Vol. 100 No. 1
I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, to insert the following definition before the definition of "chief medical officer":—
"the expression ‘adult person' means a person who is sixteen years of age or older;".
The expression "adult" also appears in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the Second Schedule as well as in official amendments to Sections 22 and 88. It is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, to insert the following definition before the definition of "chief medical officer":—
"the word ‘advertisement' includes every form whatsoever of recommendation to the public, including, in particular—
(a) the statement of the name of, or of any brand, trade description or designation by reference to which there is sold, any thing in relation to which the expression is used, where such statement may reasonably be regarded as a recommendation of such thing to the public,
(b) the statement of any properties of any thing in relation to which the expression is used on a label, container or wrapper used for such thing or in a leaflet, circular, pamphlet or brochure issued to the public or on request or given to a purchaser of such thing,
and cognate words shall be construed accordingly."
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, to insert the following definition before the definition of "chief medical officer":—
"the word ‘aircraft' has the same meaning as it has in the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1936 (No. 40 of 1936);".
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, to insert the following definition before the definition of "county authority":—
"the word ‘child' means a person who is less than sixteen years of age;".
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), page 5, lines 43 and 44, to delete the definition of "infectious disease" and substitute the following definition:—
"the expression ‘infectious disease' means primarily a disease declared by Order under Section 18 of this Act to be infectious, but in any section of this Act as respects which an Order under Section 19 of this Act applies, the expression includes only the disease or diseases specified in that Order,".
The expression "infectious disease" is widely used in paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule, and power is conferred on the Minister in Section 18 (1) to declare by Order that a disease is infectious. He is also empowered by Section 18 to define disease to include any such disease as advanced tuberculosis as contrasted with early tuberculosis or primary tuberculosis. There is an official amendment provided under a new Section 19 enabling the Minister to make an Order declaring an infectious disease.
To what section?
To a new Section 19.
There is to be a new section. See amendments Nos. 85 and 86.
I think the approach to this matter is absolutely unsatisfactory.
To amendment No. 5?
Yes, I think it well to discuss it at this stage. Infectious disease is defined as primarily a disease so declared by an Order made under Section 18. The position the Minister takes up is that he may by Order declare a disease to be an infectious disease and the House has no machinery by which the Order may be reviewed. He may distinguish between an infectious disease in its various stages, for the purpose of effecting his approach, such as treating people or imposing obligations or penalties upon them.
Might I suggest to the Deputy to postpone discussion to the relevant section as usual, and to put his amendment to that?
May I point out at this stage that the House should be told what infectious disease is from the Minister's point of view, and why some infectious diseases will bring penalties on persons because they go on to the public road if they have them, while others may bring penalties on a tram driver or a bus driver for allowing a person with an infectious disease to enter trams or buses? We are discussing an amendment which relates the idea of infectious disease to a group of sections, and this ought to be the point at which the Minister would indicate his attitude to the various types of infectious diseases, by letting us know what they are.
That would be most unusual on a definition section.
May I submit that the proposed new amendment No. 5 is more of a new sub-section than one of definition? I think if the House passes the amendment in its present form, it will be more or less restricted in further discussion.
I think Deputies would not be very much restricted on amendments Nos. 81 and 82.
This is not an ordinary definition amendment. I suggest that it is a new sub-section, and treats of the whole question of infectious disease, which will arise throughout.
Did the Chair refer to Section 81?
It is amendment No. 85 to Section 19.
I should have said amendments Nos. 81 and 82—not sections. Section 18 deals with infectious diseases.
My point is that this amendment brings the whole idea of infectious diseases together, including infectious diseases that the Parliamentary Secretary considers might be dealt with under Section 18 and those that he considers might be dealt with under other sections and I submit, in the light of the position that infectious disease takes up in this measure, that this is the point at which he ought to tell us what infectious diseases he has actually in mind and why he differentiates between one class of disease and another and particularly why he asks to be in a position, in view of the penalties and the powers he is taking in this Bill, by an Order of his, unreviewable in any way by the House, to declare a disease to be an infectious disease.
That has always been the position.
We were not always subject to the things that are in this Bill.
This particular definition is basic to the whole approach of the Bill to the problem of public health but it does seem to me that if we are going to approach it on the lines suggested by Deputy Mulcahy we are not going to make very much progress.
It is most unusual to debate sections of the Bill on an amendment to a definition section, as the House knows.
It is a most unusual definition.
That may be, but it is a most unusual procedure because it is inevitable that it will be repeated on the section.
I am rising to support the amendment.
It will help us to hear Deputy Larkin because we did not hear much from the Parliamentary Secretary.
It will be more proper to wait for the section.
I fail to see how and in what way at this particular stage we could with any satisfaction to either side of the House define and set down what diseases we regard as being infectious. Are we going to define them in general medical terms or are we going to regard diseases as infectious at certain stages and if changes take place in the virulence of these diseases does it mean that, having tied ourselves to a particular definition at a particular stage of a disease, we are then debarred for the future from bringing that particular disease within whatever provisions we may set down in the Bill? I am personally satisfied that in approaching the Bill as a whole, the most we can expect to do at the moment is to get some definition as set down in the proposed amendment. Where I do support Deputy Mulcahy is in having a provision whereby at any later stage any Order made by the Minister would be subject to review by the House. If it were possible for the House to meet him in regard to the definition that he now proposes for "infectious" and, on his side, to meet us by giving us an opportunity in the future to consider the particular cases that may arise from time to time, it would be helpful not only to this side of the House in dealing with the provisions of the Bill but also to the Parliamentary Secretary in getting an approach to the Bill based on co-operation from both sides and of having an opportunity of gaining the support of the House in any future Order he may have to make in dealing with a particular infectious disease or a particular stage of a disease that might require attention at any time in the future.
Are we to take it that we are not going to hear any more from the Parliamentary Secretary? I must say that I hope that that is not going to be his attitude throughout the Committee Stage of this Bill.
I have nothing more to say now. We will have to discuss this on the section when we come to it, and various amendments to the section. We must have it. I am quite prepared to discuss the section now if the Ceann Comhairle will——
It would be unwise to start discussing it now.
The Parliamentary Secretary thinks it is quite sufficient to say to Deputy Mulcahy that that has always been the position. It has not. The Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well that under the various sections of this Bill dealing with infectious disease he is taking the most drastic powers which perhaps this House has ever been asked to vote to any Minister or any Department.
Would the Deputy mention one?
I will mention several.
Give us a few.
I will. Does the Parliamentary Secretary want me to mention in detail to him the powers he has taken over the personal liberty of the person who will be described by him as suffering from an infectious disease?
Over and above the powers that he enjoys to-day.
Over and above the powers that he enjoys to-day.
I should like to know what they are.
The Parliamentary Secretary will hear us in grand refrain before he gets to the end.
And the Deputy will hear something on the appropriate section.
I hope so. That would be a welcome change. The only complaint I have to make so far is that I have not been hearing enough from the Parliamentary Secretary.
You will get over that.
That will be grand. The more we hear from the Parliamentary Secretary perhaps the less the Parliamentary Secretary would have to listen to from us. The Parliamentary Secretary can be assured of this, if he is in any doubt about it, that—I say this without offence—his dumbness is not going to be copied here. It is not going to affect us—I am not going to use the word in use in the Bill but the Parliamentary Secretary knows what I mean. It will be some help—I do not say I will be satisfied—if the Parliamentary Secretary will say the information he refuses to give now he will give later on the appropriate section. That would go some distance to meet the position, although I personally think, if I may agree with you, Sir, that it is unusual.
Most unusual.
It is. But again I want to say that the amendment is a most unusual amendment to a definition section.
And the Deputy will agree that no matter what discussion you have now it will be duplicated on the relevant section, inevitably.
If the Parliamentary Secretary were a little helpful he would never know what might happen.
Shall we wait for the section, then, and take amendment No. 5?
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 go together, or shall we take them on the section?
I understood they fall, Sir.
I am afraid they do.
If you wipe out lines I am trying to amend, what can I do about it?
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 6, line 2, to insert before the word "clinic" the word "laboratory,".
This amendment is adding another institution to the institutions that may be provided. "The expression ‘institution' means a hospital, sanatorium, maternity home, convalescent home, preventorium, clinic"—it is now proposed to insert "laboratory"—"health centre, first-aid station, dispensary or any similar institution." This addition is on the suggestion of the county medical officers of health. I do not think it requires any further explanation. It is merely providing another type of institution that had been overlooked.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary take advantage of this particular amendment to give us some information now as to the likely cost to the local authorities of these various institutions?
No, I could not undertake that. That is too big a job.
That is a wide question for this, is it not?
This amendment is making the section—and the cost— wider even than it is already.
In connection with the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment, would he indicate what he has in mind by the insertion of the word "laboratory"? Is it purely a laboratory attached to an existing institution for their private use or does it imply something wider, in the sense of a laboratory which would be availed of publicly by persons having need of such a service?
It was intended to serve the narrower purpose but I think it would be possible to avail of it for the wider purpose the Deputy has in mind. It is arising out of the narrower needs that the question was raised with me.
What I have in mind is, in the later sections of the Bill we are dealing with questions of the standards of food. If such a laboratory were available, manufacturers could use that in order to learn the standard of a product before submitting it. There is a lack of facilities in this country for private persons and small concerns.
It was not intended to meet that type of situation.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (1), line 3, page 6, to delete the words "or any similar institution".
The Parliamentary Secretary said that, while he meant a little laboratory it might be possible to have a big laboratory. In view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking power to force local authorities to put up any institution he may require, the House ought to be as clear as possible as to the type of institution in relation to which the Parliamentary Secretary is to have power to do that. The Parliamentary Secretary has only found it possible to add the word "laboratory". I think we should have a clear statement as to the type of institution in reference to which the Parliamentary Secretary is to be given power to dictate to the local authority. I think the type of institution should be explicitly named there. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary means by "any similar institution", except that it gives him extraordinarily wide powers which I do not think he should have.
Perhaps the Deputy would not press this amendment. I would prefer that he would not. There is no sinister intention behind this. But Deputies will appreciate that the names and descriptions of these institutions change from time to time, while the type of institution itself does not necessarily change. For example, the term "health centre" is inserted there. It is only in recent years that the term "health centre" came to be used by our medical people here. We talked about dispensaries. Similarly, it might be desirable to have a joint institution, a combined preventorium and convalescent home. It is only just to provide for the possible contingency that desirable institutions of the type set out here might come to be known by other names and that we would not have to come to the House again looking for legislation if we wanted to set up an institution. There is nothing more than that in it.
While I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says, I cannot forget the fact that, so far as I can follow this Bill, the local authorities will be made responsible for the full cost of any of these institutions that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister directs shall be put up.
No.
I would be glad to be put right.
Neither can I give a very firm reply on that. The Deputy knows that the policy in the past has been that two-thirds of the cost of local authority institutions has been borne out of the Hospitals Trust Fund. So far as the sanatoria that are being provided are concerned, the whole of the cost is being borne out of the Hospitals Trust Fund, with the provision that not more than one-third may be recovered. If the financial position of the Hospitals Trust Fund would permit it, even that one-third would not be recovered from the local authority. So that there is no likelihood that the whole of the cost or, indeed, the greater portion of the cost, of these institutions will be placed on the local authority. The highest possible proportion of the capital cost for the provision and equipment of these institutions will be borne out of the Hospitals Trust Fund. There are only £8,000,000 there now. We are hoping that funds will continue to accumulate. We can of course, argue that the sweepstakes may not recover and that when the £8,000,000 are gone we will have to go to the local authorities. If there is not any Hospitals Trust Fund to come to the assistance of the local authorities, we will be faced with a new position. I do not think that we need anticipate that position. I think it will be quite a long time before it would happen. Even with the most intensive driving, it would take a considerable time to provide the institutions that can be provided out of the £8,000,000. I think there is a number of years' work in that. In the meantime the money will be accumulating. However, if Deputies want to be unreasonable about this and make debating points and if they cannot talk sense, they are welcome to their debating points.
With all possible respect, I submit that I am not making debating points, that it is the Parliamentary Secretary who is doing that. We are not dealing with anticipations. We are dealing with legislation. We are passing a law here to put the obligation on the local authority to erect any type of institution which the Minister may direct and to maintain it. There is nothing in this Bill, there is nothing in any legislation that I know of, which states that the local authority shall not be responsible for the complete cost of the whole thing. The Parliamentary Secretary told us what has been the practice. It will depend on whether the sweepstakes continue and whether they are a success. It will depend on the amount the local authority can get by way of grant out of the £8,000,000. The Government may change their minds to-morrow about the disposal of the £8,000,000. So far as future sweepstakes are concerned, they may decide that it would be good policy to increase the stamp duty on the sweepstakes and thereby reduce the amount going towards the hospitals in order to increase the amount going into the revenue. I am not making debating points. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be amused at that. He has a fairly good memory. The present Government have been responsible for things far more far-fetched than anything I am now saying. The Parliamentary Secretary is merely giving us assurances for what they are worth. I am not questioning his sincerity. I am not questioning that that is his intention. What I am saying is that he cannot give any guarantee to this House or the local authorities that that will be the position.
With regard to the practice of paying two-thirds of the cost of the institutions out of the Sweepstakes Fund and one-third by the local authority, again that is dependent on the number and the cost of the new institutions which will have to be erected. The whole thing is contingent upon many matters that are likely to be changed, either by circumstances within the control of the Government or by circumstances outside the control of the Government. Surely the definition already set down is fairly wide. It seems to me to cover every conceivable kind of institution that could be called for in this country. It certainly covers far more institutions than I think the local authorities should be responsible for.
I move to report progress.
