Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 14

Mental Treatment Bill, 1944.—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 135.

Mr. Roddy

With regard to amendment No. 136, which is being discussed with amendment No. 135, the Parliamentary Secretary in Section 73 gives mental hospital authorities certain discretion in relation to fixing the allowances for widows of deceased officers. In Section 75, he limits the extent of the discretion to one-third of the yearly salary or wages in the case of widows, and to one-half in all other cases. The object of amendment No. 136 is to make the limit one-half in both cases. It seems to me that it is only fair that the widows of deceased officials especially should be equitably treated, because I know some of these people who are living at present in very poor circumstances. It is only in recent years, as a matter of fact, that they were entitled to any consideration at all, because of the death of their husbands.

More especially to widows with large families, as some of them have, the allowance which mental hospital authorities are permitted to pay under the Bill is small, and I do think the Parliamentary Secretary might see his way in this instance to increase the amount to one-half. I must say that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt rather well with the staffs of mental hospitals. He has made reasonably good provision for them and for their dependents in case of death or disability, and I suggest that in this instance also he might be able to see his way to make the amount uniform, and allow one-half in the case of widows as well as in all other cases.

Dr. Ward

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. I would direct the Deputy's attention to Section 68, under which a grant can be made, notwithstanding the provision in Section 75. I think the Deputy has not adverted to that.

Mr. Roddy

I was relating Section 75 to Section 73 because under the latter section the hospital authority has a discretion to take into consideration the special circumstances of a case and make a recommendation to the Minister. It would appear to me that under Section 75 there is a limit, in one case, of one-third, and in another case of a half.

Dr. Ward

That does not exclude the allowance under Section 68.

Mr. Roddy

I think that the phraseology is somewhat doubtful.

Dr. Ward

The ceiling is fixed by Section 75.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

I move amendment No. 138:—

To delete sub-paragraph (a) (ii) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (1), lines 37 to 41, and substitute the following three new sub-sections:—

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act all registered officers and servants of a mental hospital authority who have completed thirty years of service shall be entitled to resign.

(3) In no case shall any registered officer or servant be allowed to continue in the service of a mental hospital authority for more than forty years. The ceiling with regard to lump sum payable and annual allowance shall come into operation after thirty-five years' service.

(4) Any officer or servant who is about to retire shall be given the option of claiming an annual allowance based on one-fiftieth of his, or her, annual salary or wages for each completed year of service instead of the lump sum payment and annual allowance to which he, or she, is entitled.

There is the feeling that the provision whereby staffs can serve for 40 years in mental hospitals retards promotion very much. Of course the circumstances in certain cases have to be taken into consideration where, for example, a man has a large family. He might not be in a position to retire after 35 years' service. There is the feeling, however, that the period of 40 years is too long.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Larkin, if he wishes, can discuss the subject of his amendment No. 139 on this amendment.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

The amendment which I put down is in the following terms:—

In sub-section (1) to delete sub-paragraph (ii), lines 37 and 38, and substitute the following:

(ii) in any other case, one half of such salary or wages where the person to whom, or in respect of whom, the allowance is payable has not more than 25 years' service, and

(iii) sixty per cent. of such salary or wages where the person to whom, or in respect of whom, the allowance is payable has more than 25 years' service.

I feel that the principle in my amendment is somewhat different from the one we are now discussing. In a number of sections various rates of superannuation are calculated under different headings. I did not submit any amendment on that point because of the viewpoint I had already expressed, namely, that we could not reasonably expect the Parliamentary Secretary to accept a position which would lead to the payment of a larger superannuation sum under the present Bill than that provided in the 1909 Act. In drafting amendments to this part of the Bill, I confined myself largely to Section 75 in order to try to achieve what I had already submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary, namely, that while we might not be entitled to expect an improvement, it was reasonable to ask him to grant to the officers and servants who would opt to come under this measure at least the same financial return as they would enjoy under the 1909 Act.

The purpose of my amendment, as Deputies will see, is to substitute the ceiling of a half of the yearly salary in respect of annual allowances by first of all setting out that, in the case of officers having not more than 25 years' service, we would accept half the annual salary or wages as being the ceiling governing the maximum allowances paid annually, but that in the case of officers having more than 25 years' service we would try to meet their position to the extent of raising the ceiling to 60 per cent. of their annual salary or wages. The 60 per cent would afford a very slight increase on what they would obtain under the 1909 Act. I have already submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary that we could accept the principle that these officers should not lose on the basis of the average number of years that they enjoyed their superannuation allowance after retiring, and that if we could arrive at an even lower percentage than 60, which would be an equitable figure, it would meet the situation fairly. So far, the Parliamentary Secretary has not shown any indication of accepting that point of view. He persists in telling us that only in cases where they were drawing the superannuation allowance for a very considerable number of years would they suffer an actual financial loss. He knows that is not correct, and that the loss would start to accrue in the seventh or eighth year of the average period during which superannuation allowances are drawn by those persons—the period in which the allowance is at its highest.

There is an attempt in this amendment to try to meet the Parliamentary Secretary's difficulties, and at the same time retain the good points of the scheme so far as the lump sum is concerned. He should be prepared to see if it is possible to meet the submissions which have been made to meet that. I accept the ruling of the Chair on this matter, although I feel that the principle embodied in my amendment is entirely different from that in the amendments we are now discussing. I am accepting the ruling of the Chair subject to being able to raise this matter on a later stage of the Bill.

Dr. Ward

I have already indicated to the House, many times in fact, that I regard the superannuation provisions in this Bill as being exceptionally generous. I have suggested to the House that there is not any superannuation code applying either to officers of local authorities or to officers of the central authority with equally advantageous conditions from the point of view of the officers and servants affected. Notwithstanding repetition of that, notwithstanding demonstration of it by example, the same old arguments are trotted out on every amendment—could you not be a little more generous in this respect and in that respect? I can only say that the financial structure of this superannuation code has been very carefully worked out. I have been as generous in that code as it is possible to be and there are some very minor amendments which I have already conceded. Consequently, however anxious Deputies may be to exact still better terms, I have to say to the House that I have nothing further to concede.

Deputy Burke's series of amendments under the heading of one amendment are, in fact, contrary to principles that have already been established in relation to the Bill. Sub-section (2) of Deputy Burke's amendment is as follows:—

"For the purposes of this Part of this Act all registered officers and servants of a mental hospital authority who have completed 30 years of service shall be entitled to resign."

The House has already agreed, and it is incorporated in the Bill, that they must have reached the age of 55 years before they can retire. They enter the service of the mental hospital authority between the ages of 18 and 26. Let us take 20 years of age. After 30 years' service the average attendant in the mental hospital service would be entitled, if this amendment were accepted, to retire at the age of 50. We dealt with that principle already and it was decided by the House, and it is not proposed to permit these attendants to retire at the age of 50. Let me again point out that in all this matter we are discussing, not attendants whose health has broken down in the service, not attendants or nurses who are mentally or physically incapacitated, but attendants and nurses who are deemed to be in full physical and mental health. If they are unfit physically or mentally for the full discharge of their duty, the superannuation code already incorporated in the Bill makes ample provision for retirement and for the addition of years, if necessary.

I cannot understand why all this pressure should be put upon me in relation to the retirement of able-bodied men at 50 years of age or before 50 years of age. I do not think it is a principle that should be forced upon the Government or, in fact, I do not think it is a sound principle at all. I do not see any reason why a man or woman who is physically and mentally fit and in enjoyment of a sheltered post should not continue in the public service until he or she is at least 55 years of age.

Under sub-section (3) of Deputy Burke's amendment, an unregistered officer, a clerk, in the employment of a mental hospital authority, could retire, if he entered the service at 18, at the age of 58. That principle has never been conceded by the House to any class of officers of a local authority. I do not think the principle is likely to be conceded, but, at any rate, it is contrary to the sections of the Bill that have already been accepted by the House. One gets tired going over this ground over and over again. It seems to me that I might as well be talking to myself, in my room. Deputies, apparently, have a certain attitude to maintain here. Certain speeches must be made, apparently, and we are going over the same ground over and over again. If I have said once, I have said half a dozen times to-day, when Deputies suggest that hardships would actually be inflicted on mental hospital attendants under the superannuation code in this Bill, as compared with the provisions of the 1909 Act—and apparently I must say it again before it will sink in—that the officers and servants who are themselves immediately concerned, want the terms of the Bill in preference to the terms of the 1909 Act.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

That is not correct. They want the principle of this Bill.

Dr. Ward

Do they want the terms of the 1909 Act or do they want the terms in the Bill?

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I think the Parliamentary Secretary will find that they want the terms of the 1909 Act.

Dr. Ward

They want no such thing. I have consulted the officers, and the Deputy ought to know.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

On a point of explanation. As I have already indicated to the House, it is really a personal matter as to whether the person going out would like to get the terms of the 1909 Act or the terms of this Bill. One man or woman might like to get the two-thirds, and ten might like to get the lump sum. Nobody can definitely say that there would be 100 per cent. in favour of the lump sum or 100 per cent. against it. Personally, I think that this Bill is a big advance on the 1909 Act, as far as a married official is concerned anyway. His widow is looked after under this Bill, whereas under the 1909 Act death had to be due to some specific disease in order that the widow might benefit. The doctor had to certify that should that man live he would be unable to carry out any further duty. Personally, I regard this Bill as a big advance on the 1909 Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 139 not moved?

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

The Ceann Comhairle has already ruled on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may move it if he wishes, but it appeared to be governed by another decision.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

It is a different principle altogether.

Dr. Ward

Does the Deputy want a specific decision of the House on it?

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I am not prepared to press the amendment.

Amendment No. 139 not moved.

Amendment No. 140 not moved.

Sections 75 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 78.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 141:—

In sub-section (5), page 35, line 47, to add after the word "Act" the words "in accordance with this section.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 78, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 79 and 80 agreed to.

SECTION 81.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 142:—

In sub-section (1), page 36, line 33, to delete the word "and" and substitute the word "or".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 143:—

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following new sub-section:—

(2) Every deduction from salary or wages authorised by this section shall be made at the time that salary or wages covering the period in respect of which such deduction is authorised is or are being paid and at no other time.

This proposal follows lines already well defined in the matter of national health and unemployment insurance contributions, that the deductions have to be made during the current period rather than later on. It seeks to preserve that principle and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can have any objection to it.

Dr. Ward

I am not aware, and Deputy Murphy has not told us if any difficulties have arisen in relation to the principle that this amendment is intended to cover. I have never heard of any such difficulty regarding the collection of arrears and contributions. But I should like to point out to Deputy Murphy that, under the terms of the Bill, officers and servants who have not been entitled to superannuation under the 1909 Act may now become pensionable under the Bill. Consequently, if we were to be restricted in the method of collecting arrears of contributions, we might encounter some difficulty in bringing them within the terms of the Bill. There are certain classes who will be pensionable under this Bill who were not pensionable under the 1909 Act. In some cases considerable arrears may have accumulated and one of the matters to which we have to direct attention is a suitable arrangement under which these arrears can be collected.

They may have to be spread over a period, because the arrears taken in one lump sum might perhaps be more than the officer or servant could conveniently bear. I do not think the Deputy need anticipate any difficulty of the nature that his amendment is intended to meet. But the acceptance of the amendment would definitely involve administrative difficulties afterwards when bringing in certain classes under the superannuation code who were not pensionable before.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

In fairness to Deputy Murphy, I might point out that his amendment was put in before the Ministerial amendment was made known whereby these people would be brought under the Bill. Deputy Murphy had in mind deductions similar to the deductions under the national health and unemployment insurance. He had in mind the normal regular deductions where, through some error, arrears might accumulate.

Dr. Ward

I think that is unlikely to occur in the mental hospital service. In fact they are deducted from the salary.

Mr. Murphy

I realise from the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that difficulties might arise which I do not desire should arise. I was desirous to protect, as far as I could, the interests of the people concerned. In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, and if necessary have it considered at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 144:—

In sub-section (3), page 36, lines 45 and 46, to delete the words "before the commencement of this Part of this Act".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 81, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 82.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 145 seems to me to meet amendment No. 146 to a certain extent.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 145:—

In page 36, to delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-sections:—

(1) Where—

(a) an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority loses his office or employment by any cause other than misconduct or voluntary resignation, and

(b) he has been in the service of a mental hospital authority for less than ten years.

the mental hospital authority in whose service he was immediately before he lost his office or employment shall, save where such authority make a grant to him under Section 69 of this Act, pay (subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1922) to him the aggregate amount of his contributions under this Part of this Act.

(2) Where an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority resigns voluntarily from their service and is not thereupon entitled to an allowance under this Part of this Act, the authority may, in their discretion, pay (subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1922) to him a sum equal to the whole or part of the aggregate amount of his contributions under this Part of this Act.

This amendment is intended for two purposes, (1) to provide that the right to get paid the full amount of the contributions in the case of an officer or servant who loses employment for a cause other than misconduct or voluntary resignation shall only apply where the officer or servant has less than 10 years' service, and (2) makes provision for payment of contributions at the discretion of the mental hospital authority to an officer or servant who resigns voluntarily before he becomes entitled to receive an allowance under the Act.

Mr. Roddy

Sub-section (2) says that the mental hospital authority "may, in their discretion". The Parliamentary Secretary is giving a discretion to the mental hospital authority to say whether or not such a person is entitled to a return of his contributions. Surely, in ordinary decency, the authority should refund the contributions to him when resigning from the service.

Dr. Ward

Does the Deputy assume that the mental hospital authority will act indecently?

Mr. Roddy

According to the wording of the section, they have the right to do so.

Dr. Ward

On the assumption that they would not do so.

Mr. Roddy

The Parliamentary Secretary is acting on that assumption. Should not the amendment state definitely and specifically that the contributions he has made shall be refunded when he resigns? Morally he is bound to have them refunded.

Dr. Ward

We had a number of amendments dealing with the words "shall" and "may" during the day and we had not the advantage of the Deputy's company.

Mr. Roddy

Morally speaking, there is no justification for withholding the contributions. According to the wording of the amendment, it seems to me that the mental hospital authority have the right to withhold the contributions if they wish to do so.

Dr. Ward

They would not act immorally.

Mr. Roddy

That is another assumption on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what effect the amendment to sub-section (1) will have on sub-section (2) as in the Bill at present; that is in the case of female officers. The sub-section at present provides that where female officers or servants of a mental hospital authority leave the service in order to be married they may obtain a return of the aggregate amount of their contributions. Now we have a new clause covering voluntary resignation.

Dr. Ward

Of course, resigning on marriage would be voluntary resignation.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Under the amendment they may receive a sum equal to the whole or part of the aggregate amount of the contributions, whereas in the original Bill it was the aggregate amount.

Dr. Ward

Yes, they are given a discretion, but it is only sub-section (1) which is being deleted; sub-section (2) remains.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment is to substitute for sub-section (1) these two sub-sections.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Still, sub-section (2) deals with the same thing, and I wanted to be clear on the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 148:—

In page 36, to insert before sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Where an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority dies while in their service and such officer or servant had been in the service of a mental hospital authority for less than five years, the mental hospital authority in the service of whom he died (whether such authority have or have not made a grant in relation to him under Section 73 or 74 of this Act) may, in their discretion, pay (subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Finance Act, 1922) to his legal personal representative the aggregate amount of the contributions of such officer or servant under this Part of this Act.

This provides that where an officer or servant with less than five years' service dies, the mental hospital authority may pay the aggregate amount of his contributions to his legal personal representatives. If he has served five years or longer a payment may be made under Section 68 to his legal personal representative. Over five years, a payment in made under Section 68; under five years, there is to be a refund of the contributions.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

That is another big advance.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a group of amendments here all relating to the return of contributions to a female officer of one of these institutions who retires on marriage. There are two points which arise. One is the power of the authority to withhold a refund and the other is an addition to the amount of such refund. If we take amendment No. 149, the two points are combined and Deputies might prefer separate decisions. That could be achieved if we take amendments Nos. 152 and 153, where the two points are isolated. It is for the Committee to decide, but if amendment No. 149 is taken now and decided upon, on the Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand," the other amendments will fall. Once it is decided that the words in the Bill stand no more amendments can be offered to those words.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

On behalf of Deputy Keyes I move amendment No. 149:—

In sub-section (2), page 37, to delete all words after the word "period" in line 1 and substitute the words "such authority shall pay to her the aggregate amount of her contributions under this Part of this Act together with three per cent. thereon calculated at simple interest."

This proposes first of all to withdraw the discretionary power given to the mental hospital authority as set down at present in the Bill, and to make it mandatory to pay to a female officer about to marry an amount equal to the aggregate of her contributions. Secondly, the amendment proposes that, in addition to such contributions, the authority shall pay a sum equivalent to 3 per cent. interest thereon. There is some difficulty in discussing this proposal, in view of the way in which the amendments are linked together, and, in so far as other speakers would deal with other proposals, I would prefer not to enlarge on the suggestion of the payment of interest, and at the moment I merely move the amendment formally.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 149, 150, 151, 152 and 153 are being discussed together. The question on amendment No. 149 will be: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." A separate decision can be given on amendment No. 153, as it proposes to add words to the section.

Mr. Pattison

In addition to a refund of the contributions made by a female attendant who retires for the purpose of marriage, it is proposed that she shall also be entitled to a lump sum equivalent to one month's salary and emoluments for each year of service. In support of amendment No. 151, I advance the case of the civil servant or the vocational teacher. So far as I know, it is the rule in the Civil Service that a female officer retiring for the purpose of marriage gets such a payment, and if it is right in the case of the civil servant and the vocational teacher, surely it cannot be wrong in the case of the female attendant in the mental hospital.

Mr. P. Burke (County Dublin)

We seem to be back on the same subject —to delete the words "may in their discretion" and substitute the word "shall"—which we have had to-day before. I am not going to dwell on it any longer, but will leave it to the discretion of the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Ward

The section, as it stands, provides that a mental hospital authority may, in its discretion, pay the aggregate of the amount of the contributions under the Act to a female attendant who resigns on marriage. The first question that is raised is to substitute the word "shall" for the word "may," in order that the authority would be under a statutory obligation to make a refund of the contributions under such circumstances. I have no rooted objection to that, but I doubt if it is necessary. I believe that, in every such case, the mental hospital authority would, in fact, refund the contributions. However, I am prepared to look into the point between this and the Report Stage.

The next point we are asked to concede is that, in addition to refunding the contributions, we should give 3 per cent. interest on them. I do not look upon that with so much favour. In fact, it comes very near to the question of a marriage gratuity and, if I were disposed to make such a provision, I would prefer to make it by way of a marriage gratuity straight off, rather than by the circuitous way of giving her interest on her contributions towards a pension.

I would like to remind the House of this fact in relation to these contributions towards pensions, that they are a very small percentage of the actual cost of the pensions to the rating authority. Not only that, but the local authority has not the use of that money. The pension contribution is not, in fact, collected. The payment is deducted from the salary of the attendant when the payment is being made. It would be quite true to say that, to such an extent as the local authority has not to pay the full salary, they have the enjoyment of the contribution; but, at the same time, it is, in fact, the ratepayers who have the enjoyment of it, because the ratepayers do not contribute it. While I say that, I think we might get rid of all these amendments and I am prepared to consider the question of the marriage gratuity. We cannot have a refund of contributions with or without interest, plus a marriage gratuity, plus a whole lot of other things.

If I were to make a concession, I would prefer to try to make provision for the marriage gratuity. Deputies will, of course, be understanding if I try to meet them in this regard, and they will appreciate in advance that the amount of the marriage gratuity will have to have an upward limit. Deputy Pattison talks about one month's salary for each year's service. That principle might be all right up to a point.

Mr. Pattison

It is the normal basis.

Dr. Ward

Yes, but suppose she had 24 or 30 years' service, would she get 24 or 30 months' salary?

Mr. Pattison

I never heard of that.

Dr. Ward

These are the things you will have to guard against. There would have to be an upward limit. Probably a reasonable limit would be a maximum of a year's salary. Anyhow I am prepared to look into the matter further. Whether it would be necessary to fix a minimum period of service before she would become entitled to a marriage gratuity is another matter that will require some consideration.

Mr. Pattison

Do not prevent her getting married, anyway.

Dr. Ward

On the other hand, if we accept Deputy Pattison's suggestion, while a lot could be said in its favour, at the same time it might have certain social disadvantages. If we make the sky the limit so far as the marriage gratuity is concerned, the temptation might be to remain in the service very long, and we might have real old maids as a tempting bargain in the marriage market. We do not want to encourage that. If we are going to get them married at all, I would prefer to get them out of the service in time, so that they might give other service to the home and to the State. At any rate, I think the House will be satisfied that I am trying to meet the different viewpoints that have been put up here, but Deputies must be satisfied with modest proposals.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it amendment No. 149 is being withdrawn?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 150, 151, 152, and 153 not moved.

Section 82, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 83.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 154:—

In sub-section (1), line 19, after the word "section" to insert the words "and in Section 88".

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the provisions of Section 83 to payments which may be made by Order of the Minister under Section 88, where the term is "grant". Section 83 states:—

"The following provisions shall have effect in relation to any payment (in this section referred to as the grant)...".

A payment under Section 88 is also referred to as a grant.

Dr. Ward

They would be included.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 83 and 84 put, and agreed to.

SECTION 85.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 155:

In sub-section (3), page 39, line 33, to delete the words "pursuance of sub-section (1) of" and substitute the words "accordance with".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 156:—

In page 39, to delete sub-section (4) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(4) Where any payment is made by a mental hospital authority to any person in accordance with this section, the Minister for Finance may make such contribution to the payment as he considers reasonable out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas and shall pay the contribution to such authority.

This also is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 85, as amended, and Sections 86, 87 and 88 put, and agreed to.

SECTION 89.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 157:—

Before Section 89, but in Part VIII, to insert a new section as follows:—

89.—(1) The Minister may by regulations declare any specified age to be the age limit for all officers of mental hospital authorities, for such officers of mental hospital authorities as belong to a specified class, description or grade or for one or more than one specified officer of a mental hospital authority.

(2) The Minister may by regulations declare any specified age to be the age limit for all servants of mental hospital authorities, for such servant of mental hospital authorities as belong to a specified class, description or grade or for one or more than one specified servant of a mental hospital authority.

(3) A declaration under this section shall come into force six months after the day on which it is made.

(4) If, on the day when a declaration under this section comes into force, an officer or servant to whom the declaration applies reaches or is older than the age specified in the declaration as the age limit applicable to him, he shall cease to hold office or employment on the said day when the declaration comes into force.

(5) If, on a day after the day when a declaration under this section comes into force, an officer or servant to whom the declaration applies reaches the age specified in the declaration as the age limit applicable to him, he shall cease to hold office or employment on the said day after the day on which the declaration comes into force.

This new section will enable the Minister to fix the retiring ages at which officers and servants must retire. Section 23 of the Local Government Act, 1941, which enables the Minister to fix compulsory retiring ages, applied only to officers. This does not fix the retiring ages. It is a machinery amendment to give the Minister power to fix the retiring ages.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 158:—

In page 41, to delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(2) Where, in addition to their district mental hospital, a mental hospital authority maintain any other institution, the resident medical superintendent of their district mental hospital shall exercise such control over the other institution as the mental hospital authority, with the consent of the Minister, may determine.

This amendment is intended to provide that the resident medical superintendent of a district mental hospital shall exercise such control over the other institution provided by the mental hospital authority as that authority, with the consent of the Minister, may determine. It is only a structural amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 89, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 90.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 159:—

In page 41, to delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(2) The acts of a committee appointed under this section shall be subject to confirmation by the mental hospital authority appointing the committee, save that the mental hospital authority may, with the sanction of the Minister, empower the committee to do any act (including the institution of legal proceedings) within the authority conferred on the committee by the mental hospital authority which the mental hospital authority themselves could lawfully do.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 160:—

In page 41, to delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following sub-section:

(5) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the County Management Act, 1940 (No. 12 of 1940), shall apply in relation to the power to delegate conferred on a mental hospital authority by sub-section (1) of this section.

Sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the County Management Act, 1940, provides that the power to delegate functions shall be exercisable by the manager, subject to the consent of the Minister. The amendment seeks to provide that this power shall be exercised by committees appointed under Section 90.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 90, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 91.

Amendment No. 161 not moved.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 162:—

In sub-section (3), page 42, line 14, to delete the word "inmate" and substitute the word "patient".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I move amendment No. 163:—

To delete sub-section (4), page 42.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think amendment No. 167 would go with it?

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Yes. In the Bill, as drafted, there is provision for the appointment of visiting committees by the mental hospital authority to visit other institutions and accommodation maintained by them and, under sub-section (4) of this section, it is specifically laid down that the visiting committee shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of the officers and servants of the mental hospital authority by whom the committee were appointed or any of such officers or servants.

I am moving the deletion of that sub-section because I cannot see the justification for denying such facilities to a visiting committee. Let us be clear that what is proposed here is merely the receipt of complaints and the making of inquiries into them and not in any way the making of decisions in regard to wages, salaries, privileges, superannuation and so on. I am aware that visiting committees of this nature do perform a very valuable function in forming a connecting link between members of the staff and the joint committee. I know that, under the present system, the manager exercises this power, but so long as we have a visiting committee, charged with the duty of inspecting the general condition of, say, a branch hospital, the welfare of patients and the upkeep and maintenance of the institution and also of seeing that the conditions under which the staff carry out their duties are satisfactory, they should be given facilities to inquire into and receive complaints for transmission to the responsible authority which has the power of making the final decision.

The very fact that in many cases the members of a visiting committee are persons who have either a personal knowledge of the duties performed by the staff, or, as in the case of officers of trade unions acting on visiting committees, a knowledge of the conditions generally recognised and observed in relation to the duties being performed, helps the sifting and analysing of many of the complaints which cause disquietude and worry to various members of the staff. If the Parliamentary Secretary would agree to afford these committees the facilities to carry on what they have been doing for many years, he would not find any advantage being taken of it, or any difficulties created in respect of the management of the institution.

I do not know what exactly is the reason for the inclusion of the sub-section, except possibly to safeguard and keep clear the very definite line of demarcation as between the manager and the joint committee, but so long as we confine any such powers as may be given to a visiting committee merely to inquiry and report, I cannot see, subject to the good relations existing between the manager and the joint committee which the Minister for Local Government reminds us are the relations which should exist, that there could be any friction or any reason for restricting the powers of a visiting committee.

Mr. Pattison

I support the amendment. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary by this time has abundant information to show that this is a very undesirable provision in the law. I know that in regard to my own part of the country, of which I can speak with a certain amount of knowledge, some of which at least has reached the Department, that it is very unwise to have this provision. Apart from the fact that people connected with the employees' trade unions may be members of the visiting committee, it is desirable that members of the staff should be able to bring matters concerning conditions inside the institution to the notice of other members of the committee, and I think it very desirable that the Parliamentary Secretary should make some provision whereby such a committee will not be confined merely to consultation with patients.

Dr. Ward

The purpose of the section, in the main, is to enable visiting committees to be appointed in order that they may make periodic visits to an institution, with a view to satisfying themselves that the patients are being properly looked after. The restriction imposed by sub-section (4), as Deputy Larkin has pointed out, is keeping in step with the County Management Act. It says that a committee

"shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of the officers and servants..."

It is not part of their business to inquire into services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation. They are to concern themselves, and their primary and particular purpose is to concern themselves, with the patients, conditions of treatment and with receiving any complaints the patients may have to make and forwarding them to the proper authority.

Deputies are well aware—the matter has been very fully discussed in the House on many occasions—of the procedure already provided in the Local Government Act, 1941, for officers and servants having any complaint they may have as to their conditions of employment investigated and determined. It is set out definitely in the Act of 1941. They can appeal to the Minister and the Minister can investigate and take such steps, if any, as may be necessary for the purpose of fully protecting the interests of officers and servants.

I think it would be a wrong principle and could lead to nothing but confusion and trouble if a visiting committee, which is intended to have an altogether different function, should begin to poke its nose into the conditions of service of officers and servants and to receive complaints and make reports. If, in fact, a committee busies itself with that kind of activity, in all probability it will fail to serve the purpose for which it is to be appointed. I realise the desire of the members of the Labour Party who perhaps belong to labour organisations to be in a position to receive complaints from members of their unions and to be in a position to pursue them, but they will have to operate their trade union activities through trade union channels and not through membership of a visiting committee of a mental hospital.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

May I protect against the last few words of the Parliamentary Secretary? There is no desire to utilise the machinery of a visiting committee to do the work of a trade union. Rather has the reverse been the case. I have in mind two instances which arose lately. In one case, where a strike occurred among men bringing fuel into an institution, the trade union officially would not countenance a strike and there was a deadlock. Only because an official of that union was acting as a member of the visiting committee for the period, was it possible to bring about an adjustment and to see that a supply of fuel was restored to the institution. On another occasion, when acting as a member of the visiting committee, he found that the conditions under which steam was being raised in the institution were unbearable and of such a kind that difficulties were being created in the institution by reason of lack of steam and heat. A solution of that problem not only involved arrangements for the proper handling of turf but a consideration of the payments to be made.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is not aware that visiting committees have been carrying on for many years what he now prohibits them from doing. On the whole, I do not think it has given rise to any difficult situation, even since the coming into force of the 1940 Act. He knows quite well that while members of a visiting committee are officially prohibited as members of a visiting committee from making these inquiries and reports, the inquiries and reports will be made just the same. All he is concerned with here is to try to preserve the letter of the law when he knows that the whole spirit is contrary to what he has in the Bill. The deletion of this section does not mean that thereby positive powers are given to such committees to carry out these inquiries and to receive reports.

It merely explains the situation that has obtained for quite some time and that, so far, has not given rise to any objection. The fact that members of these visiting committees have close and possibly more intimate contact with members of the staff very often brings out certain difficulties that very often are not easily dealt with by the ordinary official machine. It is quite correct to say that any employee who has a grievance in regard to his salary, remuneration or privileges can communicate officially with the mental hospital committee through his trade union, but, while that is so, it very often happens that a long period elapses before the matter is adjusted. If, instead, the matter could be inquired into on the spot by the visiting committee, and under the conditions in which the person concerned is carrying out his duties, possibly the whole thing might be cleared up at once, and there would be no need whatever to make a report to the manager or the other responsible authorities. I myself have come across cases of persons carrying out certain additional duties. It was merely a question not of making a formal application for an increase of remuneration but of witnessing the actual work they were doing on behalf of the patients. As soon as that became known to those in authority they readily agreed that there should be some recognition for it.

If such matters had to be dealt with by correspondence and through the ordinary official machine, they would probably be still going on. I feel that this amendment is of such importance that it is necessary to press it. I submit that no case has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary for taking away, if you like, the privileges which the existing visiting committees enjoy and which have not given rise to any gross abuse that would justify the insertion of a section like this in the Bill.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy is quite misinformed when he says that in this Bill we are taking away any of the privileges the visiting committees enjoy at the present time. Under Section 34, sub-section (4) of the County Management Act, 1940, it is provided:—

"The visiting committee of a district mental hospital shall not inquire into or receive any complaint or make any report in relation to the services, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of the officers and servants of such hospital or any of such officers or servants."

If the Deputy's amendment is accepted by the House it just means that the law will remain as it is at present. What I am doing here is this—I am doing a little tidying up. I am repealing that sub-section in the County Management Act and inserting it in the mental hospital code. I could leave it in the County Management Act and there would not be a word about it. Of course, I will not repeal it if Deputy Larkin's amendment is accepted. I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension if he believes that, in fact, I am depriving visiting committees of any privileges they enjoy at the present time. I am not. As he has said himself, there has not been any complaint since the passing of the 1940 Act. That provision has worked admirably. The committees have not found themselves restricted in any way in their work, and I think it is a pity to interrupt such harmony.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Why not leave the position as it is, instead of putting it in here and drawing attention to it?

Dr. Ward

I am trying to do a bit of tidying up.

Mr. Pattison

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a great many protests have been made against this provision in the local government code by many of the committees throughout the country? In the case of some county councils, when the appointment of these visiting committees comes before them, they say: "What is the use of appointing them; they can do nothing only interview the patients."

Dr. Ward

In some places they say all kinds of queer things.

Mr. O'Leary

I am a member of a mental hospital committee. The position is that we have no power at all. All we can do is to talk to the patients.

Dr. Ward

What do you want to do? I am not depriving the Deputy of any power that he has.

Mr. O'Leary

If anything crops up we are told that it is only the county manager who can do that.

Dr. Ward

I am telling the Deputy what the law is.

Mr. O'Leary

We have no power since the County Management Act was passed, and it is only putting expense on the ratepayers to have those visiting committees at all. We go there and we hear the doctor's report read. Some members of the committee go out to see the farm, and others make an inspection of the institution. That is all that goes on and it is costing a lot of money.

Dr. Ward

There must be bad committees in the Deputy's part of the country.

Mr. O'Leary

It is only a farce having those visiting committees.

Dr. Ward

I would not be surprised.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 18.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colley, Harry.
• Daly, Francis J.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Furlong, Walter.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• O'Connor, John S.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Ua Donnechadha, Dómhnall.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Browne, Patrick.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Coburn, James.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Everett, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• O'Leary, John.
• Pattison, James P.
• Spring, Daniel.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies O Ciosáin and O Briain; Níl: Deputies Murphy and McAuliffe.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That decision will also govern amendment No. 167, in the name of the same Deputy.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 22nd March.