The Minister, when introducing this Estimate, said that under a new Emergency Order he had taken powers to dissolve local authorities, if necessary, without holding an inquiry. I think the Minister, if he gives further consideration to the wisdom of using such powers, might change his mind. This is a democratic country—it is supposed to be, at all events. We set up local authorities, which give voluntary services; some of them are quite honest and quite sincere in their work, and most anxious to comply with the law in every respect.
I think the threat the Minister has made to these local authorities is, in the circumstances, unjustified. Simply because one local authority has failed in its responsibility, the Minister lashes out with all sorts of threats to local authorities generally. I do not think there is any justification whatever for the Minister's attitude in that respect. I think it is an insult and an injustice to local authorities that because one local authority has failed to provide certain necessary finances, the Minister should threaten the big stick on all of them; and not merely that, but threaten to dissolve them without the necessary sworn inquiry. Surely the Minister will not assume the role of absolute dictator, and dissolve local authorities without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.
If the Minister pursues that line, he may find it disastrous in the long run. If a local authority were critical of the Minister or his Department, he might use the powers given under this Emergency Powers Order to squelch that local authority. There is one thing we should insist on. I think the Minister, in his own interest, apart from any other consideration, should clearly demonstrate to the public, when he decides that a local authority must be dissolved, that he is fully justified in carrying out that dissolution, and he must satisfy public opinion, when he takes drastic action by dissolving a local authority, that a sworn inquiry fully justifies that action.
How can a Minister justify his action if he does not take all the necessary precautions to satisfy the public mind? It savours far too much of the dictator and I resent, on behalf of local authorities generally, his threat that he is going to dissolve without a sworn inquiry. I say that in my opinion it is very, very unwise for the Minister to suggest that drastic action of that sort should be taken without having examined all the circumstances. The Minister may try to justify it on the point that it would save cost. Whatever a sworn inquiry costs, surely it is worth the expenditure if it satisfies the public mind that the problem has been fully examined, that the local authority that is about to be dissolved has been given every opportunity to defend itself. A denial of that principle, in any circumstances, in my opinion is not democratic.
I suggested before to the Minister that in the matter of public assistance he should insist that county managers should have a committee to advise them. I think the Minister must agree with me as to the wisdom of that course. Local people who are in touch with the problem, who are au fait with the difficulties of individual families would be invaluable in assisting the manager in the distribution of public assistance. By relying merely on the official sometimes the best information is not obtained. I suggest it cuts both ways. Sometimes a local representative may feel that an applicant for home assistance has not made the effort to get employment and that home assistance in his case is scarcely justified. There may be other people —they are becoming fewer now I admit—rather reluctant to apply for home assistance, decent people who might need home assistance. Here again, a committee to advise the manager would be very useful. Provision is made in the Act for a committee of that sort, and I am not aware that there are very many of them functioning.
There is another aspect of the Managerial Act to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. It is in connection with the tenancy of cottages. Under the existing regulations, the manager, the county medical officer and the officials responsible for determining who is to get a cottage, take into account simply the condition of the existing houses—whether the applicant is living in an insanitary, condemned or overcrowded house or whether his family is suffering from T.B. As the Minister knows, the considerations fall into three or four categories. There is one point, however, that should not be lost sight of and that is that in rural areas where there is a demand for good agricultural workers, there is a case for giving houses to such workers. The point should not be overlooked that such men could occupy a house on a farm where there is constant employment and where the occupier has willingly given the site in the past in the hope that he would get a good, efficient, agricultural worker. I can assure the Minister that that aspect is being overlooked at the present time and that there is no regard to the applicant's qualifications as an agricultural worker. County managers are putting people into houses simply because the houses they occupy at the moment are unsuitable.
We talk about agricultural progress. It is an essential factor in agricultural progress that we should get efficient agricultural workers. I suggest to the Minister now that he should give that aspect of the problem his consideration. To my own knowledge, 12 months ago, individual applicants for houses, who were first-class agricultural workers, were turned down—reluctantly turned down, I must say—merely because the manager was tied by regulations that do not permit him to take that aspect into consideration. I suggest to the Minister that it ought to be taken into consideration. If that wider aspect of the qualifications of applicants is to be considered, there ought to be some sort of committee dealing with this matter of the tenancy of cottages. We ought not to leave it to one bureaucrat to make a decision. I can assure the Minister that the matter of the tenancy of cottages is not being dealt with satisfactorily from that point of view.
The vital statistics show, and the Minister has referred to the fact, that there are increases in certain diseases. It is unfortunate that in this country over a long period of years certain diseases have been endemic and that we have not made any really successful effort to reduce or control them. Typhus is endemic in this country, and it ought not to be. The same applies to tuberculosis. Other problems have arisen during the emergency in regard to disease, and I do not know whether the Minister or his Department have given any consideration to them. I am sure they have. A big number of people have left this country to seek work in Great Britain. At the present time they are not permitted to return but I understand the matter is receiving consideration and it may be that facilities may be given to them to come back. We know that some diseases are rife in Great Britain, notably V.D. I wonder what precautions are taken here because I believe the incidence of that disease is on the increase in this country. Geographically we are very dangerously placed. Is the increase so serious or alarming that it might be necessary to quarantine some of the people coming back? The disease is of such a dangerous character that I suggest the question should be seriously considered. I do not know what examination is made of individuals returning to this country but we ought to take every possible precaution, no matter how inconvenient it is, to control the spread of infection. I am aware of the fact that the traffic to and from Great Britain is a great source of danger in this respect and the increase of the incidence of that particular disease in Great Britain is viewed with alarm by a number of people in this country.
The Minister referred to the advance in the incidence of tuberculosis. It has been suggested in the past—I, as a matter of fact, suggested it here last year—that the Minister should seriously consider the establishment of a national chest hospital so that all chest cases would be thoroughly examined. Of all the diseases that we suffer from in this country I suppose the most alarming is tuberculosis. The House expressed its dissatisfaction with the progress made in dealing with that disease. It generally occurs between the ages of 15 and 45, and the death of an individual between these ages is a great national loss. Other diseases generally occur earlier or later in life, and, from the point of view of the family or the nation, the loss of an individual from these diseases is not so great. An effort should be made to try to reduce the incidence of that disease. I believe that it masquerades under a variety of names, such as bronchitis, pleurisy and influenza, and it has been suggested by experts that, if you had a national chest hospital, these cases could be sorted out there and people would be prepared to go to such a hospital for treatment because, in going to that hospital, it might be that they would not be told they were tuberculous cases. Unfortunately, a lot of people look upon tuberculosis as a stigma and are afraid to acknowledge that it is in the family or to have it treated, and that makes the problem all the more difficult. I suggest to the Minister that, if we are to deal with this matter in a vigorous way, we should insist upon compulsory notification of the disease, whether infectious or non-infectious. As the law stands, the medical officer is only compelled to notify where he is satisfied that there is danger of infection. Apart from the infectious cases, we have, of course, tuberculosis in other forms, non-pulmonary forms, and if we are really to know where we are in that respect, every type of case ought to be notified. I believe, too, that there ought to be compulsory sputum tests. I think medical officers ought to be given compulsory powers to take sputum samples in cases where they have any doubt, and have tests made in all cases where they have any suspicion that tuberculosis is present.
It has often struck me as peculiar that, in dealing with bovine tuberculosis, tuberculosis in carcases slaughtered for human consumption, merely the portion of the animal found to be suffering from tuberculosis is condemned, and the rest is certified as fit for human consumption. I think that if the average man in the street realised that he was eating meat from an animal some of whose organs were infected with tuberculosis, he would revolt against the whole thing. I think we could well afford to condemn the whole animal if there is tuberculosis present in any part, and that the wisdom of only condemning portion of the animal might be seriously questioned. However, I am not a medical man, and I do not know anything about it. I suppose it is quite safe to certify as fit for human consumption the remaining portions of the animal, but we might consider having the whole carcase condemned.
In the matter of dealing with diseases and looking after public health generally, I should like to say that I have had complaints during this year, especially from county medical officers, about the amount of petrol allowed in connection with the incidence of diphtheria in my constituency. I appreciate the difficulties regarding petrol, but I do say in all seriousness to the Minister, so far as proper supervision in that respect is concerned, that we ought not to curtail medical officers, especially county medical officers, when dealing with outbreaks of disease like diphtheria and other notifiable diseases. It is a very serious handicap so far as county medical officers are concerned. County medical officers, public health nurses, and other officials have been immobilised to a very great extent; in fact, the service as a whole has been immobilised to a very great extent because of the shortage of petrol. While fully appreciating the difficulty in which the country is placed at present, I say that, where the Minister is satisfied that there is an outbreak of diphtheria or any other disease of that sort, he should make representations to the Department of Supplies to ensure that sufficient petrol is provided anyway for the medical officer charged with the responsibility of dealing with it.
The Minister gave us no information about hospital deficits. I am sure the demand on Hospital Trust Funds to meet hospital deficits is still on the increase. One must appreciate that this is almost inevitably due to the increased cost of living and the increased cost of administration. But it is a problem which is reacting on the possibility of hospital schemes in the country generally and making very substantial inroads into the funds available. The Minister adverted to that matter in the past, but he has made no attempt to solve the problem. He has not informed the House whether he has any intention of setting aside any capital sum to meet these deficits, and I suggest that something ought to be done about it. We cannot overlook the fact that city hospitals provide great facilities for very many counties, and we cannot grudge whatever moneys are provided to meet these deficits. I suppose the fact that these deficits have been met out of Hospital Trust Funds for a number of years has killed the possibility of voluntary financial assistance in the future.
We have agreed to close down this House within the next two or three weeks, and I do not want to prolong the discussion on what appears to me to be a very important Vote—the Vote for Local Government. But I asked the Minister before to give some consideration to the criminal injury code. In our circumstances here, it is ridiculous to have such a code on the Statute Book. It was introduced by a foreign Government for certain purposes and it was not operated in their own territory. When a criminal injury occurs, I think it is not fair that a small area should be saddled with a charge to make good that injury, especially where the people are not responsible for the injury. The time is long overdue when the Act should be removed from the Statute Book.
In our circumstances here, with the danger of the spread of disease, due to the war, I am sure that the Minister and his Department are exercising a close vigilance and will continue to exercise a close vigilance so far as public health generally is concerned, and that they will be prepared to take all the necessary safeguards against any danger of outbreaks of disease. It is merely because I appreciate how vital it is, in the interests of the health of our people, that those safeguards should be taken that I have directed the Minister's attention to the fact that medical officers who are charged with the responsibility of looking after the public health are not getting the necessary facilities. It means, in the long run, only a few extra gallons of petrol. I have had complaints from one or two individuals that they were unable to overtake their work and they were rather alarmed to find themselves in the position in which, being responsible for looking after an outbreak of diphtheria, they could not possibly overtake their work because they had not got the travelling facilities. I hope the Minister will look into that matter again.
