think the point Deputy Hughes has made is something the Parliamentary Secretary should look into, because if he inquires from local authorities he will find that there is a lot in this. I think a judge recently held in court that if the man was entitled to public assistance in the ordinary course, before he had the accident, that he was not liable to pay anything to the local assistance authority notwithstanding that he might get a very considerable sum of money—£1,000—in compensation. I think it is something that should be looked into. Provision has already been made—an extraordinary thing—in the Workmen's Compensation Act, to pay the medical expenses of the medical officer who may attend him although he is a case that the judge will hold was entitled to public assistance before he met with that accident and although the local authority must bear the burden of his maintenance, the medical officer attending him, although bound under law to give him free attention as a person entitled to public assistance, is paid, but the local authority are not.
No provision whatever has been made for them. We are aware also that employers in this country are paying very substantial increases in their premiums for workmen's compensation in order to ensure that medical fees will be paid. I think that when medical fees are paid the local authority, who provide maintenance, should also be paid.
I am not actually visualising the case of a man who is already obtaining home assistance. Take the case of a workman going home from work who meets with an accident.
I did not say that.
I know that. I just want to make it clear. Supposing he meets with an accident and the liability is not fixed for two or three months, the local authority must come to his assistance with the intention of collecting later on when the liability is fixed. My experience is that invariably they do not collect.
We have no objection to that at all if it is not taken off the man.
You are asking the man to pay out of his compensation?
It will be taken into consideration in determining the compensation in court. I think any member of a board of health must have come up against cases of this sort from time to time.
I can understand, perhaps, Deputy Hughes' argument if he is referring to a man who is in regular employment and, in consequence of being in regular employment, entitled to the maximum amount of compensation, but a man may be hurt who has only been working two or three weeks in a year and his compensation may be as low as 5/- or 10/- a week. Does Deputy Hughes suggest that that man, if given compensation——
He is entitled to full compensation as a workman.
He is not. He is only entitled to compensation in accordance with his average earnings over a period.
The maximum is 30/- a week.
He must have been in constant employment to get that. That is the trouble. It varies to such an extent in accordance with his earnings. It is the small man I am thinking of.
Supposing he loses an arm——
That is punishment enough.
If he is permanently injured he gets permanent compensation.
The question of "light work" comes in then.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the principle behind this amendment, and I will look into it between this and the Report Stage, and see in what particular form a similar amendment can be inserted whilst safeguarding certain positions that we will require to safeguard. It seems to me that if a man is injured by accident and he is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that the cover ought to be such as to safeguard the interests of the local authority, that he should not be thrown destitute back to the local authority. The provision for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act may not be as generous as it ought to be. That is quite another question. I do say that if a man is injured and an insurance premium has been paid that is intended to cover a certain risk, that insurance ought to be such as to safeguard the local authority from having to carry the burden of maintaining that man either during the time the case is pending or afterwards.
Yes.
I am not so much concerned about the loss to the public authority by giving a man home assistance pending the fixing of liability for his accident, but that man may be in hospital for three months, and I think the question should be considered of relieving the public authority of the cost of keeping him.
That is what I mean.
It is an entirely different thing. As a member of a public assistance board, we have several cases of that, where a man, the employee of a wealthy concern, is rushed to the district hospital and kept there for months and the public authority cannot recover anything from him. He may be poor. He may have a big family and he cannot pay. I think it is unfair that the public authority should maintain him in that institution without getting something from the firm in which he was injured. That is more important than the amendment of Deputy Hughes.
I used the words "public assistance" and that covers hospital treatment as well, and I intended it to cover institutional treatment under this amendment.
The whole question will be examined.
I understand that, where a particular person is removed to a voluntary hospital, the hospital is paid, but the public assistance authority hospital is never paid.
Provision for hospital treatment is made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That claim is scarcely sustainable if the person is legally entitled to public assistance, but the whole question will be examined.
One aspect of the matter is that a person injured in an ordinary motor accident would not be entitled to claim as part of his damages the amount he may have received in home assistance. It would have to be paid to the local authority only on demand, and as a result the local authority may not be paid and the insurance company may get off without paying portion of the amount for which they have insured.
Deputy Hughes quotes the case of a man being injured and being maintained either on public assistance at a hospital or at the expense of the local authority and wants power taken to enable the local authority to recoup itself. But the amendment submitted by Deputy Hughes goes much further. Deputy Hughes asks in his amendment that if a man meets with an accident and is insurable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and gets the benefit of it, one may step in and say that the first charge on that compensation will not be the payment of any bills which he may have contracted to provide treatment, but that there shall be paid back to the local authority the small amount it has advanced. I think that is a most unreasonable demand. In many cases the compensation is only 30/- and the average is very much less than 30/-, because to get that 30/- he must have been employed for the preceding 52 weeks at not less than £2 per week. Casual employment would not do.
What about the medical benefits provided under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
That is not paid by the man but by the employer. Deputy Hughes has moved an amendment to the effect that whatever money is paid the first charge out of such money is to be the payment of the hospital. In other words, if a man gets 25/- a week as a result of an accident the local authority can step in and say that they paid 5/- a week to the man during the time he was out. That, I think, is most unreasonable. I want the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, to bear that kind of case in mind, and not to allow any contemplated amendment of the existing position in that regard to be used as an excuse for reducing the small compensation which a workman gets in such circumstances. In any case, I do not think that it is possible to alter the Workmen's Compensation law which is in existence by any amendment to the Public Assistance Bill.
My intention is to fix the person liable to pay it back to the public assistance authority in cases where expenditure has been made. It is to fix the person liable to pay, but, pending the fixing of the payment the local authority sometimes in cases of that kind pays home assistance, and they should be recouped.
You want to take it off the man?
No.
But your amendment says so.
It is not intended in that way.
Why not withdraw it? Why get so angry when you see it is so foolish?
On sub-section (2), paragraph (b), I will require to move an amendment on the Report Stage extending the power to provide water and sewerage in addition to other things set out. I am merely informing the House.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (1), page 16, line 45, before the word "may" to insert the following words "after the holding of a public inquiry".
The purpose of this amendment is to preserve some local rights in the matter of the closing of local institutions. The section makes provision for such an emergency and the purpose of the amendment is that a decision of that kind will not be taken until a public inquiry is held. After all, in the last analysis, I think the opinion of the local ratepayers ought to be got in this particular matter and I suppose we have experience enough of local government in recent years to know that very strongly felt local agitations have raged around questions of this kind. The idea of the amendment is to preserve as far as possible the principle that local opinion should be consulted in connection with the closing of the particular institution.
There is no objection.
I move amendments Nos. 35 and 36:—
35. In sub-section (1), page 17, line 15, to delete the word "such" and substitute the word "every", and in line 16, to delete the words "as the Minister shall from time to time by order direct".
36. To delete sub-section (2).
This section reads: "Every district institution shall be available for the assistance of such class or classes of persons eligible for public assistance as the Minister shall from time to time by order direct", and in sub-section (2) there is provision that:
Whenever the Minister by order directs that any particular class of persons for whose assistance a district institution is available shall not be assisted by a public assistance authority otherwise than in a district institution, it shall not be lawful for any public assistance authority to assist (except in cases of sudden or urgent necessity) any person of the said particular class in contravention of such order.
I object to the whole mentality underlying these sections. It pre-supposes that the Minister may come in and fix a kind of untouchable class to which the local authority cannot grant assistance except in the manner set out.
The Deputy misunderstands.
These district institutions are not just first-class hotels, and the further away one can keep from them the better. If you go looking for comfort or amenities you will not find them.
That is not so.
The Deputy will not spend much time in them if he can help it.
The Deputy misunderstands the question.
I am willing to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to explain the question. He seems to come in seeking power to create a class which cannot be treated except in district institutions, and it seems unfair to say that they cannot be given assistance outside of those institutions. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say what is in his mind.
Under sub-section (1) of Section 32—"Every district institution shall be available for the assistance of such class or classes of persons eligible for public assistance." Now, the classification that I have in mind is not the classification that Deputy Norton has in mind. The Minister must be empowered to preserve certain institutions for certain classes of patients. That is the intention here. The intention of this section is to provide that where institutions, such as sanatoria or institutions for the treatment of epileptics, are specially established for certain classes, they would be available to such people and to no others.
I agree, so far as it is desired to maintain certain institutions for persons of that kind, but, if that is so, although the language of both subsections is capable of applying to quite a different set of circumstances, it would suit a case in which the Minister wanted to clamp certain people, or classes of people, into an institution. That may not be the intention, and it clearly is not the intention, in view of the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, but the language of the sub-section would suit the circumstances in which, in fact, he did want to put people in against their will. What is the purpose, however, of preventing the local authority from giving public assistance to such a person, even outside an institution, if there is assistance or service available for that person remaining outside an institution?
The Deputy will appreciate that it is a useful power to have and, in certain circumstances, might be very desirable. The Deputy knows that there are mental defectives and moral defectives who ought to be treated in an institution, if an institution is provided for the purpose. If such institutions are provided and the Minister, in the exercise of his judgment and discretion, decides that such people should be treated in such an institution, and not outside, it is desirable that he should have power to prevent the public assistance authority from cutting across that line of policy and maintaining them outside institutional treatment.
That may be so as a general proposition, and one might subscribe even to a substantial portion of that viewpoint as a general proposition, but you may find a person who is defective, morally or mentally, or with some physical disability, and where the members of his family are willing to do their best to assist such a person, preferring to do that than to see that person maintained in an institution, which they might feel would not conduce to an improvement in his state of health, or to correction of the defects, surely it ought to be possible for a local authority, in such circumstances, to say: "Having regard to the home circumstances in this case, and, even though the family are poor, we are prepared to grant outside assistance, and not to compel this person to go into an institution as a condition of receiving treatment". Would the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to insert a provision "with the permission of the Minister", so that a local authority could write to the Minister and say: "Here is a case in which we think the person can be allowed treatment at home and we want permission to pay home assistance"?
I think Deputy Norton is arguing without knowledge of the actual facts. Take the case of a person in an area where there is a certain hospital, say, a maternity hospital. A knight of the road could demand from the public assistance authority that assistance should be given.
I am not dealing with that aspect of it at all.
Yes, the Deputy is. That is what is being provided against in the section.
I am not arguing that point at all.
Then I cannot understand the Deputy's argument. He is not arguing on the section at all.
I can argue with the Deputy, but I am not responsible for his understanding.
And I am not responsible for the Deputy's, either.
I am glad of that, too.
Because I would not like to take responsibility for it.
It would be less heavy for the Deputy than for me.
If Deputy Norton has finished his quips, I want to say that such powers are absolutely necessary for the Minister, or the local authority, if people are to be put into proper institutions, and there are special institutions provided for special classes, as I think his colleague on his left, and, in fact, all his colleagues, will tell him.
People with experience must agree, that sometimes it is in the public interest to provide institutional assistance rather than home assistance.
And, on many occasions, it may not be.
The opposite may also be the case, but it cannot be done under this section.
Institutions, county homes and institutions of that kind, are very often overcrowded and unless a situation is visualised when entirely new buildings are put up, one can hardly contemplate any substantial additions to the numbers in certain areas, without a good deal of discomfort and inconvenience, and while there are odd cases which would be better-off in an institution, I think the liberty of the subject is of very great importance. I would dislike a situation in which poor persons, afflicted in any way and having the feeling which is in the hearts of many poor people about county homes, or what are described as workhouses, would be compelled to suffer the penalty of being unable to get any assistance unless they entered such an institution. I think there ought to be some discretion in this matter.
The Minister has discretion. It is only when the Minister by order directs that it becomes operative.
That is an order in respect of a class of persons, and one might agree, as a general proposition in respect of classes of persons, but once a person comes into that class, no matter what his circumstances may be, a public assistance authority must insist on his receiving institutional treatment, even though the authority might feel that this was a case where the person ought not to be required to go into an institution as a condition of receiving assistance. I want to preserve a position whereby the authority will have power to say: "As a rule, people like you must go in, but we, having investigated the circumstances of the case, believe it is one in which we ought to grant assistance while you remain out of the institution, because we are satisfied that your home circumstances will conduce to recovery and improvement". I want to preserve power to do that, while not interfering with the general proposition that you may have classes for which institutional treatment is desirable. There ought, however, to be provision for exceptions of that kind.
I might point out to the Deputy that the section does, in fact, provide for exceptions under the heading of "urgent necessity". The interpretation of that phrase will be largely a matter for the local authority, and I think that some of the cases the Deputy has in mind could, by a liberal interpretation of that phrase, be held to be persons who might get assistance outside the institution provided.
If it does get that meaning, it is surely straining the normal meaning of the phrase. This may be a case in which assistance will have to be rendered for 12 months, and it cannot be said that that is urgent necessity.
If the Deputy has in mind the covering of cases in which assistance would continue for 12 months, I think the principle would not be accepted.
I have in mind the case of a person suffering from some disability. It may be felt that that person, male or female, belongs to a class which should receive institutional treatment, but there may be a case of an individual who dislikes to go into a county home, or who has relatives who dislike his going into a county home, who may say: "We will look after this person outside if the local authority will help by granting assistance outside and by not requiring this person to go into an institution." It does not seem to me that "except cases of sudden or urgent necessity" would provide for cases of that kind, and in any case there is the Local Government auditor to reckon with. Would the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to insert the phrase, "or with the special permission of the Minister," so that where you had a particular case the local authority could submit the facts to the Minister and ask permission to grant assistance outside the institution, rather than to provide for the regimentation of a whole class of people and compel them to go into an institution when they would prefer to be treated outside.
I have no objection to the principle of having individual cases submitted to the Minister where there is a special hardship, but I am a bit perturbed as to the administrative difficulties that such a position might create. If the officers of the Department have to devote a whole lot of their time to examining such cases, I am afraid it would clog up the machinery of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. However, I will look into the matter between this and the Report Stage of the Bill.
Is the Minister leaving in the words "sudden or urgent" here?
I will look into that. There is not a great point in it.
There are three amendments to this section:—
37. In sub-section (2), page 17, to delete all from the word "but" in line 43 to the end of the sub-section. (Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe).
38. In sub-section (2), page 17, to add at the end of the sub-section the following words:—"provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall be deemed to impair the right to compensation conferred by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, on any person injured by accident within the meaning of that Act". (Michael J. Keyes, James Everett).
39. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Where an inmate of a district institution is required in pursuance of regulations made under this section to perform work, such inmate shall, if he does such work, be deemed, in relation to the doing thereof, to be for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934 (No. 9 of 1934), a workman in the employment of the public assistance authority maintaining such district institution, but, save as aforesaid, neither such requisition nor the performance of such work by such inmate shall operate to create or imply the relation of master and servant or a contract of service between such authority and such inmate. (Aire Riaghaltais Aiteamhail agus Sláinte Poiblidhe).
Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 hang together. Amendment 38 is not necessary. It is governed by a previous amendment. Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 are in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was to meet a case made by Deputy Corish.
Is it necessary to move this amendment in view of the acceptance of the principle by the Minister?
Yes. It is necessary in this case from the point of view of drafting.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary moving amendment No. 37?
Yes. Amendment No. 38 is not necessary. It is governed by the previous amendment.
Amendment No. 38 would be affected by the decision on amendment No. 37?
Yes, the principle is covered by the previous amendment, but it is necessary to have this amendment itself. The principle in it has already been agreed on. Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 hang together.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In sub-section (3), page 18, line 10, to insert after the word "regulations" the words and brackets "(including amending regulations)".
This is a drafting amendment, giving the Minister power to make amending regulations.
I move amendment No. 41:—
In sub-section (1), page 19, line 10, to delete the words "for the time being residing".
On Section 41 I wish to intimate that it may be necessary to make it clear in this matter of the residence for a dispensary doctor, that the doctor does not acquire a tenancy in his residence.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In sub-section (1), page 23, line 5, to delete the word "or" and substitute the word "and".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 43:—
At the end of sub-section (2) to add the words "or placing it in any suitable trade, calling, or business".
I move amendment No. 44:—
In sub-section (4), page 24, line 16, after the word "children", to insert the words "over fourteen years of age".
In this section boys would be apprenticed to trades, and similar arrangements would be continued in regard to girls. The only purpose of the amendment is to provide that they should not be apprenticed until they have reached 14 years of age.
I am prepared to accept the principle of the amendment, and I will submit it to the draftsman.
This section is about the boarding-out of children. I want to know if the Minister has any intention of introducing legislation dealing with boarded-out children. The reason I ask the question is that our experience of these boarded-out children is anything but a pleasant one. We have boarded-out children over whom we have no control whatever. At the moment there is an organisation boarding out children apart altogether from the board of public assistance. There is a sum of £60 given to the foster-parent, spread over a period of four years. At the end of four years these children come along to the board of health for assistance. The foster-parents also require assistance. These are the wives of unemployed persons. I find in our own area in the board of public assistance in Cork that there are four children who were not registered and who had not even surnames.
Mr. Walsh
In Cork?
Yes; and I am sure the Minister himself will have had reports from the County Cork of a case where there were four children in one house and none of these four children had any surname. There was no evidence that they had been registered. During the past year I have had people coming to me with boys 17 and 18 years of age who have got employment at minor jobs. These boys wanted the national health cards. It was found that these poor boys had hitherto been known as members of the family of the foster-parents. When they went to get their cards they found that their names were not the names they thought they were. Within the last fortnight I found that a lady in Cork took a boy from a Dublin institution. When I wrote to the institution for his real name, the reply I got was that the institution treats all their patients with confidence. There are eight children in the Cork area who were not registered and they have no surnames. They are known by the name of Michael or Joseph or Patrick. The Bill is not apparently providing for these cases, and I would ask the Minister to introduce a Bill to deal with them.
In sub-section (2) there is a mistake. Paragraph (a) of the sub-section says "in the case of a legitimate child one at least of those parents is living and has not deserted it, to which its parents or its surviving parent object or objects...." I do not understand that. The word "those" should be "whose" apparently.
There are several printers' errors and I might point out that we can make these right without having to move them formally.
I move amendment No. 45:—
In sub-section (1), page 33, line 20, to delete the word "purports" and substitute the word "purport".
This amendment is intended to rectify a printer's error.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In page 33, line 50, to delete the word "public" and substitute the word "general".
If a person gets public assistance, that might mean that he would get hospital treatment. Does this provision mean that, no matter what class of public assistance a person may get, he is liable to punishment if he does not do the class of work that is given him?
No, but the Deputy's amendment is an improvement, and I am prepared to accept it.
I move amendment No. 48:—
In sub-section (2), page 35, line 17, to delete the figures "1934" and substitute the figures "1924."
That was a misprint.
On Section 87, I wish to inform the House that it will be necessary to adapt the expression "relieving officer." It may also be necessary to amend the power of the Minister to make specific adaptation by sub-section (1). Appropriate amendments will be submitted on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 37, lines 41 and 42, to delete the words "and relating to or having effect in more than one public assistance district."
I presume the Deputy will not press this amendment. It would be utterly impossible to have all the regulations to be made under this Act laid on the Table. The Table would not hold them; half of them would be on the floor. Under the amendment, every sealed order made by the Minister would have to be laid on the Table of the House.
That is a situation for which I do not desire to be responsible but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would, between now and Report Stage, give some consideration to the matter. He might be able to classify the regulations in some way so that all the important matters would be brought to the notice of the House. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot do that, then I shall not press the amendment.
We have given a good deal of thought to this matter since the Deputy put down his amendment. We have operated on the principle in the past that when a regulation affected more than one area and was of a general nature, provision was made for laying it on the Table. I have searched for a better form and I cannot find it. The line must be drawn somewhere and I do not see any other line than that which distinguishes between general orders and specific orders relating only to a local area.
If you would be able to make that distinction, it would satisfy me.
I move amendment No. 50:
Opposite the reference "52 and 53 Vic. c. 56" in the third column after the word "Act" to insert the words "so far as applied to Ireland."
In the Schedule, the Poor Law Act of 1889 is repealed. Examination reveals that the Poor Law Act, 1889, did not apply to this country save in respect of one section. The amendment is put down with a view to having the opinion of the Parliamentary Secretary on the matter and of ascertaining whether it is worth while repealing a measure only one section of which is applicable to this country. I am not particularly interested in the matter.
The provisions of the Act that applied to Ireland are being repealed. I am advised that the drafting is in the proper form and, on purely legal matters, we have to be guided by our official advisers.
In relation to the Schedule, I should like to mention that the following amendments are being considered for addition to the Schedule on Report Stage—the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1879, Section 4; the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, Section 24, sub-section (3) of Section 25, Section 79; the Public Assistance Act, 1937, Section 5. The following are being considered for removal from the Schedule:—the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838, Section 18; the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, Section 9. On the Second Schedule, I may have to move an amendment to Rule 10. I am looking into the matter and am now merely intimating to the House that certain amendments may be necessary on Report Stage.