Since the adjournment of the debate on this Bill I had an opportunity, on the Bill which has just received a Second Reading, of referring to some matters that I intended to refer to on this measure, so that I do not propose to repeat what I said then. I understood the Minister in his statement to be more or less inclined to restrict the scope of this debate, as he stated that the Bill referred only to houses to be built in rural areas and by public utility societies. The main reason for introducing this Bill was the provision of an extra room for the purpose of segregating tuberculosis patients from other members of a household. I want to refer to one or two matters connected with housing as it affects people in rural areas, principally on the question of valuation. Heretofore, people whose valuations were up to £25 were the only ones who received a grant of £40, but I think the Minister should follow the example of the Minister for Agriculture, who extended the figure after a little experience of the farm improvement scheme. The Minister acted very wisely in removing the restriction as far as valuations are concerned, by bringing in others whose valuations varied from £40 to £70. As a result there has been a considerable increase in the production of the land and by the extensive drainage that was carried out. That scheme also gave a large amount of employment, and improved land held by labourers. The Minister should follow the example of the Minister for Agriculture by making the grant under this Bill available to people whose valuations are above those mentioned in previous Acts.
On the question of providing an extra room where persons are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, from the point of view of humanity alone, everybody agrees with anything and everything that can be done to help people who have the misfortune to be stricken with this disease, but I should like to be assured that it will be of real value. I may be old-fashioned and peculiar, one who sometimes thinks of things that it might not be popular to say in public, but I believe, if a person thinks of something that he feels he should say, he should do so. Sometimes I think that there is too much talk about consumption in this country; that we have it discussed at breakfast, dinner and tea.
Possibly that may do good, but it could also do harm, especially amongst people coming from other countries. While it may be all right to do what we can to alleviate the sufferings of people who are affected, we should not magnify things, but should take precautions, without telling the world all about our business. Sometimes it is dangerous to lavish too much praise on matters discussed in this House, just as it is dangerous to go to the other extreme, and to criticise them unduly. Accordingly, I propose to adopt the middle course when dealing with the proposal to provide an extra room. If the local medical authority is convinced that it is necessary to build an extra room, then that authority will, in the ordinary course, notify the owner of the house, that the tenant or a member of the family occupying it is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, and a room is built. Under the usual conditions there is a grant of £100 or a two-thirds contributions from the local authority, whichever is the lesser. When the room is built, and if after a few months the tenant, and his family, change to a new residence, what effect is that going to have on the letting value of the house? What effect is it going to have on other people who want a house? What effect will it have when there is knowledge of the fact that, attached to the house is a room in which a person suffering from tuberculosis has been dwelling for 12 months or 2 years? I do not see any safeguard in regard to that respect of the situation.
It is laid down in the Bill that this extra room must be built in accordance with the specification of the people appointed to look after these things. I take it they will be the engineers employed by the local authorities. There, again, I would ask the Minister and his Department to be extra careful as to the type of room built to fulfil this want which we all agree is necessary. We must be realists about this. We are not all saints and angels in this country, and we know the type of room that can be built in order to qualify for this grant. We know that there could be a certain type of annex built to a house that would be nothing more than a block-house, an ordinary ice-house built of concrete walls, the walls erected from an inferior quality of sand, possibly sea sand or sand containing a big content of what is known as loan. In the winter, a room of that kind would be weeping the whole time. There would possibly, be no fire in it, so that for the patient the cure would be worse than the disease. A person would be endangering his life by going to live in a room of that kind. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that special care should be taken as to the type of room built under the operation of this measure.
The Minister last night seemed to issue a challenge to Deputy Alfred Byrne to vote against this Bill. Candidly, it would not take a lot to persuade me to vote against it, and for various reasons, one or two of which I have given. If I believe I am right, no matter how other members of the House may feel about a matter, then I am going to give expression to my opinions. The opinion that I have in connection with this scheme is this—I may be wrong or I may be right—that it is more or less cutting across the comprehensive scheme propounded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. There is the question that possibly too many cooks may spoil the broth. We must remember that we cannot eradicate this dread disease overnight. It is going to take years and years to do that. It is essential that our plans should be well laid. To do things in a hurry is not going to be of any avail in arresting the spread of the disease. Its eradication is going to take a lot of money and a lot of time. While giving the Minister credit for the best intentions, I have at the back of my mind the feeling that this sum of £100,000 which it is proposed to spend on 1,000 houses—an average of £100 per room— could possibly be better utilised if it were incorporated in the big scheme propounded by his Parliamentary Secretary. That is only my opinion. I may be right or I may be wrong, and possibly time will tell.
I feel, however, that the erection of these rooms can be a potential source of infection. I have been led to believe, and so, I think, have most people in the country, especially those best qualified to judge, that so far as the wiping out of this disease is concerned, the first fundamental is complete isolation. There is a general feeling amongest our people that that is fundamental to a successful campaign against the spread of T.B. Will anybody in his sober senses tell me that, when you erect one of these rooms, a member of a family suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is going to go into it, live there and not be visited by any other member of the family, and that there is going to be complete isolation? It cannot and will not be done. Possibly there will be other members of the family living in the same room. It is questionable whether even the patient himself will stay in that room. If you have 1,000 of these rooms spread all over the country, they can be a possible source of infection. I would ask the Minister to bear these points in mind. I can see his object in introducing this scheme—that he thinks it will be a great help to the general scheme already outlined by his Parliamentary Secretary.
Again, I urge on him that careful supervision will be needed both in regard to the erection and the materials used in these rooms, because if they are not built in the right way to suit the patients going into them, it would be better not to have them at all. One of the main reasons for the introduction of the Bill is that it prolongs the life of the section in the 1932 Act which makes provision for grants to houses erected in rural areas or by public utility societies. While I would not vote against the Bill because of that section, I am still strongly of the opinion that the Minister is possibly on the wrong track in giving this £100 for the erection of these rooms. I am of opinion that it would be better to leave this whole question to the Parliamentary Secretary and that section of his Department that is dealing exclusively with the arrest and cure of tuberculosis. Members of the House, irrespective of what Party they belong to, are prepared to give him hearty approval and all the co-operation that is essential in dealing with this disease. No matter how we may disagree on other matters, we are all ready to do what we possibly can to help the people who have the misfortune to be afflicted with one of the worst diseases that could be found in this or any other country.