When the debate was adjourned, I was emphasising that we were placing a very big burden on local authorities even when we were defining the particular institutions for the erection and maintenance of which they would be responsible, without giving the Minister the other power he seeks in the section. The Minister sets out the various institutions and adds at the end "or any similar institution". That gives a terrifically wide power, so wide that we think it should not be given. The amendment seeks to delete the words, "or any similar institution", and I think a fairly good case has been made for it.
Public Health Bill, 1945. - Public Health Bill, 1945—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 2.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 10.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that a very substantial part—implying the biggest amount—of the expenditure on institutions will be borne by the Hospitals Fund. He mentioned a sum of £8,000,000. In view of the fact that he proposes to spend £24,000,000, how does he suggest that £8,000,000 is the biggest part?
The Deputy will recollect that I stated that as the ultimate objective, in reply to his question the other day.
Is it right to say in that connection that the longer the developments aimed at under the section are delayed, the greater the likelihood that there will be less money in the sweep fund to meet the cost?
I think we must definitely relate this amendment to sub-section (2) of Section 13, and to the power which the Minister has to make a local authority provide any institution which he, by Order, directs them to provide and maintain. According to the definition, the expression "institution" means a hospital, sanatorium, maternity home, convalescent home, preventorium, clinic, health centre, laboratory, first-aid station, dispensary or any other institution.
"Similar". Do not miss that word.
Who is to interpret it? That is the difficulty. If the local authority has to foot the bill for any institution——
"Similar" to the ones provided.
That is a very vague term.
It would need to be a very peculiar building not to be similar to some of them.
If it involved litigation, I have no doubt the Minister would be able to provide any number of experts from the Department to prove that an institution was similar to others when other people would think it was dissimilar. The House should be very cautious about passing legislation with that sort of clause in the definition. I would not worry about it but for the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking the House to give him extraordinary power under Section 13.
Is the Deputy worried?
Very worried, and what is worrying me is not so much the definition as the power behind it in Section 13.
The Parliamentary Secretary should make his mind up as to the institutions he requires, because when you come to interpret this section, it simply means giving power to the Minister to provide any institution whatever, so long as he can relate it to better provision for the public health. That is the only way he is tied. In interpreting this section, the courts would hold that the Minister had power to provide any class of institution whatever, so long as he could show that it related to the health of the people. He has set out a number of institutions which ought to be sufficient. He has, by an amendment, added to the list, and there is a case for limiting the number and type of institutions he may set up, bearing in mind that all these institutions will be imposed on the local authority by the Minister's Order, and perhaps without the consent or endorsement of the local authority. There should be a limit to the number and type of institutions which the Minister wants. Surely he and his experts know now what they want and should specify their wants in the definition clause.
It is not quite reasonable to say that there is a limitation to the number of institutions or types of institutions the Minister may set up. The Bill provides a host of opportunities for setting up new institutions which one never expected. There is provision in the Bill for the giving of swimming lessons and for teaching boys to swim. We may have institutions on a large scale for indoor swimming.
The Deputy cannot swim under this amendment.
We can sink under it.
The Parliamentary Secretary wants to be able to fly under it.
The Deputy is in danger of drowning under it.
There are, in other parts of the Bill——
Can we deal now with the other parts of the Bill?
The Deputy ought to confine himself to these institutions.
Which institutions?
The Parliamentary Secretary has added another institution by an amendment. Deputy Mulcahy seeks to prevent the possibility of the putting in of many other institutions, styled similar institutions, of which the House could have no possible knowledge. It is quite relevant to discuss that possibility. One can conceive several institutions being set up under the Bill.
The definition speaks of "similar institutions".
As the Parliamentary Secretary will not do so, perhaps the Chair will define "similar".
It is not the business of the Chair to define it.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that I am swimming. I am —swimming in confusion. There is another provision for physical drill, for which institutions may be set up. There are some sports which cannot be carried out in the open air, and it is quite conceivable that buildings will be needed for these purposes.
They are not in this section.
They are not, and there is so little in the section to convey to the House the possibilities of what may happen under the Bill that we seek to ensure that a limitation will be set to these possibilities. It is quite reasonable that the amendment should be accepted, because there are grave doubts as to the institutions which might be set up.
The Parliamentary Secretary has allowed his imagination to extend so far as to see, under the institutions for public health services, an expenditure of £24,000,000. From the point of view of time, his imagination has extended to the time at which the amount of capital available through the Hospital Sweeps will be the greater part of £24,000,000—let us say £16,000,000.
I might mention to the Deputy that the £24,000,000 expenditure arises under statutes other than the Bill before the House—the public assistance code, the mental treatment code and the voluntary institutions. Is the Deputy aware of that?
Are we to understand that there is only £14,000,000 to be spent on public health institutions and £10,000,000 on other types of institutions?
No.
I understood, and I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, that there is £24,000,000 to be spent on public health institutions and £10,000,000 on public assistance institutions.
That is £34,000,000.
For the whole of the £24,000,000 there is at present £8,000,000 available, but the amount the Parliamentary Secretary expects will be available before the £24,000,000 will have been spent, the amount that will be available from the hospital sweeps, will have gone to such a figure as to be substantially the greater part of £24,000,000. I do not know how many years it took to accumulate £8,000,000 in the sweeps, but the Parliamentary Secretary's imagination has gone over that long period from the present day onwards. If his imagination could go as far as that where the expenditure of money is concerned, all we are asking is that he would limit the definition of institutions to the same limits of his imagination. If he is not able to think of the names of the institutions which might come into being within the next ten or 12 years, I think he should rest content that his imagination has done the best it possibly could and should not ask the House to give him power beyond his imagination, which has been shown to be very elastic and very fertile.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
Amendment declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, line 6, to delete the word "in" and substitute the word "at".
This is a drafting amendment.
What is the difference?
The ailment might not be so great as to be dealt with inside, but might be dealt with outside or at the door.
Yes, that is one possibility and it is very near to the truth. Sometimes it occurs, in regard to these institutions, that there is a doubt as to whether a patient treated in an external department would be deemed to be treated in an institution. It is to remove that element of doubt that the word "at" is put in, in substitution for "in".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (1) to delete lines 25 to 30 inclusive, page 6, and substitute therefor the following words: "the word parent includes guardian and every person who is liable to maintain or has the actual custody of any child".
The purpose of this amendment is to narrow the door, as it were, and to restrict the definition of parent to the old-time accepted definition—that a parent includes a parent, step-parent, grandparent, and the legal guardian of the child. The definition of parent in the Bill is wider than that and includes not only the parent in the accepted sense I have defined and the legal guardian as I have already defined, but says
"where owing to the absence of such person or for any other reason, the child is not living with, or is not in the actual custody of such person, includes the person with whom the child is living, or in whose actual custody the child is".
That would seem to let in a whole lot of people who have no legal liability for the maintenance of the child and is so wide, to my mind, as to let in institutions. It is not at all clear what the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind in this particular definition.
The words which I have suggested in the alternative—"the word parent includes guardian and every person who is liable to maintain, or has the actual custody of any child"—would be better. The present definition seems to be opening the door to persons who have no legal liability at all, or have not any actual custody of the child. To my mind, it might let in people who may usurp the functions of the parent. I expressed my views on this particular matter on the Second Stage of the Bill and want to reiterate what I said then. Our Constitution—apart from natural rights and common law— protects the rights of the parent and respects them. It guarantees to the parent the natural right, which it has always, to educate the child. Education must be taken in the broad sense of not only moral, intellectual and mental training but also physical training. I see here the opening of the door to let in a whole host of other people to usurp the functions of the parent in relation to what I would call the physical education of the child. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what case he has for altering the definition. The words I have suggested are the old-time definition and the usually accepted legal definition of parent. This takes in people who are even in loco parentis, people of such a wide character that I am suspicious of the definition, to say the least of it.
If the Deputy feels he must approach the sections of this Bill in a suspicious frame of mind, I am afraid there is not much I can do in relation to that.
I am suspicious until I hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.
The Deputy will hear what I have to say all right. The definition in the Bill as it stands is the draftsman's definition, with no sinister purpose behind it, notwithstanding Deputy Coogan's alleged suspicions. I fail to see what material difference there is in the definition of parent in the Bill and the definition suggested by him. He conjures up a position within which the person not having the custody of the child might, under the definition in the Bill, come to assume certain responsibilities. The Deputy in his own definition says:—
"the word parent includes guardian and every person who is liable to maintain or has the actual custody of any child."
Surely, if his definition includes any person who has the actual custody of any child, there is not any material difference between his definition and the one the draftsman thinks is a better draft.
Deputy Coogan may tell me he has copied this out of a previous Act of 1919, but the draftsman, who is an expert in these matters, says there is no special line of policy involved in it —it is purely a matter of drafting— and if he says it is better drafted as it stands in the Bill, it is his job. Deputy Coogan may, perhaps, have special training in drafting—I know he has special legal knowledge—but drafting is a fairly highly specialised job and all I can say is that the draft in the Bill has not been put in for any special purpose or to meet any special contingency arising in this Bill. It is the draft suggested by the draftsman of his own accord and, he being my technical adviser in matters of drafting, I am standing by his draft.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:—
"the word ‘prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister under this Act;".
This is a drafting amendment. The word "prescribed" appears in an official amendment to Section 87, relating to the granting of exemption in a prescribed form from medical inspection and the production of a certificate in a prescribed form signed by a registered medical practitioner as to the inability of the child owing to illness to attend the medical inspection.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be good enough to answer a question. I take it there is some reason for changing the title to the chief medical officer. At the moment it is the county medical officer of health or the city medical officer of health. I notice that the words "of health" are dropped. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why.
There is no particular reason for the alteration; at least, there is no very deep-rooted reason. The chief medical officer is a more attractive term, if you like, and less unwieldy. The difference between "chief medical officer" and "county medical officer of health", as a descriptive term, is not so great, but the expression "the city superintendent medical officer of health" is very much of a mouthful. Under the Bill the term becomes chief medical officer covering both of these officers—it is nothing more than that.
There is no special reason for it beyond that?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 15 not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:—
At the end of the section to add the words "provided that at the expiry of three years from the passing of this Act, any portion of the Act which will not have been brought into operation shall cease to have effect".
I move this amendment in order to emphasise the fact that, under present circumstances, the Parliamentary Secretary ought to concentrate on what is required immediately for improving the institutions and the general matters affecting public health. He appears in this Bill to take extraordinary powers and he runs along in a way that he can make use of any suggestion that comes into his mind with regard to setting up institutions of one kind or another or inventing additional diseases that will have to be controlled by him. He seems to look for powers to allow his imagination to develop as he goes along. I do not think legislation ought to be passed in that kind of way. I think, after the review the Parliamentary Secretary says he has given to the public health services, that it would be more satisfactory if he concentrated and if he was given three years to deal with the main matters that he is proposing to take action in regard to. The section says that the Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister fixes. I suggest that in respect of all matters that he has not fixed inside the next three years, his powers under the Act will drop.
I do not suppose the Deputy will be disappointed if I tell him I am not disposed to accept the limitation he would like to impose upon the Minister by way of this amendment. I appreciate his anxiety to have the provisions of this Bill brought into the earliest possible operation, and I assure him and the House that that will be done as far as it is possible to do it; but I could not bind myself to have this comprehensive measure in full and effective operation within three years. If I wanted to score debating points, I believe I could cite Acts of Parliament that were passed, even at the time when the Deputy's Party was in power, that were not brought into full and effective operation within three years. The Deputy will appreciate that.
A comprehensive Bill like this, affecting practically every section of the community, could not possibly be brought into full operation within the time he specifies. Perhaps he will be satisfied in the knowledge that, notwithstanding the criticism of the Bill and the opposition to it, we will bring it into operation as soon as it is possible to do so.
If there is any justification at all for this measure and for the enormous expenditure it is going to call for, it is that it will be put into operation as soon as possible. If the measure is to have the beneficial effect on the health of the community which we are told it will have, then the sooner we have it the better. It is notorious that disease is growing in this country; it is notorious that the incidence, particularly of tuberculosis, is unfortunately on the upgrade; it is equally notorious that even those people who are anxious to take advantage of whatever institutional treatment is available, have not the accommodation to get it. Now, this measure is either meant seriously or it is not. If it is meant seriously, then we ought not to be given the impression that we have been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, that it may not be in full operation for years. The Parliamentary Secretary, as a matter of fact, has such little hope of having it in operation within any reasonable period that he foresees it will be so long that the amount of money available in the Sweeps Fund will be at least double what it is at the moment.
This is not a matter on which the Parliamentary Secretary should talk about debating points; it is a very serious matter; with a Minister, with all the ramifications of his Department, with all the preliminary work put into this Bill, with two Parliamentary Secretaries—with two additional Ministers promised to deal with social services, public health, and local government— we are expected to pass this Bill before we get a picture of what sort of machinery will be established under these two additional Ministers. If all that is to be provided for, and paid for, when dealing with the health of a falling population, and if we are to be faced by a Parliamentary Secretary with a measure of this magnitude, and not being told when it is going to be put into full operation or what it is going to cost, then I say that Parliament is not being treated as it should be treated. This is one of the biggest measures ever introduced in this House. It is a far-reaching measure, one that is going to affect every class in the community, both from the point of view of their health and their pockets. On two fundamentals, the Minister is either unable or unwilling to give the House and the community the information to which they are entitled, concerning the cost of the measure or when it is going to be put into operation.
As soon as possible.
The Minister can only answer for his own Party. I am inclined to make a small bet with the Minister without wishing him an early political death, if we are to take his own words seriously, that he will have ceased to be a member of this House, and ceased to be a member of the Government before this Bill is fully operative. I should like the Minister, even now, to tell us when he hopes to have this measure in operation. It is all the more necessary that we should have that information when we are told that this is only the first of a number of measures to deal with the public health. Are we to come to the conclusion that this is merely window dressing, shadow boxing, or sham; that it is something like the national drainage Act, that will not commence for seven years and will not end for 30 years according to what we were told? The Minister knows quite well that there is an urgent necessity for certain measures to deal with the health of the community. I am not subscribing to the view that this measure as it stands is the proper way to go about doing that. I am not saying that there are not good sections in the Bill, or that there are not parts in it that, given effect, would not beneficially affect the health of certain classes of people. I am not going to go into the objectionable parts, but I believe that they far outweigh the good parts. These are the Minister's considered proposals. I assume that the Bill was drafted after the fullest consideration, not only by the Parliamentary Secre-Government, but after the fullest consultation with the best authorities on public health, and that a stage was reached when the Parliamentary Secretary felt that he was able to draft the details of a Bill like this. He must have felt that he was in earnest, and for that reason he should be in a position to tell the House, not only what it is going to cost but when it is going to be put into operation.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Before Section 5 to insert the following new section:—
5.—(1) By-laws made by a sanitary authority under and for the purpose of this Act shall be under their common seal and every by-law so made may be amended or revoked by a subsequent by-law made pursuant to the provisions of this Act: Provided that a by-law so made by a sanitary authority shall not have any force or effect if repugnant to the provisions of this Act or to any law for the time being in force.
(2) By-laws made under this Act by a sanitary authority may provide for imposing on offenders against such by-laws such penalties, not exceeding five pounds, for each offence and, in the case of a continuing offence, a further penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the offence is continued, as they may think proper.
(3) By-laws made under this Act by a sanitary authority shall not take effect unless and until they have been submitted to and sanctioned by the Minister and the Minister is hereby empowered, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sub-section of this section, to sanction or refuse to sanction, or to sanction subject to such modifications as may appear reasonable, any such by-laws.
(4) The Minister shall not sanction any by-laws submitted to him under the provisions of this Act by a sanitary authority unless he is satisfied that the following conditions in relation to the making of such by-laws have been complied with, that is to say—
(a) that notice of their intention to make application for such sanction has been given by the sanitary authority in one or more of the local newspapers circulating within the district to which such by-laws relate, one month at least before the making of such application; and
(b) that for one month, at least, before the making of such application, a copy of the proposed by-laws had been kept at the office of the sanitary authority and was available thereat during office hours for public inspection without fee or reward; and
(c) that the sanitary authority gave public notice in an adequate manner that during the period of one month mentioned in this sub-section any person could, on making application to them, obtain a copy of the proposed by-laws on payment of one shilling and that every such application had been complied with.
(5) All by-laws made under this Act by a sanitary authority, or for purposes the same as or similar to those of this Act under any Local Act, shall be printed and kept prominently displayed in the office of such sanitary authority and a copy thereof shall, on the application of any person residing in the district to which such by-laws relate, be delivered to such person on the payment of one shilling.
(6) A copy of any by-laws made under this Act by a sanitary authority signed and certified by an authorised official of such sanitary authority to be a true copy of such by-laws and to have been duly sanctioned by the Minister shall, until the contrary is proved, be evidence in all legal proceedings of the validity of such by-laws without further or other proof.
This Public Health Bill may be taken as an indication of the desire to give us a public health code right up to date, but the form in which this section has been drawn indicates that that purpose has been defeated. What is still worse is the indication of a growing tendency towards legislation by reference. As far as the section refers to by-laws, may I say that as by-laws will play a very important part in the operation of the Act, they should be drawn in such a form that they would be readily accessible to those concerned? The only manner in which they will be available under this Bill will be by reference to previous Acts. In a comprehensive Bill of this character, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary might have asked the Parliamentary draftsman to include a suitable section incorporating something on the lines I have taken the trouble to suggest in the amendment. I believe the feeling of the House is that we should have something definite and emphatic in matters of this kind, rather than reference to previous Acts.
I think that the House appreciates that this is not, and does not purport to be a complete consolidation of the public health code. It is very, very far from it. A measure that would incorporate the public health law that operates here to-day would be a very much more comprehensive one than the Bill now before the House. If there has been one complaint emphasised more than another, in the course of the debate on this Bill, it is that there is too much in it; that we should have divided it into a number of Bills. In fact, it only repeals 15 Acts of Parliament, and consequently many statutory provisions in the existing law, some of them very old, must still remain in the code until such time as we are in a position to bring before the House a complete, consolidating measure. Consequently, it is essential, seeing that we are not repealing the 1878 Act referred to in Section 5 or the particular sections in that Act relating to by-laws, that we must incorporate Section 5 in the Bill. I do not want to criticise the Deputy's amendment. I realise the spirit actuating him in drafting this amendment. There are some minor defects in the sections of the 1878 Act, that he would wish to see repealed, but by-laws have been made under that Act in relation to various measures other than public health, and in order to maintain uniformity until such time as that 1878 Act disappears from our statutory code, it seems better not to have two codes governing our powers of making by-laws or the provisions that can be incorporated in those by-laws. I have no criticism at all to offer as to the motive behind Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment, but we just cannot deal with every enactment in the public health code in this measure, because it is not a complete consolidating measure. It has gone a substantial distance but, as I said on the Second Reading, this thing can only be done by stages; other measures will have to be introduced. As confusing as it has been to Deputies to try to keep abreast of the numerous principles that are embodied in this Bill, I think I have spared them somewhat anyhow by giving it to them in small doses because what is incorporated in the Bill is in fact a small dose when compared to the full public health code.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 19:—
To insert, as sub-section (1) of Section 7, the following sub-section:—
(1) The Minister may make regulations in relation to anything referred to in this Act as prescribed.
The power to make regulations in relation to anything prescribed is provided here. We have already discussed on amendment No. 14 certain matters that will be prescribed. It relates mostly to forms of certificate by medical officers.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. We might take No. 21 first and dispose of the small point, that is, whether "Order" should stand as equal to "regulation" or not.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In lines 17, 19, 21 and 22, before the word "regulation" to insert the words "Order or".
Under Section 18 (1), the Minister, for instance, may by Order declare a disease to be an infectious disease, and by reason solely of the Minister's Order various sections of the Bill will come into operation imposing penal effects on various people, giving him power to take people and to send them into institutions, power to keep people off the streets, power to keep people out of buses, placing bus drivers or tram drivers in the position that if they did not obey the Order, or if they allowed such people to go on buses, they would be liable to penalties of one kind or another. I think that any Order that the Minister would make of that particular kind should at least be an Order that could in a formal way be brought before the House for discussion and for decision as to whether the House agreed with the Order or not. The Bill provides that where the Minister makes a regulation there will be power by which a motion could be put before the House, and the regulation made by the Minister discussed, and, if it was thought suitable, the regulation annulled. The amendment asks to have the Minister's Order put into the same position as the Minister's regulation, so that both the Minister's Orders and the Minister's regulations could be brought before this House for discussion, and if necessary for annulment.
Deputies who have read through this measure will have noticed, I am sure, that the matters in respect of which Ministerial Orders will fall to be made from time to time are very numerous indeed. I am quite aware that Deputy Mulcahy does not challenge the propriety of that. That machinery is necessary in order that administration should be carried out, but it is unusual to put that restriction upon the Minister that he must submit all these Orders to the House. It has been the practice to table in both Houses of the Oireachtas regulations made under various enactments, but I have no doubt Deputy Mulcahy would be interested to know that the Minister is not under any statutory obligation to lay regulations on the Table of the House under the public health code. The practice has, in fact, been carried out and under the terms of this Bill it is proposed to make it a statutory requirement that regulations made under this Bill shall be laid on the Table of the House. If it were necessary that I should put before the House in detail the various matters—many of them small matters —that have to be dealt with by Order, I think the House will agree that it would be unreasonable. Deputy Mulcahy mentions powers under Section 18, that the Minister will have power to declare, under Section 18, by Order, that certain diseases are infectious diseases. It is not denied. The wording of the section is quite clear but, under the existing law, not only has the Minister power to declare what is an infectious disease but a local authority has power to declare what is an infectious disease.
I do not know why Deputy Mulcahy should seek to put this restriction on the Minister, a restriction that nobody considered necessary to impose on any Minister heretofore, a restriction that was not imposed on Deputy Mulcahy when he was Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Why all these restrictions should now be imposed is puzzling, at any rate, to say the least of it. There may be, perhaps, a good reason. If there is a good reason, then let us have the good reason and we could discuss it on that basis. But I have yet to learn that either the previous Government or the present Government have abused the powers in relation to these public health matters that the law has reposed in them.
I have not known it in Deputy Mulcahy's time. I have never suggested that, notwithstanding the fact that he had unlimited powers—I will probably have something to say later on as to the absence of any limitation on the powers he had to make regulations—he ever acted improperly. Since the present Government came into office I do not think they have ever acted improperly in that regard. Consequently, one must view with a certain amount of suspicion, anyhow, all this concentrated effort to ask the Minister to deliver the goods, to ask him to take all the necessary steps to ensure that infectious diseases will be stamped out or, at any rate, brought under control, but to tie him hand and foot after that. I do not take kindly to being bound up like that. I do not think I have in a Ministerial capacity ever abused any power reposed in me. I know I have not been accused of that and I do not suppose I will be accused of it. But, if the Minister can be trusted to act in a responsible way, why tie him up like this? If he cannot be trusted to act in a responsible way, I am afraid you will have to appeal to the other tribunal, to the masters outside, to relieve the people of the burden of that Minister.
What amendment are we discussing?
Amendment No. 21.
What has that to do with giving the Minister power?
A Ministerial Order.
To lay them before the House?
The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that he is going to be tied up if this Bill makes provision, when he issues an Order, that a Deputy may, if he thinks there is reason enough for it, table a motion asking that the Order be annulled so that the matter can be discussed here and the motion annulled, if the House considers it necessary. I ask him, in the light of what he has said, to look at Section 13, under which a health authority must provide and maintain any institution which the Minister, by Order, asks them to provide and maintain. At the back of that is this great vision of £24,000,000 to be spent on public health institutions within a period of time foreseeable, at any rate, by the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that, when he issues an Order like that requiring a local authority to provide an institution which they think they do not want but which he thinks they do, it will be tying him up to have a provision by which a Deputy can raise the matter in the House by a motion asking to have the Order annulled. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks of Orders as dealing with innumerable little things which have to be attended to, and says that they have been attended to in the past quite safely and securely without hurting anyone. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to direct his attention to that section and to the section where he takes power, by Order, to define infectious diseases for various purposes and to treat infectious diseases as different classes of things for one reason or another affecting in very many ways the liberty and the responsibility of the individual. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not ask us to take the statement he has made seriously either in the light of Section 13 or of Section 18 or Section 19.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that there is no fear of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary abusing his powers under this Bill or any other Bill. When one sees the attitude which the Parliamentary Secretary adopts in this House towards a simple, straightforward amendment like this, one begins to wonder whether a person who reacts in that way can act in a fair and judicial way in relation to the operation of any section of this or any other Bill. We have not got very far with this Bill yet. A number of amendments have been debated. They have not been debated in any heated way. Already, however, we have had the Parliamentary Secretary using the words "conspiracy" and "suspicion" in relation to more than one amendment. He talks about the suspicious mind of the movers or the framers of these amendments. One gets the impression from the Parliamentary Secretary, as one gets it from his Minister, that he is impatient with any amendment being drafted or moved to any measure which he brings before the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary described the amendment as unusual; so is the Bill. He wanted to know what were the grounds for the amendment. The Bill is sufficient ground for it. Deputy Mulcahy pointed out that one of the Orders which can be made by the Minister is an Order directing a local authority to build, equip and maintain any institution which he thinks is necessary.
The Parliamentary Secretary may do that by an Order under this Bill, and, by an Order under the Local Government Bill which is still before the House, if the local authority does not carry out that Order made by the Parliamentary Secretary, then they will be dealt with under the other Bill. I want to remind the Parliamentary Secretary, as I had to remind the Minister for Local Government, that we are not legislating merely for the political lifetime of the present Parliamentary Secretary or the present Minister. It is conceivable—I will not put it further than that—that a Minister for Local Government may make an Order directing the Dublin Corporation or the Tipperary County Council to erect an institution or institutions costing from £50,000 to £500,000. He has power to do that. Once he makes that Order, neither the local authority nor the Dáil can question it. All that Deputy Mulcahy is seeking in a very reasonable way under this amendment is that some restriction will be placed on that, and this House will have some right, if they think it necessary, to deal with that Order when made. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, while he conceives that he has duties, and while he is very conscientious about his powers, so has every member of the House a duty. It is our duty, from the point of view of the community, to make this Bill as watertight as we can. It is the duty of this House to keep in their own hands as much control as they can.
I support the amendment. Whatever argument the Minister might make against amendment No. 20, the amendment we are discussing now alters only very slightly the section as it stands. The two previous speakers have pointed out that Section 13 sets out that the Minister may by Order direct a health authority to provide whatever institutions he directs them to provide, and, without any suspicions and without feeling that I am entering into a conspiracy against the Minister, I, as representing the taxpayers, and being myself a taxpayer, think we must look at this with a certain amount of care and caution.
Under Section 13, the Minister has power to order these institutions to be crected and he can prescribe the specifications. In other words, he can direct that an institution of a certain kind, automatically costing at present a very large sum of money, must be erected. In that case, it is incumbent on Deputies to see that if an Order of this kind is made, its provisions will be available to the House and can, if the House thinks fit, be annulled.
But not alone is Section 13 affected, but Section 86, under which section the Minister has power to make an Order applying the provisions in regard to inspection, which the local dispensary doctor is to carry out in national schools, to any school, no matter by whom it may be run. School managers, college and convent authorities, and all other people dealing with the education of children look on that section with very grave misgivings. Under the section, the Minister can by Order prescribe that these inspections and examinations shall take place, and, at the same time, these Orders apparently will not be made available, at any rate, to the Oireachtas. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider carefully the advisability of accepting this amendment which provides for placing the Orders before the House and for their amendment within 21 days, if the House thinks fit. Anything previously done under them is not affected, and I think it only right that Deputies should endeavour to protect so far as possible the interests of the taxpayer and, particularly, in this case, of the ratepayer. For these reasons, I support the amendment.
May I also direct attention to other sections, under which, in addition to making Orders declaring certain diseases to be infectious and ordering the local authorities to provide certain, perhaps unwanted, institutions, the Minister may make Orders providing that there may be one or more assistant county medical officers, and one or more assistant city medical officers, and may by Order provide also that certain articles shall not be imported into this country? He may restrict the importation, manufacture or sale of certain articles. He may also by Order impose certain duties on joint health authorities. Many of these Orders involve very serious problems and nearly all of them involve matters of expense and very heavy expense to local authorities which have no voice or say in the matter at all. A local authority has simply to comply, or, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, be abolished. In these circumstances, it is only right that Orders of a general character should be subject to some review, and the only forum in which they may be reviewed and discussed is this House.
The main argument against acceptance of the amendment, as I gathered it, is that the tabling of these Orders would unduly hamper or obstruct administrative business. I can very well understand that the tabling of Orders, so far as day to day routine work is concerned, would possibly have that effect, but major or fundamental matters are quite different and one of these has been quoted in relation to Section 18, as well as Section 13. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the local authorities already had such powers in connection with the framing of these Orders. That is perfectly true, but I suggest—and the whole purport of the Bill is so designed—that there will be a new approach to public health and matters relating to public health arising out of the Bill. The country will be very keenly interested in what will emerge from this House as the Public Health Act. The Parliamentary Secretary may disabuse his mind straightaway of any idea of a personal approach by members of the Opposition in their attempts to improve any section. I suggest that that is what members of the Opposition are here for, more particularly having regard to the controversy which the Bill as a whole has aroused. Those of us who have manifested our interest by tabling amendments are merely giving effect to what we feel is our duty to our constituents.
On the question of Orders, a considerable amount of the time of the House was occupied in the recent past with these matters, and the Taoiseach himself has given expression to a certain amount of anxiety as to the effect of the non-tabling or the inaccessibility of these Orders, and surely matters of major importance, as distinct from the day-to-day routine matters of the Department, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, should, for the protection of the citizen, be laid on the Table of the House.
We should appreciate that if we here, as the supreme authority, feel it necessary, in the public interest, to give certain powers to Ministers, if there is a demand for increased services and in providing these services it is necessary to vest greater powers in individuals, it is for that reason all the more essential that the House, in granting these powers, should ensure that the necessary safeguards are provided as well. I am not suggesting that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister desires deliberately to abuse any power given to him, but there is a responsibility on this House to provide, in the interests of the individual and of the community, the necessary safeguards, because in this measure we are empowering the Minister by Order to interfere with the personal liberties of the individual.
It can be argued that this interference with personal liberties is in the public interest, in order to prevent the spread of infection and so on, but the moment you interfere with them, it is vital that the House should provide every possible safeguard to ensure that these liberties and rights of the individual will not be abused, to ensure that whatever interference takes place is essential and that it will not go beyond what is absolutely essential. The Bill gives the Minister a good deal of power, not only with regard to individuals but with regard to local authorities. The House should not stand for a sort of machinery that is absolutely bureaucratic, where the people and their representatives are completely ignored. We should not allow a situation to develop where the Minister can make an Order, satisfied that there is bureaucratic machinery there to operate it, and the local representatives have no power in the matter.
The Minister has extraordinary power under Section 13. Regardless of the financial capacity of a particular county, he can direct, in any circumstances, that that local authority must provide certain institutions. As Minister for Public Health, concerned merely with the health of the public, he is not concerned with the economic aspects. It is proposed to deny to the local authority any say in the matter. The Minister provides a perfect machinery for the bureaucratic operation of the Bill. Once his Order issues, it is positive that it will be implemented. We give a lot of lip service to democracy, but if we believe in democracy at all, we cannot stand for machinery which is going to operate on those lines. Whatever Orders or regulations are made must be tabled in this House and the House must reserve its right to annul those Orders if they think it necessary to do so.
It seems to me that the difficulties we are facing in regard to the particular matter before us at the moment come from a certain lack of discrimination between what is important and essential for carrying out the provisions of this Bill and what are largely matters of administration. If we could have some approach by the Parliamentary Secretary to an understanding of the basis of the very Bill he has put before the House, we might make more progress. While the debate has been going on, I have been checking the sections under which the Minister is entitled to make Orders, and also checking those in which he makes regulations. It appears that the most important parts of the Bill, those dealing with infectious disease, will not come into operation at all until the Minister makes an Order. Yet there is no obligation to place that Order before the House, not for the purpose of curtailing the freedom of action of the Minister but merely to afford this House, as the representative body of the citizens, an opportunity to consider and, if necessary, discuss the full implications and effects of the Order. That is denied to us. But if the Minister decides, by Order, to dispose of bodies other than by burial, we can have a whole day's debate. We can discuss what is being done with the dead bodies but not what is being done with the living.
There seems to be some lack of consistency. I can understand the Parliamentary Secretary objecting—and probably I would support him—in having to place every Order on the Table of the House. Quite a number of them would deal with matters of a trivial nature, as, for instance, whether an officer should be an assistant in a particular county area or city area. However, there is also a whole lot of questions of principle which are dealt with by Order, declaring whether a particular disease is infectious or not, the excluding of the operation of infectious disease from certain sections, the means by which local authorities carry out the disinfestation of persons, the question of giving to the Gárda Síochána the carrying out of certain provisions of the Bill, the question raised by Deputy Cosgrave of applying the Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland) Act to certain schools. All these are fundamental questions.
If the Parliamentary Secretary has an objection to embodying the word "Order" in this particular section, and thereby placing on the Minister the responsibility of laying every Order on the Table of the House, that objection could be met to a very large degree by changing the word "Order" to "regulation" in certain of the basic sections of the Bill, as we go through it. In that way, those particular sections in which we would be interested would be covered and we would have an opportunity, when decisions were taken by the Minister, to bring them before the House, if a Deputy thought it necessary to raise the matter. In so far as certain of these basic features of the Bill are going to be dealt with by Order, it is only fair and proper that members of the House should have an opportunity to debate them. It may be suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary that that would imply that there would be a certain amount of senseless and useless discussion on purely administrative Orders; but from our experience here we find that every day there are documents laid on the Table and it is seldom that the time of the House is occupied in dealing with them unless there is some fundamental point which a particular Deputy wishes to bring forward.
The fact that Orders under this Bill would be laid on the Table of the House, even though they might be dealing with very important questions of principle, should not in itself give rise to the feeling that the freedom of action of the Minister to carry out and apply the provisions of the Bill would be drastically interfered with. If we are going to make an approach to public health in general in this country, it is essential there should be, not only on the part of the members of the House but on the part of the public as a whole, a spirit of co-operation to carry out any legislation passed by this House. There should be realisation that, whenever decisions are taken by the Minister, even though he may be enjoying the full authority of this House and have the authority given to his Party in the course of elections, there is an opportunity to any citizen, acting through a representative of the House, to have a particular matter raised here and discussed in the ordinary way and have its weak or strong points dealt with. In that way the submission of any citizen or sections of citizens can be brought to the attention of the responsible Minister in time to have the matter amended or rectified as required.
Apart from unmeant wording and unmeant phrases about going on suspicion, the only argument this House is asked to consider seriously is the one set out in the phrase "it would be an impediment to action". The force of the amendment ought to be considered in relation to the section in respect of which it was moved. The Parliamentary Secretary himself has brought into this House a proposed piece of legislation which contains a provision that regulations made are to be laid before the House. The full obligation put upon him is only to be observed by those who read the section through. He is to put them before the House "as soon as may be" and he carries on under the regulations; but he is subject to this, that if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed within 21 days, then the regulation is annulled "without prejudice to anything already done". What is the impediment to action? Even Deputies Larkin and O'Sullivan, who have spoken in a way that can be appreciated by all in this House, have accepted that there is some impediment to action. What is it?
I do not suppose, in making a regulation or Order, the Parliamentary Secretary is coming back without some piece of writing. If he has some piece of writing, all he has to do is to have it dropped before the authorities governing procedure in this House and it is listed on the Order Paper and thereafter appears in the Library. Unless the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary intend to operate on the basis of something they have conceived in their own minds and not committed to paper, there is no impediment. There is no impediment after they are laid until a resolution is passed, and whatever impediment there is the authorities responsible for this measure have accepted it in regard to regulations.
I take up now what Deputy Larkin has suggested, but I will add that it is impossible to find any line of principle through this measure as between regulation and Order. The two most hotly contested parts of the measure are those which deal with making a disease an infectious disease and the pivoting of what is an infectious disease, and the sections which relate to that matter, notably the notorious Section 21. All turns on an Order. Presumably that Order is not going to be put in writing; it is going to be regarded as a matter of labour if it has to be put in writing to bring it before the House.
The second notorious section in the Bill is the one which enables the Minister to have school children inspected, if necessary, naked, without their own medical officer of health being present, without their parents' wish having been sought or obtained. The medical officer imposed on these people by the Parliamentary Secretary is going to come in and, without the slightest co-operation on the part of the child, subject it to a compulsory medical examination, possibly nude. The Minister hopes that the medical officer will be able to get into the back history of the child in order to find out what it might be suffering from.
All these sections pivot upon an Order. Why should not we have that Order put before the House, particularly when all that is required to be done is to have it put before the House, the procedure to flow on until the House has passed a resolution annulling what is proposed? I suggest that what Deputy Larkin has suggested should be carried out. There is one point to be noted here. This might end in a prosecution through which a person may lose his liberty. I say that whether you call it an Order or a regulation, it is something that should come before the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked why should there be so much antagonism to this. I do not call it antagonism to suggest that, through the House, the public should be given some opportunity to know what is in the mind of the authority dealing with this measure. All we ask is to give us publicity. Let us know what is happening. Some of us may decide to raise the matter by way of resolution. So far as I can recollect, there has been no resolution annulling a regulation of that type in the lifetime of this Dáil. But it is surely right that these things should be brought before the House so that they may be brought to the notice of the people, particularly any matters relating to a possible prosecution and the loss of liberty of the citizen.
The Parliamentary Secretary asked for reasons why there should be a certain prejudice. Let me say that men were under sentence of death on foot of an Order that had not been even published.
That matter was discussed already.
But the Parliamentary Secretary has asked for a reason why there should be prejudice and I am giving it to him, and I propose to continue that still further.
If the Deputy is in order.
I suggest what I am saying is in order.
There was a motion before the House regarding the annulment of an Order. A decision was arrived at and I suggest the debate should not be resumed now.
I do not intend to resume the debate. The Parliamentary Secretary asked for an example of an abuse and I am giving him one. I say that men were on the threshold of eternity for a crime in respect of which there is an Order which had not been published, let alone been brought before the House. I call that an abuse and I want to prevent it happening again.
It is a pity the Parliamentary Secretary does not meet this amendment in a reasonable frame of mind. It is a pity that the reasonable basis of compromise, if I might use the term, which was suggested to him by Deputy Larkin, is not found acceptable.
After all, this is a very comprehensive Bill, there is a big number of amendments to it and a large number of them are tabled by the Minister, and if we are to make progress in getting this Bill enacted, as the Parliamentary Secretary hopes, I think he ought to meet the House in a reasonable way. A very sensible suggestion was made by Deputy Larkin in order to get over what the Parliamentary Secretary described as his difficulty, namely, that he might be called upon to table Orders of a very minor or routine nature. It would be possible to get over that difficulty by having Orders of a major nature defined as regulations and thus bring them within the scope of the section.
The Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to table every regulation made, and I think he ought to recognise that many of the regulations that will be made under the Bill will be of a minor nature, whereas many of the Orders will be of a very fundamental and important character. Indeed, they are the most important matters in the Bill and they will bring into force the most important and most drastic sections of the Bill. I think a case has been put up to the Parliamentary Secretary which he ought to meet in a reasonable way.
I will draw attention to Section 26, which says:—
(1) Where—
(a) a person provides lodging in any premises for persons other than members of his own household and
(b) he lodges a person in a room or other place in such premises which, to his knowledge, has been occupied by another person while a probable source of infection with an infectious disease, and
(c) he did not, before so lodging such person, give notice, stating his intention to give lodging in such room or other place and fulfilling the requirements of subsection (2) of this section, to the district medical officer for the district in which the premises are situated, and carry out any disinfection or disinfestation which that officer required consequent upon such notice.
he shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £50 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
. . . . . . . . .
Our objection is that this measure, in the form in which it is, provides that any person who keeps lodgers may find himself liable to a fine of £50 without knowing what on earth it is all about.
By Order.
By Order: that is, that the Minister may order, under Section 18, that a particular disease is an infectious disease.
Or he may, by Order, declare the various stages.
Yes, he can go along in that way. He can, by Order, say something that an unfortunate lodging-house keeper may know nothing about, and that we may know nothing about. By our action in passing this Bill, without knowing what on earth we are doing, we may put that person in the position that he will be fined £50. We are asking that, before we pass a measure that will endanger a lodging-house keeper to the extent of £50, we shall know what an infectious disease is by having put before the House the Minister's Order declaring what are infectious diseases.
Does that arise on the section?
I expect so.
This is just an example of what I was trying to do.
Apparently it was not intended, according to the remark that has been made. He does not know the effect of his own Bill.
I was trying earlier to get the Parliamentary Secretary's mind on what was an infectious disease and what were the various developments of thought that would make him shift infectious diseases in various stages from one Order to another. It would have helped very much in the discussion of the whole of this measure if we could have had it earlier. We have had very limited means of finding out what are infectious diseases. When we turn to the annual report of the Registrar-General——
The Deputy is going away from the question now.
I am anxious to get advice on the subject.
There are references to Orders and regulations.
Will Orders defining infectious diseases be laid before the House? An infectious disease may be, practically, created merely by the Minister making an Order. It is impossible to discuss this matter even with the best will in the world within the rules of order. The Minister may by Order create a disease, which is not now considered an infectious disease, and not only that, but under Section 18 may declare the disease at any stage. In relation to an earlier amendment the Parliamentary Secretary differentiated between the earlier stages and the advanced stages of tuberculosis. Under an Order that he can make now he can declare the first stages of tuberculosis to be infectious.
I do not know whether discussion would be in order dealing with an Order or a regulation. That would mean that one should rank with the other; that the Order should be put in circulation for a certain purpose. The Deputy having pointed out what could be done under this Bill, surely it is going rather far to try to get in what he is trying to get into the section.
May I submit that we are handicapped. We can go a certain distance. We know that the Minister can do certain things under the Bill by Order, but he can go further. That is the difficulty. He can by Order define infectious diseases which are not referred to in the Bill at all.
The Parliamentary Secretary might be able to help, if he would tell us how an unfortunate lodging-house keeper is going to know what is happening in the public health world. When the Parliamentary Secretary issues an Order, and if he defines scabies as an infectious disease under this Bill, he does so without any publication of the fact to this House. If we are going to have this measure put through by the Parliamentary Secretary sitting dumb, and not helping us in spite of my appeal to members of the Party behind him to help, then it is going to be a very sad state of affairs. I repeat the remark made by Deputy Larkin, that in the interests of public health, and in order to have the Bill properly carried out, the Minister will require the assistance of every organised section.
The first place he ought to endeavour to look for the fullest possible co-operation is in this House, and he ought to do his part in bringing about that co-operation. Up to the present the Parliamentary Secretary has prevented an exchange of ideas between the Government Party and ourselves. It is a fact that from the appearance of the Parliamentary Secretary and the members of his Party since we began the discussion of this measure——
Does the Deputy suggest that I am anxious to run away from it?
I do.
No.
I feel that that is the position. The Parliamentary Secretary talked of suspicion on the part of Deputies on this side of the House; of our minds being filled with suspicion with regard to himself and his action. He takes up the attitude that he does not believe that we are prepared to assist him in having public health matters properly discussed.
I do not see any appearance of it in relation to this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude naturally makes it very difficult for honest, bona fide people to stand up in the House to discuss the question. It cannot but have a disturbing effect on people who want to do business, although the serried ranks of the Government Party are silent, following the attitude expressive of the Parliamentary Secretary of simply putting his thumb to his nose and refusing to accept that we are bona fide and want to discharge our duty.
What about the amendment?
I moved quite a number of amendments to which Deputies spoke.
If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to speak, he ought to stand up.
The Deputy might mind his own business.
Thank you.
What about the amendment?
I am pressing the amendment for this reason, that under Section 13 the Minister can order a local body to set up any institution that he dictates; under Section 14 he may, by Order, tell a local body to discontinue any institution that he dictates them to discontinue; and under Section 18, by Order, he can declare any disease to be an infectious disease, as a result of which, under Section 19, a person may be fined £50.
The Deputy is repeating himself now.
I did not say this before.
A fine of £50?
I was talking about a lodging-house keeper under a later section. Under Section 19 a person who is a probable source of infection to a disease that the Minister declares to be infectious may, because he is supposed not to have taken sufficient precautions, be fined £50. Under Section 21 parents may suffer penalties of fines because they send their children to school or to church or other places. There are penalties under Sections 27 and 28. Under Section 31 the Minister may by Order require local authorities to keep certain machinery for disinfestation. He may order them to keep certain transport under Section 33. Under Section 83 he may by Order require local authorities to carry out by advertisement a health campaign or he may make them put up notices or circulate pamphlets or hold lectures or do work by radio or cinema exhibitions, and the House will have no information at all about it. Under Section 84 he may order joint action by certain health authorities. Under Section 89 he may restrict the importation or the manufacture of certain articles or instruments. Under Section 101 he may prevent the treatment of people in certain institutions. Under Section 105 he may require the Guards to carry out work that would be properly the duties of the health authorities. All these things may be done by Order and we ask that the Order be put in the same position as the regulations of the Minister in that, when he issues an Order, he may proceed to act on that Order but that within a limited period the Order will be placed before this House and that there will be an opportunity, if it is thought necessary, of discussing the Order here so that the Order can be annulled. It is because of the importance of the matters that the Minister proposes to deal with by Order that we press this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Anthony, Richard S.
- Beirne, John.
- Bennett, George C.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Reidy, James.
- Spring, Daniel.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and McMenamin; Níl: Deputies Ó Ciosáin and Ó Briain.
Amendment declared negatived.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I should like to pass a final remark that, on the new system of calculation that was introduced into this House in connection with the teachers' strike, the last amendment was carried by a minority, a very distinct minority, of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 22 on behalf of Deputy Costello:—
Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
All the powers, functions and duties conferred or imposed on local authorities by or under this Act, or any regulation or Order made thereunder, shall be reserved functions.
Put briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to see that this Bill, which will impose such very heavy responsibilities, and particularly such heavy financial responsibility, on local authorities, shall not be run merely by the Minister and the county manager or the city manager, as the case may be; that the functions shall be exerciseable by the elected representatives of the people. I think that any Deputy who has read this Bill, or who will advert to the obligations which may be put on local authorities, will agree that the functions should be reserved functions. I do not want to drag in the Local Government Bill again; I merely want to make a passing reference to it.
That Bill, which is at present going through the House, has a very close affiliation with the Bill now before us. I am not so sure that the Local Government Bill was not introduced because this Bill was coming before the House. Remember, that the Minister may now, by Order, such Order not even being laid before this House, put on local authorities obligations which will call for very heavy financial outlay and the local authorities will have no say in that matter. A great part of the machinery contained in this Bill, in the event of this amendment not being accepted, will be operated by the Minister and by the county manager or the city manager, as the case may be. Now, whatever independence the county manager or the city manager has, when the Local Government Bill becomes an Act the county manager or the city manager will be little more than a creature of the Minister. It has been said here already to-night that we talk a lot in this country about democracy and that we keep up the pretence of local government. If we impose on local authorities heavy obligations and the responsibility for finding very large sums of money by heavily increased rates, we certainly ought to give them some voice in that matter or do away with the sham of having local authorities at all. I do not want to labour this matter.
I think this amendment is one which speaks for itself. We know that, in an effort to make men who had an interest in local government go forward for election and take their places on local bodies in the last three or four years, following on the passage of the County Management Act, the Department of Local Government went to some trouble and expense to get out an elaborate White Paper, setting out the responsible functions which were still reserved to local authorities. They made it their principal point that local authorities retained the power of the purse; in other words, that they were in full control of the striking of the rate. They are not now, and will be still less so when the Local Government Bill becomes law.
We have seen evidence already this year of most local authorities having been compelled substantially to increase the rates. If and when the Bill is put into operation, the rates will have to go far higher than they are to-day, and the elected representatives of the people, who are supposed to deal with their local problems and to be responsible for local government, will have no more say in matters affecting local government, affecting the rate or the size of the rate, than the person standing at the street corner who never sought election at all. If even the pretence of local government is to be retained, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary can refuse to accept this amendment. If it is the intention to have this Bill machined and carried through merely by the Minister and the county manager, then of course the amendment will be rejected.
I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary if he has a case to make against the amendment and I hope that he will at least extend to the House— I will put it no stronger than this—the courtesy of giving reasons for his not accepting it. Ministers have certain powers and they have certain dignity, but they also have certain duties. They are fond, both Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries, of talking about their responsibility to the people and their full recognition of the fact that they are responsible to the people. That means, of course, in effect, that they are responsible to this House which represents the people, and the Parliamentary Secretary and others should get it into their minds once and for all that this House does not consist solely of members of the Government Party, that the people who sit on this side of Opposition are representatives of the people also, and representatives practically of as many people as the Government Party itself.
When we speak about majority and minority votes, it ought to be recognised that the Government sits as the Government of the day by favour of a minority of the total vote of this country. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept this amendment, he ought to give his reasons, and they ought to be considered reasons. This is an amendment which should commend itself to any person in the House who has any regard for local government. If we are to deny to the elected representatives of the people on county councils, corporations, urban councils and other local authorities any real say in legislation passed in this House affecting them, that is an end of local government.
It is apparent that the Parliamentary Secretary intends to put in force a new form of closure on debate in this House, the closure of silence.
The Deputy will never be accused of that, anyway.
Perhaps not.
The Deputy has something to say.
The Deputy who has interrupted usually has too.
As recently as last Friday week, the Taoiseach impressed on the Opposition the importance of discussion in this House, of threshing out legislation, of seeking by their views to impress upon the Government Benches the importance of what they have to say, but apparently the Parliamentary Secretary is immune from the Taoiseach's advice and does not intend to follow it. A new stunt is being tried on here—to treat with the silence of contempt what is said from these benches. If that be so, we shall talk until the cows come home.
The amendment is based on the principle that he who pays the piper has the right to call the tune. The only power left to a local authority under the Bill—apparently the Minister has overlooked the possibility of taking it away from them—is the power to make by-laws. That is one of the reserved functions of a local authority, and under Part VIII of the Bill, a local authority may make by-laws relating to such matters as public bathing, bathing places and wash-houses. Otherwise, a local authority has no voice, good, bad or indifferent, in the implementation of this Bill. The Minister may decide that a particular local authority should erect a public health institution at a cost of perhaps £100,000 or £200,000. The local authority may have very vigorous and very definite views on that question and may not see eye to eye with the Minister, but if the Minister makes an Order, the local authority must execute that Order, or be abolished.
In actual practice, however, what will happen is that, these matters being executive functions, the Minister or his officials in the Custom House will direct officialdom in the country to carry out the Order, and that is an end to the matter. There is no voice to be heard from the local authority and no discussion on the matter.
A public authority may protest; it may refuse to find the money; and then, under the provisions of an Emergency Powers Order or under the provisions of the new Local Government Bill, when it becomes law, it may be abolished, and the Minister and his bureaucrats will simply carry on and ignore the vigorous viewpoints of the local representatives, just as he is ignoring the viewpoint of the Opposition here to-night. It is only right and reasonable that, where an important matter of this kind is at issue, there should be freedom of discussion and facility for discussion. Before any Orders are made, some recognition should be given to the local viewpoint. It is quite possible that the Parliamentary Secretary, being a professional man, may take the experts' view in his Department as against the lay view. That expert opinion may be 50 years in advance of public opinion and may be forced, through the Minister, on the country and, perhaps, in that way irreparable harm may be done. In all these matters, the right of the local authority which has to find the money should be upheld and they should have at least the opportunity of discussing these matters in all their aspects. This amendment is seeking to preserve that right for the local authorities.
The Deputies on the Government Benches are conspicuous by their absence to-day—whether by design or otherwise, I cannot say. Those of them who are members of local authorities will in the very near future have to face this issue in their constituency. I want to sound a word of warning to those gentlemen, that they would at least sit up and take notice of where they are going and what this is going to mean in actual practice. It simply means that officialdom in the Custom House will dictate to officialdom in the country and that the voice of the people will be suppressed. If the Minister is prepared to accept any viewpoint of an expert in the Custom House, that viewpoint will be forced on the people in the country, without their having an opportunity to say "No" to it. I ask Deputies if that is a position into which the public representatives of the people should be forced. Is that not the very negation of a public representation? Is it not the very negation of democratic control? It used to be held that whoever controlled the purse, even though only once a year, had some effective say in local administration.
Now, we have not even that say, as the Minister is able now, under the present Emergency Powers Orders and will be able later, under the Local Government Act, to strike a second or third budget if he finds it necessary, or if he finds a local authority recalcitrant and refusing to give him money for certain measures.
We are, therefore, reaching the position that the only place and time this matter may be discussed is here and now. The local authority will have no opportunity to discuss it, and we have no opportunity except, perhaps, once a year on the Estimates for the Department. I put it to Deputies that this is a very serious issue—the old issue of taxation without representation. The Minister may impose on the local authorities new institutions costing colossal sums, against their will, against their advice and against their better judgment. He may impose all sorts of charges for maintenance in those institutions, against their will, against their advice and against their better judgment. Nothing can be done about it. When we are faced with that position here to-night and these matters are raised, the Minister chooses to remain silent—obviously because he has no answer, because he cannot face these issues, because he wishes to force this measure down the throats of Deputies in a new form of closure. If that is his policy, if he is going to be persistently silent through the debate on this Bill, I would suggest to Deputies here to become more vocal—so vocal that the Minister will be forced into saying something before the debate is finished.
The Minister appears to be stricken with dumbness, or rather with a particular form of dumbness which implies inability to speak. It is difficult to know whether he is accepting this amendment or not. If he is not accepting it, it would be interesting to hear what reasons he has to give. It is due to this House that he should meet representatives of all Parties in a reasonable way and seek to justify the measures which he proposes to put before us. In another section a reasonable suggestion was put by representatives of the Labour Party, who can hardly claim to be out to obstruct the Bill, but the Parliamentary Secretary neither accepted the proposal nor gave any reason for not accepting. He may tell us that he has 70 odd reasons which he can use in opposition to any amendment put forward. He has only to ring the bell and those 70 odd reasons will come into the House-and some of them, as he will admit, are very odd. That is not the way to treat this House.
The Minister flatly refused, at the inception stage of this Bill, to tell us the liabilities which will be imposed upon the local rates. He gave one particular item, in respect of the nursing service, but did not give any indication as to the liability which will be imposed on ratepayers under other sections of the Bill, those which provide for the establishing of new institutions and which provide for the maintenance of relatives of patients in various institutions. Whatever this Bill costs the ratepayers, the representatives of the people should have the right to implement the various sections. This amendment seeks to ensure that they will have that power, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not indicated yet whether he is going to meet us in that respect or whether he is going to say that all the enormous powers which are vested in him and in the local authorities will be exercised through officials of the Minister, namely, the county managers. It is about time the rights of the elected representatives of the people were recognised and that those representatives were treated as such and not as members of the Fianna Fáil Party, to be herded into the division lobbies behind a silent Parliamentary Secretary.
I am surprised at being accused by so many Deputies of being silent. I thought I talked quite a lot to-day—in fact, more than many Deputies wished to hear. I can assure Deputies that they will hear plenty from me before this Bill has been disposed of.
Is that a threat or a promise?
I have no intention whatever of remaining silent.
We are glad to hear that.
But when Deputies put down amendments and make speeches in support of them that are obviously dishonest, and that clearly represent the merest political play-acting, I give them plenty of scope. I am not in any terrible hurry, though Deputy Mulcahy wants to ensure, and has moved an amendment to ensure, that this legislation will be brought into operation with the greatest possible expedition. The House will be given ample time to discuss the 516 amendments that have been tabled by this constructive Opposition.
And by the Parliamentary Secretary.
And by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary, in an effort to meet any reasonable criticism that was levelled at this Bill on Second Reading, introduced amendments, many of them designed to meet the points that were raised. I make no apology to the House or to anybody else for having made that effort to meet the reasonable criticism of the Opposition or to meet any disturbance of feeling that the interpretation put upon certain sections of the Bill by the Opposition might have given rise to outside.
And what appeared in a well-known newspaper.
We know lots about the well-known newspapers and we know something about the political organs that pose as being the authoritative mouthpieces of the Catholic Church. We know all about that. We know all about the fears as to how far this Bill was going to interfere with the natural rights of parents and all that sort of thing. We know all about the anxiety on the part of the Opposition lest we might infringe the rights of parents from the purely Catholic point of view. It was all delightful. It was nice to find even Deputy Dockrell getting up in defence of the Church—I presume it was the majority church. We have no fault to find with him.
That is the sort of dirty crack we might expect from you.
When an effort is made to meet these reasonable fears, if they are well-founded at all, I am twitted with having circulated so many amendments to the Bill. If I try to meet the Opposition viewpoint, I am wrong. If I do not try to meet the Opposition viewpoint, apparently I am wrong too. No matter what way I turn, I will be wrong anyhow in the eyes of the Opposition. I venture to say that I will not be too far wrong in the eyes of the public, and I will not be too far wrong in the eyes of the Church, notwithstanding the anxiety of all those pillars of the Faith on the Opposite Benches.
Now, we are asked in this amendment, this innocent looking amendment, in the spirit of co-operation that Deputy Mulcahy talks to me about, radically to amend the County Management Act. Deputies are aware that Section 16 of the County Management Act, in the Second Schedule, sets out the functions that are reserved to the local authorities. This amendment suggests that these functions, in so far as they relate to public health, should be altered. The suggestion is that the whole basis of the structure should be altered. Is that helpful? Is it meant to be helpful, or is it meant to be constructive? Of course it is not. Is it a constructive suggestion that, in so far as public health is concerned, certain functions should be reserved and, so far as local government and general administration are concerned, that a different type of function should be reserved. Bear in mind, in case you should forget it, that the County Management Act has been adopted by this House, by this democratic Parliament, and the Government that was responsible for the County Management Act has got the approval of the people. I am asked, innocently, by the amendment from the Opposition Party, to abandon the whole principle of the County Management Act in so far as public health matters are concerned.
You are not asked any such thing.
That is put forward in a spirit of co-operation and construction. I cannot co-operate to that extent. So long as the County Management Act remains on the Statute Book, it will apply to the public health functions of the Minister to the same extent and in the same manner as it applies to his other functions. It could not be otherwise, and if Deputies think they will deceive anybody here or outside by their attitude on this Bill, they are making the biggest mistake of their lives, and they are welcome to it.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary now deal with the amendment?
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary's silence or his bad-tempered attempt at a speech is the more objectionable. Certainly, his silence, bad and all as it is, is probably much more helpful to the proper discussion of this Bill, which is going to affect the lives of thousands of our people, than the irrelevant, bad-tempered speech to which we have just listened. The Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with the amendment. He talked about the amendment being put forward in an innocent way. It is so framed that it ought to be understood even by the Parliamentary Secretary. It does not seek to do anything like what the Parliamentary Secretary suggests regarding the County Management Act, but it does seek to retain for the elected representatives of the people some little authority.
The real objection to this amendment is that it is deliberately designed to see that this measure, when it becomes law, will not be operated solely by the officials in the Custom House and the officials of the local authorities. When I talk about the officials of local authorities I mean the county managers and city managers. I will emphasise this, that when the Local Government Bill becomes law, the city and county managers will be as completely the creatures of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister as if they were merely officials working in the Custom House-mere penny boys. The Parliamentary Secretary talks about this democratic Parliament. Mind you, there has been very little democracy in what we have been discussing here since the beginning of this year. There has been very little democracy in the measures put before the House, and the measures we have been discussing in the main for the last two months have been taking the last shred of local government and democracy away from this country. The Parliamentary Secretary gets annoyed and loses his temper and utters words which, I hope, on reflection, he will be sorry for having uttered, but, knowing the Parliamentary Secretary both in power and in Opposition for nearly 19 years in this House, and having listened to him just now, I am afraid he has not learned much in those 19 years.
We have every reason to talk about the fear of bureaucracy and dictatorship when we see the last shred of local government being removed. Deputies should make up their minds about this, that if local government is killed all democratic government will be killed. We cannot have complete centralisation at the Custom House and retain a democratic Parliament and democratic government here. Local representatives are elected on the same franchise and by the same people as Deputies. The people are considered capable of electing to this House representatives who are able to legislate for the country as a whole, representatives who are fit to form a government, and fit to control Departments, but the same people are, in effect, told that they are incapable of selecting those capable of administering Acts passed by this House.
I say that this House, through the Minister, is suggesting that the elected representatives of Dublin Corporation, Cork Corporation, or the council of any county in the State, are unfitted to administer the Bill. If that is so, then we are unfitted to discuss or to pass the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary is not dealing with a frivolous amendment now. He is dealing with something fundamental, but he has not been able to grasp that. He talks of political play-acting. If it is play-acting to seek to retain for the representatives of the people whatever little authority is still left to them, then I plead guilty to that type of play-acting. What I consider to be political play-acting in the real sense, is to have the Minister getting up and mouthing about democracy and local government and, at the same time, removing the last shred of democracy that it is within his power to remove.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Does the Minister realise what he is seeking here? Under Section 13 there is power to maintain certain institutions. Is action going to be taken there by the manager, on the Minister's Order, and irrespective of the local representatives, or is it the function of local representatives to deal with the Minister on matters arising under the section? Section 15 deals with the Minister's Order to discontinue certain health institutions. Is that a matter between the Minister and the county representatives, or one between himself and the county manager? Under Section 15 health authorities, in lieu of not providing institutions, may make arrangements with another body to use institutions that are not necessarily in their area. Is that to be a matter for the county manager or for the local representatives? Under Section 16 charges are set out or decided which must be paid by the people receiving institutional service under the health authorities. Are these charges to be decided by the county manager or by the local authority? Rules are made under Section 17 for the regulation of patients in institutions, and for admission on special terms as to payment and accommodation. Is that a matter for the county manager to decide or for the elected representatives of the people?
According to Section 34, where a person suffers from an infectious disease or is undergoing treatment, but is unable to make reasonable provision for his maintenance, is that matter to be decided by the county manager or by the elected representatives? Will the Parliamentary Secretary point to any provision in the Bill which is not a matter that ought to be decided by the elected representatives of the people or by any local authority rather than by the manager? That is what is at issue here and that is why the amendment is moved. What I have mentioned are matters on which we should have a direct answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Under what Order or regulation is it reasonable to demand from Dublin Corporation £168,000 for the hospital treatment of necessitous patients? What power had the corporation to refuse that demand? The Minister agreed with the corporation to accept the equivalent of 1/- in the £ in the rates to cover that demand. There is an outcry in the newspapers about this matter and a public meeting is being held in the Mansion House to-night, condemning in all its moods and tenses, the Dublin Corporation and its elected representatives, who are being forced to agree to levy the extra 1/- in the £ on the rates. The Minister almost put a pistol at the heads of the corporation. I want to know if the Minister has power to make that demand, and what is the intention, if this Bill goes through without the amendment being accepted? What powers are being left to the corporation or the local authorities? Have they power to fix the amount of the rates? Have they any reserved functions? As a public representative for many years I say that the Minister has filched all power that the corporation had within the past couple of months. The position was brought to a head this week by Dublin Municipal Council having reluctantly to accede to the demand that was made upon them. The original demand for the hospitals would have increased rates in Dublin by 1/9 in the £, but the Minister eventually agreed to accept 1/-. Surely some Deputy ought to be in a position to explain what power is being left to local representatives?
None at all.
Deputy Byrne is anxious to know what power is being left in the hands of local representatives. Under a section that was mentioned already, there are certain powers reserved to local authorities. As far as I remember, they number 22. Of these, the most important was the striking of the rate once a year.
The Deputy is going back to the County Management Act.
We are discussing reserved functions on this amendment— all the powers, functions and duties that should be reserved functions. I want to emphasise this point, that the most important of these 22 reserved functions was the striking of the rate once a year. That power is now gone because, if the Custom House tells the manager, "You must get more money from the local authority", and the local authority refuses the manager or the Minister, then the Minister has power to introduce a second budget. So that the power of the purse has been transferred from the local representatives of the people on the local authorities to the Custom House. Now, of the other powers, eight were related to town planning; one related to the making of by-laws and, as far as I remember, one related to the promotion of litigation or the defence of the local authority in litigation and the conferring of the freedom of the city on distinguished strangers, and things of that kind—all very unimportant functions.
Surely that is another Bill.
All we are asking to do——
That is another Bill.
All we are asking to do here is to add a few powers——
You cannot catch him.
——which are in this Bill to the powers which have been shorn from the local authority.
Public health matters?
We are seeking to add a few powers to the 22 topics upon which the local authority may legislate. We are seeking to give the local authority back some little power. Other Ministers have introduced measures quite recently into this House imposing certain duties on local authorities and making these duties reserved functions. We are not in any sense seeking to distort the whole principle of the Local Government Act of 1941, or the County Management Act. We are not attempting to do any such thing. We are merely attempting in this to preserve to the local authority the power which they should have, the power of the purse, the power to have some voice in the raising of the money, even if it be at the behest or at the order or ukase of the Minister. That is all we are seeking to do and in that we are not play-acting.
I am a member of a local authority, the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. I regard it as an insult to our intelligence and to the intelligence of the people who sent us there, that we have no powers other than those I have named, that we simply go there to say "yes" to the manager if the manager simply takes us into his confidence. On the other hand, we have a Minister for Local Government quite obviously afraid of the limits to which they have gone in shearing local authorities of their powers and sending circulars to his managers, town clerks, and secretaries of county councils, to be read at the meetings of the local authorities, impressing upon those local authorities the importance of the duties which have been left to them.
It is quite clear to any intelligent person who takes the trouble to study these matters that we have gone too far east; that instead of controlling and supervising local government, as was the original intention, we have shorn the local authority of any control or of any supervision or any authority in local government, and we have transferred the entire authority, lock, stock and barrel, to the Custom House. All we are seeking to do here is to stop that tendency, to ensure that in any measures that come before this House, where duties are imposed upon the local authority, at least these duties would be given to them as reserved functions. It is a complete distortion of the case to say that we are play-acting and that we are dishonest in this matter. I, as a member of a local authority, am very keen on this matter—very, very keen, because, from my knowledge of local administration, I feel that we have reached this position, that the local government service has become a part of the centralised Civil Service, and that it is a misnomer to refer to the local government service any longer. That service is entirely controlled from the Custom House— managers, secretaries, town clerks and accountants are shifted about all over the counties as mere draughts on the Custom House draughtsboard. The local authority has no say—good, bad or indifferent—in the matter. During the past three years we have had at least three of our town clerks transferred to various important positions on promotion. We are a nursery for other local authorities. They no sooner begin to know their job in Dun Laoghaire than they are sent to Roscommon, Cork or Wicklow.
Is not that at their own wish?
And we get new men in, and as soon as they get to know their job, I suppose they will go in time too. What I want to impress upon them is that they go despite our wishes, despite the fact that we find these people satisfactory and giving good service. They are not with us very long until we are informed X is going to Roscommon.
Who transfers them?
They apply for a job, I suppose, under another local authority, through the Appointments Commission. They get it, and the Custom House raises no objection.
The Deputy does not suggest that the Minister transfers them?
I do not suggest that the Minister transfers them in actual——
In actual or in any other way?
I do not suggest that. In actual fact that is what is happening with us.
They are getting promotion through the Local Appointments Commissioners.
They perhaps are.
Why "perhaps"?
We are getting very bad service.
Why "perhaps"? They are or they are not.
Look at the dictator.
There is either a suggestion that the Minister is interfering with the Appointments Commissioners or there is not.
Can we get order in this House?
I am not suggesting that the Minister is interfering with appointments but I am suggesting that under the present bureaucratic control operating from the Custom House, and under the present system of local government administration the authority has been wiped off the map, and officialdom, local and central, is arranging these matters. I do not care in what way they are arranging them, whether legitimately or illegitimately. It is happening.
Arranging?
Yes—I did not say "arranging."
You did say arranging.
It is arrangement.
Perhaps it is arrangement, for all I know. I do not know anything of the internal administration.
You are not allowed to know much.
I do not know anything of what happens on a board. I do not know who are the appointments board. I cannot say. Perhaps if I got a concrete case and knew the personnel of the board I could say what did happen.
I am afraid we have gone beyond the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary has challenged me on this point.
The Parliamentary Secretary interrupted in a most disorderly way.
If I have gone beyond the amendment it is because of the Parliamentary Secretary's interruption. What I want to impress upon the House is this, that not only is the local authority a mere cipher, but the officials of the local authority are mere ciphers, in the opinion of the Custom House—that is the kernel of my argument—and that all we are seeking to do in this amendment is to give back to those local authorities some say, some power, in the matter of finance.
Now it has been stressed in this debate to-night that the Orders which the Minister may make under this Bill may involve local authorities in colossal sums. You had the case instanced by Deputy Byrne, where a demand of 1/9 in the £ was made and which was reduced eventually to 1/-, but that 1/- represents £106,000 of the Dublin ratepayers' money and, in the same way, we may have similar cases in Dun Laoghaire, Cork and elsewhere in future.
Under this Bill?
Of course, under this Bill.
Under this Bill, to which we are proposing the new section.
We are proposing to insert a new section—that all the powers, functions and duties conferred or imposed on local authorities by or under this Act, or any regulation or Order made thereunder, shall be reserved functions.
In relation to matters of public health, but not otherwise.
In relation to matters of public health, but the matters of public health we are discussing in this Bill are matters connected with the erection of public health institutions, the maintenance of these institutions, the maintenance of patients in these institutions. All I am concerned with is the money that may have to be found by the local authority and that the local authority should have the right to discuss these matters and that both what you might call the erection and the maintenance of public health institutions should be reserved functions of the local authority. They have to find the money or the greater part of the money and it is only right and proper that the principle of taxation as it was hitherto known in every country should obtain, that there should be no taxation without representation, that those people whose representatives are there to voice their grievances, opinions or feelings about the matter should have the right to express themselves on these matters and, if necessary, refuse the money when they feel there is no case for its being raised.
The Minister is charging us on this side with dishonesty in proposing these amendments and this particular amendment which we are now discussing. In essence, it is to restore the power of the purse to the people who find the money. If we go back to the time when the people got that power, I think we will find that they got it from King John. I believe that that is the time when control of money matters was given to the elected Parliament of the people. This year we have gone back here to the time before King John. The Parliamentary Secretary thinks that that is quite an unimportant matter. It is a very important matter. Public representatives have ceased to have the power of the purse. They cannot say that rates levied in their area are too much for them. They cannot say that they do not wish for certain things or will not pay for them.
I submit that that is about the most important piece of legislation that has ever been passed in this House. On a point of order, I think, Sir, you told Deputy Coogan that there was nothing about that in this Bill. I take it that it started in the Local Government Bill, and that it has been continued in this Bill. This Bill is taking the power of the purse from the people so far as public health is concerned. I suppose the Parliamentary Secretary will plead that he is an elected representative of the people, and that he is not in the position King John was in, namely, that he can do what he likes. But, so far as the public are concerned, the Government are going to dispose of the funds raised without the consent of the elected representatives of the people and without the control of this Dáil. If that is not an important matter, I do not know what is.
I did not intend to intervene in this matter, but the perversion of history which I have just listened to from Deputy Dockrell brings me to my feet. Runnymede was not a strike on behalf of the people. It was a very successful strike on behalf of the barons in those days. The barons were not the people. They were a certain number of upstarts more or less of the type of Parliamentary Secretaries. I am not speaking now with any sense of indignity. They were lifted a bit above the people. They struck to get powers for themselves, and struck very successfully. But the people were not in it, any more than the people are in the local government system at this moment.
I have listened to the arguments put forward in this matter. The only one I recognised as having any force is one with which I disagree, that this is an attempt to get back from the county manager system. It is not. If it were, I would welcome it all the more strongly. It is an attempt to prevent more power being given than ever was intended to be given to county managers. That is the beginning and the end of it. We have had an extension of that power. We have seen two fundamental changes.
One has been put so strongly that there is no necessity to repeat it, namely, that the county manager in the future is not to be regarded as any sort of an independent person whatever, but a person who obeys an order. The second is that the power previously held by those who represented the people, the power to strike the rate, is taken not merely from them, but from the county manager. It is to reside entirely and completely in the hands of a member of the Government. We seek by this to put our feet down and say that that is a bad tendency to which we have objected, and that we do not want that tendency to proceed any further. We certainly want to get out from the control of the county manager or the Minister, and we want to reserve to the representatives of the people all the matters dealing with public health which are proposed in this measure.
That is a very small part of the changes which I would like to bring into the whole county manager system. When the matter was first thought of, the only good general idea that found ready acceptance was that, instead of a multiplicity of persons administering an area, we might give administrative power to one. But certainly the people's representatives were supposed to be still in the background to determine policy and, particularly, to carry out that function that representatives of the people are generally given, namely to determine what amount of money would be provided for certain purposes in accordance with their policy. We are going violently away from all these things. There is general approval of the view that we should get back to the old system of having people's representatives elected on a proper basis and giving them the control of policy and, consequently, giving them the control of the money with which to carry out that policy. So far as I can further that change, I will further it to the best of my ability. It will be a welcome change, and I think it will be all the more readily accepted by the people once they have seen the excess to which the control of the purse is drifting towards certain people in this country, which is far beyond anything the barons won.
The Parliamentary Secretary accused Deputies on this side of the House of being dishonest. I think he said they were play-acting. But if anybody is play-acting, it is the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government, who have been play-acting with this House and the country for the last two or three years. We have had the Local Government Bill and this Bill teeming with such expressions as "local government" and "local authorities". I was at pains to impress on the House a week ago that there are no such things as local authorities and local government in this country. Deputy Byrne put the query to us a few minutes ago: what redress has the Dublin Corporation in certain circumstances? They have none; he ought to know they have none. Up to last week there were some people in this country who believed that some shred of power was left in the hands of local authorities. There were some foolish people who were misled by the Minister into the belief that under the Managerial Act they still had the power of the purse. I have argued in this House since the Managerial Act was passed that they had no such power. It was made absolutely clear to everybody last week that whatever vestige of power they had under the Managerial Act was removed then. The Parliamentary Secretary says that we are asking to have the Managerial Act amended. The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to persuade us that under this Bill the people's representatives will have some powers of administration and the power of the purse.
I hold that under the Local Government Acts as they exist they have no authority whatever. But the Parliamentary Secretary, who accuses us of play-acting, is trying to bamboozle the House and the country into the belief that under this Bill local authorities will have power to do certain things. I say they will not. This amendment would give back to the local authorities some measure of power. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that if the amendment were passed it would put back some power into the hands of local authorities. That is why I support it. I am convinced that local authorities have no power to do anything. Deputy Byrne asked what power they had. I said they had none, except to be mere puppets of the Minister. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, March 21st.