We closed on the note that amendment No. 26 was withdrawn and that amendment No. 27 was not moved in the light of some amendment that the Parliamentary Secretary said he would introduce on Report which indicated, at any rate, that adequate provision would be made by which persons interested in the making of regulations would know what was going to be done beforehand.
Committee on Finance. - Public Health Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 28:—
To delete sub-section (2) (d).
That is right.
I have already mentioned this but I want to make my point more explicitly than I did yesterday: Under sub-section (2) regulations may be made and the regulations may have reference, under (2) (d), to the methods used or the time taken in the manufacture, the preparation or the distribution of the food. I can understand one point with regard to the time and that is, as can easily be observed from cases that occur in the courts, that preparations are sometimes sent out with a stamp on them or some indication given that they cannot be kept on the shelves longer than a certain period, that whatever the food preparation is goes bad if it is retained on a shelf and not disposed of before a particular time or that some mites, or something of that type may get into the food after a certain period. Therefore the time taken in the distribution of the food might be a matter with regard to which provision might have to be made. But I cannot understand what provisions will be required to be made in regard to the manufacture or the preparation of the food and I certainly can see a considerable danger in provisions in connection with the methods used in manufacture because there are, as I mentioned yesterday in connection with the earlier amendments, many very well known patented formulæ relevant to the preparation of food and it would seem to me that this would open the door to a Minister making regulations which would destroy processes that are well known and have been used and have been sanctioned by the public taste over many years. So that I would like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind when he demands the power to make regulations as regards time. I am excluding in all my argument time for distribution. But, I cannot understand why there should be any necessity for a regulation controlling time in the preparation or time taken in the manufacture and I would be particularly anxious over the power that is here sought to make regulations regarding the methods used in the manufacture of food. One might think of general regulations with regard to hygiene and cleanliness in connection with distribution but these two words, "method" and "time", apply both to manufacture and to preparation as well as to distribution.
Paragraph (d) provides, as Deputy McGilligan has pointed out, for the making of regulations that may contain provisions in relation to the methods used, the time taken in the manufacture, preparation or distribution of such food. Deputy McGilligan is anxious to know what have we in mind in regard particularly to the time factor and to the methods that may be employed. It might be necessary to control the methods under two headings. One of them Deputy McGilligan has already mentioned in relation to the handling of food. It would be necessary to provide that the method of handling food intended for human consumption should be a hygienic method. In the manufacture, for example, of sausages, black puddings, or such edible products, the most hygienic methods are not invariably employed. There is some difficulty in securing the operation of rigid hygienic methods in relation to this particular type of product but, in some up to date concerns the employees have to wear gloves, for example, in the handling of the raw materials for such foods. Method would appear to include something more than that.
It would include the wearing of gloves?
I am trying to furnish a particular circumstance in which hygienic methods of dealing with the manufacture of a particular product could perhaps only be fully achieved by the use of gloves. I do not want to suggest to the House that I have in mind, as soon as this Bill becomes law, insisting that everybody who manufactures any of these edible products will wear gloves but I do mention it as a possible consideration anyhow if unhygienic methods were being adopted in any particular concern. Method would appear to me to include something more than that. For example, in the pasteurisation of milk the method of pasteurisation would be an important factor. Whether "method" is just the word that expresses what I have in mind I am not so sure, but there are pasteurisation processes in operation in this country that are very little protection to the community. I do not think that I need further develop that.
As to the time factor—provisions relating to the time taken in the manufacture, preparation or distribution of food—the idea inspiring such a provision as that arises out of the fact that in the manufacture of many of these products perishable commodities are used. If there is not any control with regard to the length of time that meat, for example, may be stored before it is distributed or before it is manufactured into some bye-product, or, having been manufactured, say, into sausages or brawn or such products, if the raw material that is perishable is allowed to remain on the premises for a very long time before being used, or, on the other hand, the product remains on the premises for an unreasonable time before it is disposed of, we would not get very far in the matter of the control of the manufacture of these products. The same would apply to the delay that might take place in distribution. Anyhow, these are the considerations that gave rise to the provision that is made here. If the House considers that no such provision is necessary——
When you speak of the House, I hope you mean the whole of the House.
Let us say the cream of the House. At any rate, I would be glad to have the views of anybody interested in it, and I take it that anybody interested would be present at the discussion.
I have noticed that certain veterinary serums which are on sale in chemists shops have printed on them that they are of no use after a certain date. It has often struck me in connection with food preserved in tins or jars that the same thing might be done, that they should have printed on them that they should not be used after a certain time. Oftentimes you open a pot of jam which is a bit mouldy on the top and you wonder how long it has been potted. Would it not be essential when you put in preservatives——
That is the general idea.
——that they should contain on them the date after which they would be unsafe to use?
This section, if it were the only section, might have to be strengthened in the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary desires. But the section must be taken in relation, first of all, to Part IX of the Bill and, secondly, in relation to the other provisions in connection with food and drugs in other Acts. The section we are dealing with has as its side note, "Standards for food and drink" and the whole aim of the section is to have a standard prescribed for the composition of the food. The regulations which are allowed under the sub-section we are discussing all aim at getting food of a particular standard, that is food which is of special importance to public health. Power is now sought to make regulations in relation to the nature, quality or amount of any substance to be contained in the food, specifying any substance which is not to be contained in such food, and limiting the amount of any substance to be contained in such food. These are all quite clearly provisions which would aim at getting a standard. Outside that we get into wider territory. Sub-paragraph (d) brings in the methods used or the time taken in the manufacture, preparation or distribution of such food. I can see a deterioration possibly occurring if there be longer than a certain time between the date of manufacture and the date of sale. The people who are most often fined in court or who are the subjects of a civil action are those who eventually dispose of the article, if it is disposed of after a certain time, particularly if that time is marked on the back of the container. I do not understand why we should ask to have power to make regulations regarding the time taken in the manufacture or in the preparation. I do not see how it comes in.
When we turn to the methods, I have got from the Parliamentary Secretary that this is to cover a hygienic system in the manufacture and in the preparation and distribution. The Parliamentary Secretary should remember that he has other sections dealing with this matter. He has Section 76 which prohibits dealers in rags, bones, waste paper, etc., from being engaged in the selling of foodstuffs. He has also Section 77 and, of course, he has all the other regulations in the various Food and Drugs Acts under which prosecutions take place and actions are brought if any person suffers as a result of having taken food which is unwholesome. The prosecution generally is for selling food which is unfit for human consumption. A person has a civil action if he suffers any injury or damage as a result of taking contaminated food. I suggest that these matters are all strong enough to meet the case of food which becomes contaminated because unhygienic methods are used in its preparation. Under Section 72, the Parliamentary Secretary does not do any more than make regulations and make it an offence if anybody contravenes the regulations. I suggest that he gets all the powers and control he requires under the later sections. In any event, if the matter is to be even under control and regulation, I ask when it comes to the time factor that that should be limited to the point at which up to date it has been found capable of operation; that is to say, in regard to the time of sale in relation to the date of manufacture. I suggest that when the word "method" is used, there is a danger that that might be used to deal with those who make what is called proprietary foodstuffs. By making a regulation dealing with the method, one might put these people out of their manufacturing process altogether.
I am interested in this from a slightly different angle. The section gives very wide powers. If the powers contained in it are granted they could be open to very grave abuse. I do not say that the powers will be abused, but they could be abused. We are dealing with standards for food and drink which may be set up by the Minister and we are dealing with the methods of distribution and, I think, also the methods used or the time taken in the manufacture. Am I to take it, for instance, that under this section dealing with drink it will be within the Minister's powers to specify the gravity at which beer should be manufactured and sold? That power is certainly given here. It would be within the competence of the Minister if the sub-section becomes law to specify the strength at which whiskey should be manufactured and sold. The Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to smile at that. He probably has not the slightest intention of doing that. I am pointing out, however, that it would be possible for him to do it if this sub-section becomes law. That is not so far-fetched as one might think. We must remember that the Taoiseach on one occasion was very hot on what he termed light beer.
And milk.
I should not like to see the Department of Local Government and Public Health instructing Messrs. Guinness as to how they were to manufacture stout, the methods they were to employ in its manufacture, and the ingredients they were to use in its manufacture; but all that is possible under this section. The Parliamentary Secretary may smile, but, whether he knows it or not, under this section, if it becomes law in its present form, it will be possible for the Minister for Local Government, after consultation with two other Ministers, as I see it, to give instructions to our brewers and distillers as to the strength and gravity of their products and the ingredients they are to use in their manufacture. We may find that this is the thin end of the wedge in relation to this more or less abandoned campaign of light beer for the people. I would not put it beyond them if that was the real intention of it. "Provision in relation to the methods used or the time taken in the manufacture, preparation or distribution of such foods"—it is all there.
The Parliamentary Secretary may regard this as something about which we can afford to smile, as something to be treated rather as a joke, but again I have to remind him, as I have had to remind him so many times during the debate on this Bill, that we are legislating not for the present head of the Department but for any person who may be there—not that I have any more confidence in the present political head than I would have in anybody who would follow him. There is that wide power there. I recognise that, when dealing with food, and particularly when you seek to get food in its purest form for the consumer, fairly wide powers and perhaps very stringent powers are required, and that only by possession of such powers can the Parliamentary Secretary attain his object, but I do say that we ought in some way to limit them, because, in the light of the evidences in many directions of the mentality of the present Government, it would not stagger me terribly if they did direct Messrs Guinness, Jameson, Mountjoy and all the others how they were to prepare their products.
They have been directors of Mountjoy for a long time.
The Government? That is news to me. Maybe that is the reason for this section.
The jail, not the brewery.
Deputy O'Donnell is a bit quicker on the uptake than I am. Does he mean the brewery?
I will leave it to yourself.
I wonder which you would prefer to see them in. However, I put that to the Parliamentary Secretary as a possible, if not a probable, occurrence under the section.
I agree that the powers asked for are very wide and could be abused in certain conditions. A manufacturer might produce a proprietary article which might, by some experts, be considered excellent, but the ingredients of which might be held by the inspectors and the authorities of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department to require certain variations.
We are dealing with an amendment to sub-section (2), not with the section.
I am dealing with sub-section (2), if you will allow me.
He will not have to say it on the section if he says it now.
I merely want to stress the point that the powers are too wide, especially in relation to the manufacture of a proprietary article which might from certain angles be considered excellent but which might not satisfy the inspectors. I am inclined to agree that, so far as the methods used and the time taken are concerned, some power of the sort is necessary. Take the case of by-products in a bacon factory. Anybody who has visited a bacon factory and has seen how these by-products are handled will know that occasionally the time for which they are allowed to lie before being processed is a very serious matter. Many people who are fond of sausages might not be nearly so keen on them if they got a glimpse into some of the factories producing them.
I feel that much improvement could be brought about in the manufacture of articles of that sort and I think that certain power must be given to the Minister and to the local authority. I am just wondering what machinery is to be provided for the enforcement of the necessary provisions. There is an amendment to Section 74 which seeks to empower the official of a local authority in the matter and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some information as to what sort of inspections will be carried out and how often they will be carried out. As I say, certain powers are necessary with regard to the manufacture of particular classes of food to ensure that perishable articles are used up in a reasonable time and that the method used in their production is an approved method and that the conditions are such as will make for hygienic production. I agree with Deputy Morrissey that giving the power to specify the substances and the amount of substances required to manufacture a proprietary article may be giving the Minister too much power and may lead to some abuses and injustices, because there might be a definite difference of opinion as between experts on the question of the percentage of ingredients and the type of ingredients which should be used in the production of a certain commodity.
I have not much to say in reply to the criticism of this paragraph offered by the various speakers. Deputy McGilligan very properly reminded us that a person who is damaged as the result of consuming contaminated food can seek redress by civil action. There is no denying that, but it seems to be a rather illogical approach to the problem. It would be sounder policy to try to prevent the damage caused by the manufacture, sale or disposal of contaminated foods. There is no denying that the powers sought in this section, as in any other section, can be abused. I do not think there are many laws passed in this House which are not open to abuse, but the House has some redress in this particular matter and it seems to me that interests concerned are particularly well safeguarded.
I have already informed Deputy Mulcahy that I propose circulating an amendment for the Report Stage, providing for a public notice of intention to make regulations in regard to any particular matter arising under this section, so that anybody interested may have a full opportunity of presenting his views. I presume it would be possible to regulate the alcoholic strength of various beverages, as Deputy Morrissey suggests, but I rather think that, if we issue a public notice informing interested parties that we propose making such regulations and invite them to make representations and we subsequently make regulations and they are considered unsatisfactory and perhaps even improper, they would make their voices heard. I would be very much surprised if they did not.
Deputies might bear in mind two matters in relation to this. I will ask them not to forget that the powers may be abused. They might bear in mind that notice will be given before the regulations are drafted, that full consultation between the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government and Public Health will take place and must take place under the section before any standards are fixed. Finally, the regulations prescribing the standards will be placed on the Table of the House. The House will have an opportunity of discussing these regulations and, if there is anything in them that should not be there, there will be an opportunity of drawing public attention to it. Then, if the Deputies concerned can command the support of a majority in the House, they can reject those regulations. The powers are necessary; they can be abused; but I do not see how we can do the things it is desirable we should do, if we are not given the power to do them.
There is probably some value in this notification the Minister talks about. He says that, when certain things are to be done, the public will be notified beforehand by publication and notification, and can make their voice heard. They may make their voice heard, but that may not have the slightest effect—good, bad or indifferent—on the regulations. This is another step along the road to State interference and this sub-section, if passed, will enable the Government to interfere with the manufacture of any article of food or drink in this country. It will enable the Government to say how it should be manufactured, what ingredients should go to its manufacture, what time should enter into the question of its ripening or maturity, or whatever the case may be. The manufacturer will be coerced into carrying on his business, not in the way that his training and experience has indicated to him as the best way and likely to produce the best results, but in the way he will be directed, or the way dictated to him by the Department.
Whatever the Minister's intentions may be, as members of this Dáil charged with passing a piece of legislation and making it part of the law of the land, we have to concern ourselves with what use can be made of it. That is really what we are doing. While it is necessary to give the Minister fairly wide powers, there ought to be, and I think there should be, some limitation on this section, and particularly on this sub-section, and very particularly on paragraph (d) of sub-section (2). There is no limit to what the Minister may do. He has to confer with his two colleagues, but having done that and having got their consent to a particular course with regard to the method of manufacture, the ingredients to be contained, the time factor and so on, the manufacture of that article of food or drink must be carried out in accordance with his directions. I submit, with all respect, that that is carrying State interference beyond the limit.
Is the Deputy aware that the manufacturers have welcomed this provision?
I do not care whether they have or not. I am not speaking for them and I am not concerned with the manufacturer.
They have not all agreed.
I would be surprised if Guinness, for instance, would welcome some officer going down and telling them, as a result of an Order made by the Minister, how Guinness should manufacture stout or beer, what ingredients were to be put into it, and so on. I doubt very much if Jameson or Power would welcome the Minister's officer telling them what strength to make their whiskey. Mind you, there is something in that, and I mention it particularly because there is more than mere home consumption concerned. Those industries I am referring to have—fortunately for us —a vast export market. The same thing might be done with regard to Jacob's biscuit factory. I am not saying that it is the intention to do so, but I am saying that, if the subsection—and particularly paragraph (d)—is passed in its present form, that can be done. The Minister may think that manufacturers will welcome advice and direction from the Department in the manufacture of their commodities, but I doubt it very much.
I would like briefly to refer to three points. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary, in an interruption, referred to the wearing of gloves. I do not know if that was to be taken seriously. Most public libraries will not allow you to handle books if you are wearing gloves.
I was referring to the manufacture of sausages.
I know, but in public libraries one is not permitted to handle books which may go to other people's homes if one is wearing gloves, the idea being that gloves are much more liable to carry infection than is the human skin.
They use a different type of glove.
In that connection, I had to attend an inquiry, about which I made mention yesterday, into the preparation of milk around the City of Dublin. For something like three days, the best known officer of the veterinary service here in town gave evidence about the regulations made with regard, not alone to milk but the handling of cows. I remember one very vivid example he gave of the way in which the conditions are carried out. He said that he had come to the conclusion that where he saw the outward signs of the regulations being observed he marked that place down as a place from which, under no consideration, would he take milk for himself or his family. He talked about measures that were demanded by the Department—a clean smock, a clean pail, clean water and a clean cloth— and then he gave you a picture of seven cows about to be milked, all lined up, with their flanks stained with what he called "gross dirt". The milker took the clean cloth and dipped it into the water and the gross dirt was wiped off the first cow. The cloth was then put back in the water and that contaminated water was applied to the gross dirt on the second animal, and so on. As a result, when you came to the seventh animal, you had the accumulation of gross dirt from the previous six.
She got a mud bath.
There was certainly a mass of warring microbes carried from one animal to another. That was the way in which the regulation was carried out. When I draw attention to the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary says it depends on the gloves, on the way in which the gloves are used. So far as relates to hygiene, we have to give him the powers he wants and hope for the best; but in relation to matters which are not matters of hygiene, there has been an approach to me by certain manufacturers who are not in accord with this section. They have told me they would feel safer and entirely in agreement with the section if the whole thing were more strictly confined to the consideration of public health, but they point out that that is not so. I have tried to allay their anxieties, but the more I look at the section the more I feel there is something in what they say. It is quite clear that, in the first sub-section of Section 72, the consideration is public health, because it deals with food that is of special importance to the public health and we have the consideration by the three Ministers mentioned in regard to the prescription of a standard. It then veers away altogether, as far as the sub-section is concerned, from the consideration of public health.
In other words, the standard is not tied on to a standard which, in their opinion, is considered necessary or desirable in the interests of public health. When you come to the regulations, you are still further away from the public health. For instance, the provisions in relation to the methods used have directly no tie whatever with the public health. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter should be looked into. I take it that the only methods that are under consideration in this connection are methods which are going to be decided by the simple test—are they for the public health or are they antagonistic to it? That is not in the sub-section, and I think Deputy Morrissey is quite right in saying that, under the sub-section as drafted, it is wide enough to enable a sort of semi-protection to be given, and so, in the interests of some branded stuff, some method of manufacturing might be prescribed which would entirely do away with a substance already manufactured here and enjoyed by the public.
I do not imagine that is intended. It should not be carried under a public health measure. I suggest that, however, ever wide the powers of the Parliamentary Secretary may be, he should only use whatever powers are required for the purposes of the public health. That is nowhere in this sub-section and I do not think it is carried into the standard under the first sub-section. The matter might require tightening up. The Parliamentary Secretary's analogy with regard to the time taken was possibly badly chosen. I understood him to be referring to the age of a particular material which is used in some article of food. He does not get that under this sub-section, though he may under an earlier sub-section with regard to the quality of the substance. I suppose there will be some provision about ruling out something that has passed a certain time. This relates entirely to the time taken in the manufacture. If you started with an aged material or allowed a certain extra time to pass in the manufacture of it, that is one thing, but this would not prevent an aged and decrepit substance being used as an ingredient in the composition of some food.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I do not propose to move amendment No. 29, amendment No. 33 or amendment No. 37. These amendments arose out of the views expressed in the Journal of Irish Industry. On close examination they did not appear adequately to meet the points raised there and I want some further time to consider them. Alternative amendments will be submitted on the Report Stage.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
On behalf of Deputy Costello, I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (3) (a), line 2, after the word "sells" to insert the word "knowingly".
This matter has been agitated in previous sections of more or less the same type. It is proposed to make a certain matter an offence. Deputy Costello's amendment is wrongly phrased. He suggests putting in the word "knowingly" after the word "sells". The word "knowingly" should be in front of the word "sells"—where a person knowingly sells for human consumption; that is the ordinary grammatical way in which it should run.
There is great difficulty with some of the patent foods that are already parcelled up. How are people to know?
I shall come to that in a later section. I think that is one of the hardships retailers are under. Why should a retailer be brought into the courts? I am not speaking now of a civil action. Why should he be subject to a prosecution because he sells something which he gets in an enclosed container? He has no means of knowing what is inside and he can give abundant proof that the deterioration has not taken place in his premises. Yet if a person sells and someone suffers there can follow a prosecution and a civil action. I want to minimise the harm and I suggest that a prosecution should follow only if a person with knowledge sells, for human consumption, food which has an ingredient not up to standard.
There is no reason for having an offence declared here unless the State can come to the point of proving whatever is imposed on them in the way of proof by the word "knowingly". So far as criminal offences go, generally if that word is left out all that has to be proved is (a) that something was sold and (b) that it does not conform to the standard. If the word "knowingly" is put in some extra burden of proof will be put on the prosecution. There must be something more than the proof merely of sale and that the standard has not been conformed with.
We are making an offence of a rather heavy type. It will be met with a fine of £20 and, in a second offence, £100, with the possibility of six months in jail. I suggest we should give the person who sells whatever protection —and it is a slight one—is given by the word "knowingly".
The suggestion of Deputy McGilligan that the word "knowingly" should come in before the word "sells" alters the meaning of the amendment that I have had under consideration. As the amendment stands, it does not seem to me to make sense.
It is not a proper amendment and if it cannot be discussed now it will have to be put down again.
I have not examined how it would look if it were inserted in the altered form. I shall look into this matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I desire to leave over amendments Nos. 31 and 32 for further consideration.
Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.
I want to consider amendment No. 33 further because in its present form it does not seem to meet requirements.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In sub-section (5), line 18, to delete the word "summary".
If ever there was a case in which the word "summary" ought to be criticised it is here, particularly if the word "knowingly" is not put into the earlier sub-section. Here we will have a person brought up for a particular offence. As the section stands, he need have no knowledge whatever and if someone goes into court and proves (a) the sale, and (b) that the substance does not conform to the standard, there is an offence proved. I suggest that is not a summary offence, a minor offence, and only minor offences come in. This is clearly the type of case where a verdict of 12 or nine jurymen, or whatever the lesser number may be, should be taken as to whether a person is guilty, and not a professional type of justice.
I made this point already in connection with the Constitution. It does not matter what we say here as to whether or not a case shall be summarily tried. On a case being raised by an alleged offender, the High Court will have to determine whether it is a minor offence. If trial by jury is the right of every citizen, here is the proper case in which a certain number of a man's fellow-citizens will decide whether or not he is deserving of this fine and imprisonment. We should remove this to the upper sphere and keep it away from the District Court and what I call the professional justice there.
We discussed this matter of summary jurisdiction last evening and I do not propose to reopen a discussion on it now. I informed Deputy McGilligan that I noted his arguments regarding the constitutional position, and various matters arising out of this Bill, concerning the District Courts. I will have the matter examined before Report and will place before the House the considered view of the legal advisers on the constitutional position.
I will withdraw it on that basis, if you like.
As a layman, I am puzzled to know what machinery could be quickly evolved to determine the matter.
The courts only under the Constitution. That is the way it lies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 35 :—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows :—
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, regulations thereunder shall not, save with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, be so framed as to apply in relation to any food in respect of which that Minister is empowered by any statutory or other enactment to prescribe standards for the composition thereof.
This amendment preserves the existing powers of the Minister for Agriculture in relation to certain matters.
I would like to know what it means. This is a Public Health Bill, but we are dealing in Section 72 with the prescription of standards for food and drink which, as far as this measure goes, is a public health matter. We are asked here to give the last word to the Minister for Local Government that he shall prescribe standards, but he is to do that after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture. When I was told by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is desired to add a regulation, prescribing the standards which are supposed to be required for public health, why should the Minister for Agriculture be given overriding authority in such matters?
Because he has certain statutory powers already in relation to the prescription of standards and restrictions concerning a number of articles of food. It is not proposed in this Bill to take from the Minister for Agriculture the statutory powers he already has.
I do not want to take them. But supposing the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Agriculture have different views on matters that come within Section 72, prescribing standards for food and drink in relation to an important matter affecting public health, why should not the Minister for Local Government and Public Health have the overriding authority?
I suppose they will have to adjust any differences.
This gives power to the Minister for Agriculture to set up regulations.
In respect of a number of articles.
Of food.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication as to what these articles are?
Milk, cheese, butter, cream.
Certainly with regard to public health these are some of the most important articles of food.
Under the existing law the Minister for Agriculture has to consult the Minister for Local Government in regard to mills.
Supposing there is a conflict, who wins?
What we propose doing is to leave with the Minister for Agriculture the statutory powers he already possesses. We cannot make regulations prescribing standards in respect of any matter in which he has statutory power already, without his consent.
As far as any power the Minister for Agriculture has, is it in relation to articles concerning public health or from the point of view of production of such articles? If the main responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture deals with the production side, it seems to me that the public health should be the overriding factor, especially with regard to milk.
In the production of milk is not the Minister for Agriculture the responsible Minister?
This deals with fixation of standards. The powers of the Minister for Agriculture are originally derived from the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1899. Section 4 (1) before amendment read is :—
"The Board of Agriculture may, after such inquiry as they deem necessary, make regulations for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk, cream, butter or cheese or what addition of extraneous matter or proportion of water, in any sample of milk (including condensed milk), cream, butter or cheese shall for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the milk, cream, butter or cheese is not genuine or is injurious to health, and an analyst shall have regard to such regulations in certifying the result of an analysis under those Acts."
That means that if hereafter there is any conflict between the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Agriculture as to what is the proper composition of milk, the Minister for Agriculture can make his viewpoints prevail.
He must consult his colleagues.
Where it comes to a conflict.
In respect of milk.
In respect to the constituents of milk, the Minister for Agriculture wins. I do not know that that is right.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 72, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section makes regulations and lays down certain standards whereby certain brands say of cornflour will be certified as conforming to those standards. Difficulty might be created for small shopkeepers who sell a multiplicity of articles of food in not knowing what they were up against. In what way can small shopkeepers be assured that they will not be committing an offence or be liable to a penalty under the section? In regard to chemists certain standards are set up but there you are dealing with trained people. In the case of food sold by small shops, particular brands might conform to the required standards, but we should be careful that these shopkeepers are made aware of these brands, either by way of having them stamped or by some other indication, so that brands not carrying the official stamp should not be disposed of. That point should be considered if we are going to have these standards enforced, and so that confusion will not be caused amongst shopkeepers.
That point is dealt with under regulations.
Mr. Dockrell
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned last evening that milk was one of the prime articles of food dealt with in this section. I wish to refer to a matter to which I have referred in the House before in connection with milk. In winter the milk supplied to the city has a certain minimum quantity of cream. The citizen is told that that is due to winter conditions. When summer comes and when there is richer feeding for cattle, it does not seem to result in any appreciable increase in the cream content of the milk supplied. I would urge that when these regulations are being framed in connection with milk the city customer should get the benefit of the richer milk in summer. At the present moment I think the summer milk is kept down to a minimum standard and the children are thus deprived of the larger amount of fats which they ought to get. I trust that under these regulations that situation will be kept in mind and that different standards will be fixed for the winter and the summer. I do not know whether that is done at present or not but certainly the ordinary citizen does not seem to get the benefit he should get of richer milk during the summer months.
In regard to the point made by Deputy Larkin, I hope he will not be too easily put off by the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary, that it is a matter for regulation. Section 72 sets out to establish standards for food and drink, at least, to give power to a Minister, in consultation with two or three others, to establish standards for food and drink, and sub-section (3) has as a consequence that, where a person sells for human consumption, or prepares, manufactures, offers or keeps for sale for human consumption, any food for the composition of which a standard is prescribed, and if in fact the food does not conform to the standard, then there is an offence and we have a later paragraph dealing with the case where it is an ingredient that has been standardised and where the ingredient is used. In connection with offences, there is a later section, 77, which deals generally with prosecutions and, before we pass Section 72, it is proper that Section 77 should at least be glanced at. Section 77 starts off by a couple of sub-sections which are very hard and are meant to be hard on the seller of the foodstuff, because it ordains that food is to be deemed to be intended for sale or to have been sold for human consumption until the contrary is proved. So that, if a sale takes place, there is a prima facie case that it has been sold or offered for sale for human consumption. Consequently—and much more difficult—any article of food that is found in the premises, if it is capable of being used in the preparation or manufacture of food, then it is deemed to have been intended for use in the manufacture. So that, the difficulty is that if a retailer gets into a shop certain articles of food which he may only get in for the purpose of storing, or for the purpose actually of picking and discarding, if an inspector should happen to visit him before that particular situation has come about, then he is deemed to have the stuff on the premises for sale for human consumption. Quite a number of small retailers here have not separate establishments in which they store and select before they bring into their premises for sale. Section 77 goes further as to analysis, that where there is an analysis taken certain things may be found. Paragraph (d) is the only point that comes near to the relief which I imagine Deputy Larkin is seeking for certain retailers. Paragraph (d) says that a defendant, a person who is made an accused person in a prosecution for an offence under this section, has certain defences but the very, very limited nature of the defence must be attended to—that he can prove that he purchased the food as of a nature, substance or quality or in a condition which would not have contravened certain regulations and with a written warranty. There must be a written warranty and if a person has not a written warranty his defence is no good.
Now we are going to have a full discussion on Section 77.
It is appropriate. I can discuss it here. I have an amendment on which I want to bring in another matter. I will collapse the discussion on the later amendment into this. To get a defence under Section 77 a person must prove that he did purchase as of the particular nature, quality and all the rest of it as would have been in accordance with the regulations and that he had a written warranty to the effect. Then he goes on further to prove that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold such food that it was of a different nature or quality or in a different condition and that he sold it in the same state as when he got it. It is only when he goes through all these three lines of defence that he gets a defence and that is where I think the small retailer is very badly hit under this. It quite often happens in courts that judges actually express their sympathy with people. A case was reported in the newspapers as being before the courts in the last four or five days where a justice expressed himself as having great sympathy with the person whom he nevertheless had to convict under the law as it stood. He will have to convict under this section because there was no written warranty. No retailer ever gets a written warranty. It would not be worth his while. He could not do business if he had to go to that particular point.
I want to bring in an amendment which I may speak of here. I want to add a new paragraph to this Section 77 to enable a person to have a defence if goods have been invoiced to him under a name or description which, say, if it is a standardised commodity, would indicate that the standard had been complied with. Then that invoice in itself should take the place of the written warranty and the person should then have the right to parade that as a defence so long as he was, of course, able to show the other things, namely, that he sold the food in the same state as he purchased it and had no reason to believe that it was otherwise than as described to him. I think there is some little relief given to the retailer which does not, incidentally, prevent somebody else from being made amenable before the law because, if the retailer gets out and if an offence has been committed, there will be a harking back to the person immediately before him in the line. I suggest that all this is relevant to the point that Deputy Larkin raised and I would suggest to the House that before they pass this section making these new offences, they should at least advert to the possible lines of defence that are open to the retailer under Section 77. I repeat again that they are very, very restrictive. The retailer must show he has got the food as of a particular substance, quality and so on, that he has got a written warranty, that he has no reason to believe that the stuff is otherwise than as described to him and that it has not deteriorated, that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it. Except you put in all these four things he has no defence. I suggest that that is extremely hard.
Amendment No. 50 in my name is taken entirely from the British legislation. There is a change made in it, but the purport of it is the same as in the British legislation. They have become definitely aware there of the difficulties under which the retailers are put. They are not of any mind to let out the person who has committed an offence in connection with the sale of unwholesome food or drink, but they want to put the blame on the right person. I suggest that we should do the same.
Section 72, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 73.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In sub-section (2), page 36, line 31, to insert before the word "after" the words "with the consent of the Minister for Finance".
This amendment is intended to provide for regulations under the section being subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance. It arises out of the authority in Section 75 for the imposition of charges for the purpose of the regulations, or for examinations, certifications or other services performed thereunder.
This is now a public health matter subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance.
So far as the imposition of charges is concerned.
He can stop up the regulations if he does not agree to the charges?
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to justify the proposed policy of charging persons for the examinations that are to be carried out.
I think I have justified that already.
When? The Minister responsible for public health proposes to take samples for examination, to give certificates, and to impose restrictions on persons selling their own manufactures. But he proposes to charge the manufacturers for the cost of his interference in the business for the purpose of protecting the public health. I submit that a proposal like that requires some justification.
I suggest to the Deputy that the very fact that the Minister does interfere, that he takes samples and insists on certain standards in relation to hygienic conditions of production and certain standards in relation to the actual constituents of the manufactured product and so on, gives a guarantee to the public that ought to be worth something to the manufacturer. If a manufacturer has a certificate from the Minister indicating that his product has reached a certain standard and, in fact, has to comply with a certain standard, and that he is liable to certain penalties if it does not reach that standard, I think that is of considerable commercial value to him.
I want again to object to the putting in of these words in the place where it is proposed to put them, because that means that the Minister for Finance may object to these regulations being made and may, in fact, prevent them from being made. Why should that be so? The Parliamentary Secretary refers me to Section 75. Why not put in the Minister for Finance there? Why not say: that regulations under this part of this Act may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, authorise the imposition of such charges as the Minister approves for the purpose of various things? The point I am making is that if you put in the Minister for Finance in Section 73 he may stop the regulations altogether. Put him into Section 75 and he is in his proper framework. He is given power to prevent charges being made, except such charges as he likes. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health can make the regulations without charges without going near the Minister for Finance. Why should not that be the case?
I will examine the matter and see if we can put him in any more appropriate place.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.
I move amendment No. 39:—
In sub-section (3), line 10, to delete the word "summary".
This is the old story. Here we have a fine of £100 and £10 per day for every day on which the offence is continued and the possibility of six months' imprisonment. I suggest that that is getting well beyond a minor offence.
Have we not many corresponding penalties inflicted in these courts?
I should have answered that yesterday. We have. One of these days all these penalty sections will have to be cleared up. The difficulty arises out of the difference between the 1922 Constitution and the 1937 Constitution, because the 1922 Constitution certainly allowed matters to be brought before a summary court if they were offences made triable under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, or any amendment of it. Your test was that it was either a minor offence or such an offence as was called a minor offence by pieces of legislation like this. That is not the situation under the 1937 Constitution. Under that, the simple term is that minor offences will be tried summarily. Everything else is to be tried under the conditions of a jury, except by a special court. That means that hereafter some court has to pronounce whether a matter raised before it is a minor offence or not. The difficulty we are in is that under the new Constitution that point cannot be decided in the District Court or the Circuit Court. There must be a motion made to take the whole action up to the High Court and get the constitutional point determined. It may appear to be a good analogy to say that there are quite a number of statutes which impose higher penalties than these and that these cases are taken before the District Court. They may be. Some of these days somebody will raise that point and it will be discovered that they are not minor offences and that they should not be tried before the District Court. Then we will have retrospective legislation brought in to cover up the whole thing.
I still am not clear as to how offences which were minor offences under the first Constitution are not triable——
Were triable summarily.
——in a court of summary jurisdiction carrying penalties as high or higher than the penalties to be imposed here.
The Article in the 1922 Constitution states that these cases should be tried summarily which were minor offences or which were offences declared to be triable under the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
Cannot the courts now decide that a case is a minor one?
They can. For us to say it can be tried summarily does not matter. It will be a good point, because we determine the court before which it goes. But the mere fact of saying that we want it to be tried summarily does not mean it will be tried summarily. If an alleged offender says that it is not a minor offence and that he wants his constitutional right to be tried by a jury, he can get the matter determined in the High Court and the High Court may say that it is not a minor offence. The mere fact that we say that it is a matter for summary jurisdiction does not count. At least, I submit that as a statement.
Could we get any common understanding as to this word "summary"?
I am very anxious to get Deputy McGilligan's views in full, because I want to have this matter examined.
There is an enormous number of things spoken of in the Bill, and, in fact, so far as I can see, everything in the Bill is a summary offence.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 40:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, regulations thereunder shall not, save with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, be so framed as to apply in relation to any food in respect of which that Minister is empowered by any statutory or other enactment to prescribe standards for the composition thereof.
This is consequential on amendment No. 35.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 73, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 74.
I move amendment No. 41:—
Before Section 74, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture, may make regulations for the prohibition of the sale, or offering or keeping for sale, of—
(a) articles of food intended for human consumption,
(b) living animals intended for such food, or
(c) materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of such food,
which are diseased, contaminated or otherwise unfit for human consumption.
(2) A person who contravenes a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence is continued or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine or fines and such imprisonment.
Under Section 71, sub-section (1), the Minister is empowered, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture, to make regulations providing for the prevention of danger to the public health from the manufacture, preparation, importation, storage, distribution or exposure for sale of food intended for human consumption. These regulations will provide for any danger to the public health arising from any of these processes in connection with food intended for sale for human consumption. The provisions do not cover the danger from food arising from the natural process of decay, such as putrid meat or stale eggs, and it has become necessary to cover that type of contingency by the new sections providing for the making of regulations to prohibit the sale, the offering or keeping for sale of such articles of food, living animals intended for such food, or materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of such food, which are diseased, contaminated or otherwise unfit for human consumption. The section will replace Sections 132 and 133 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878. These are being repealed. It is not necessary to quote these two sections of the 1878 Act, but if the House desires to have them put on record, I can quote them at a later stage.
With regard to paragraph (b) of the amendment, does it mean that, if any part of an animal is diseased, the animal will be scrapped entirely? For instance, in the case of a pig with a tuberculous head, under the present regulations, the head is not used but the body is still used for food.
That is covered by the Pigs and Bacon Act. There is provision for the payment of compensation in respect of diseased carcases.
I am not talking of compensation. Under the amendment, living animals that are diseased cannot be used for food. At present, part of an animal may be diseased, but the remainder is still used for food. Is it proposed to change that?
We do not propose to change the public health law with regard to it, which empowers the seizure of the animal if it is diseased.
And what? The destruction of the entire animal? Does it necessitate the destruction of the entire animal?
You can do what you like with it when you seize it. The sanitary officer goes before the court and it has to be disposed of.
Is the position not as Deputy Hughes has said it is, that a pig with a tuberculous head is not necessarily destroyed, although the head is?
That is so. He is not necessarily destroyed under this, but he may be.
The only reference here is to a "living animal". There is no reference to "or parts of a living animal". The regulations may provide for the prohibition of the sale, offering or keeping for sale of living animals and not parts thereof.
It is not a living animal when you take parts out of him or remove his head.
We do not eat them alive either.
It was well we amended Section 29.
Will it be taken forcibly?
Force may be used.
I object again, of course, to the use of "summary" in this connection.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:—
Before Section 74, to insert a new section as follows:—
74. Regulations under this Part of this Act may provide for all or any of the following matters:—
(a) the enforcement and execution of the regulations by health authorities and their officers and, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by officers of Customs and Excise,
(b) the giving and the taking (without payment) of samples of food or materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of food,
(c) the empowering of specified persons or persons of a specified class (being authorised persons for the purposes of Section 103 of this Act or members of the Gárda Síochána exercising the powers conferred by that section) to seize and remove and to detain, destroy or otherwise suitably dispose of—
(i) articles of food intended for human consumption,
(ii) living animals intended for such food, or
(iii) materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of such food,
which are diseased, contaminated or otherwise unfit for human consumption or which do not comply with the regulations.
This amendment takes the place of the existing Section 74 and it replaces Section 71, sub-sections (2) and (3), which were deleted by a previous amendment. It also provides for the making of regulations for the giving and taking, without payment, of samples of food, or materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of food and for empowering authorised persons to seize, remove and detain, destroy or otherwise suitably dispose of articles of food intended for human consumption, living animals intended for such food, materials or articles used or intended for use in the preparation or manufacture of such food, which are diseased, contaminated, or otherwise unfit for consumption.
One or two things strike me in relation to the changes made by the removal of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 71. Under the old proposal in sub-section (3), people were empowered to enter and to inspect premises where there were reasonable grounds "for believing any of the following things are kept therein," and then we get more or less the same thing in this amendment. They are here empowered, if they find anything diseased, contaminated or injurious, to seize and dispose of it. We have cut out the power to enter. I do not know if that was intended.
I think we have in the Bill a general power to enter.
It was previously in sub-section (3) of Section 71, and that sub-section has been entirely cut out. We are not reproducing in this amendment the provisions which were contained in the sub-sections which have been cut out relating to the power to enter and inspect any premises.
I will have a search made for that power and find out if we have lost it. I should be surprised if we had.
Secondly, if we propose to allow people to enter, surely we will insert the phrase which accompanies all these rights by which the right will be exercised "at all reasonable times". That is a precaution which is ordinarily inserted. Premises are allowed to be entered during business times only. Otherwise, the proprietor may be away and difficulty might arise with regard to gaining entry and it might mean forcible entry in the end. Also, with regard to the provision which speaks of empowering specified persons to enter, one does not mind the officers of the Gárda Síochána, because they will identify themselves by their uniforms, but where other people are to be empowered to seize articles, surely they should be required, as is ordinarily the custom, to produce whatever is their warrant of authority, whatever authenticated document they have which gives them that authority. Further, there generally is a provision in these cases in which entry on premises is allowed that a dwellinghouse may not be entered without something more in the way of a formality than applies to a place where beasts are kept or meat stored. The Parliamentary Secretary might keep in mind the amendments which I had down — amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20—which cover the points I am raising on this amendment.
There is one further point I want to raise. This amendment allows the seizure, destruction or otherwise suitable disposal of any article of food, generally speaking, which is contaminated or diseased. I was trying to bring this whole matter back to the ordinary procedure. I understood the general procedure to be that any article seized as unfit for human consumption or as unwholesome as food is taken before the justice of the District Court and an order condemning it is there secured and that then certain conditions might follow and after that there may be prosecutions or there may not. I always understood that officials and inspectors were not given the right to seize and dispose of property, but always had to go before somebody of a judicial nature to get an order. I had such an amendment down—amendment No. 21—to certain paragraphs of Section 71. I am not sure that what I have spoken of is always the practice or always the law, but I think that, where an ordinary article of food is seized as unfit for human consumption or as unwholesome, it has to be brought, before the order is made for destruction, before the district justice and I would like this kept in harmony with the existing law.
It is very difficult to bring all such articles before a district justice. An animal may be seized, or portion of an animal may be seized and a district justice may not be available for a week or a fortnight.
Then a peace commissioner.
Deputy McGilligan mentioned the district justice.
The district justice is sitting six days in the week.
If you were going around with dead animals after them, it might take long enough to locate them.
I do not think there would be any difficulty in having them up to date in connection with these things.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 74 deleted.
SECTION 75.
Question proposed: "That Section 75 stand part of the Bill."
I am opposed to this section. I think the manufacturers have difficulty enough in their business and in keeping things going, and if an impediment is to be put in the way of people who are developing the manufacturing of food, by their having to pay the costs of Government inspection in this way, it is adding a charge which will be passed on to somebody else. It will interfere with the development of small specialised industries and I think the charges should be borne by the State.
The charges on small industries would naturally and probably be reasonably small charges. The charges arising under this Part of the Bill will, in the main, be imposed on the rather bigger concerns which are manufacturing on a fairly big scale. The Deputy does not expect me to be able at this stage to give any indication in regard to those charges, inasmuch as this is very much a new departure. Under Section 1 (c) of the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, regulations may be made
"to provide for the recovery of any charges authorised to be made by the regulations for the purposes of the regulations or any services performed thereunder".
I grant at once that that did not contemplate as wide a range as is contemplated here, but it definitely gave power to make a charge for any services performed.
For what kind of services?
For any services performed under the regulations as to food.
I take it that any charges that may be imposed under this are not limited to manufacturers, either large or small, but may run over the whole range of wholesalers and retailers, down to the smallest retailers, and may not only be charges in the sense of payments in cash. There may be losses in the taking of samples. For instance, in the taking of portion of goods for sale, once a portion of a complete article is destroyed, the retailer is at the loss of the price of the article, plus the cost of having the sample analysed. It would seem to me that, apart altogether from the manufacturers, whether large or small, this section may impose fairly substantial losses where retailers are concerned, even the very smallest of them.
The cost of the samples will be negligible.
May I take it that it is the cost of the analysis?
The samples for analysis.
Supposing a sample has to be taken from a closed or sealed container. Once that is done, the retailer cannot offer it for sale at the usual price, which is invariably stamped on such containers, and particularly as in most cases purchasers are advised not to purchase goods in a sealed container if the seal is broken.
The Parliamentary Secretary admits that this is the introduction of a completely new service, and he proposes to make charges for carrying out certain examinations and giving certain certificates. We would expect him to give us an outline of the foundation on which those charges would be made, that is, what would be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of a particular charge.
In relation to the taking of samples for the purpose of fixing a standard, one of the major considerations in determining the cost would be related to the output. I cannot envisage retailers coming within the scope of charges at all, as it is the manufacturer of the article who, in the main, will be responsible for maintaining the standard. The retailer would only come in in the case of goods which have deteriorated or have become a danger to the public health. I think the manufacturer will feel the impact of this Part of the Bill to a much greater extent than the smaller or larger retailers. I do not know that I can be of any greater assistance to the Deputy on the matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been of great assistance. He has indicated now that the charges that are going to be imposed under these regulations are not charges in respect of services rendered, but they are a tax on output. I could have understood his saying that the charges made under these regulations were going to be based upon the average amount of time that would have been spent by an official in investigating the situation locally, the cost of carrying out any analysis that might be required, the cost of writing out or preparing any certificate that might be necessary, or even that the general charges would be made in such a way that, spread over all the work done, it would pay for the whole cost of the particular section of the Department that would deal with this matter. But no, the Parliamentary Secretary tells us nothing of the kind; he says that it would be related to the output.
Perhaps "related" was not a fortunate term, but the output would be borne in mind.
The point, at any rate, is that in taking into consideration the charge that is going to be made for these services, the total output, the annual output by the manufacturer concerned, is to be considered. What we are now having disclosed to us under this section is a new type of tax; that is, a tax on the output of certain foods. I think it is a very interesting disclosure, in view of the great desirability of keeping food prices down to the lowest possible level. I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary to justify imposing a charge, assuming a charge is to be imposed, on the manufacturers under this section that is not related to the actual cost of the department supplying the service.
It might be related to the actual cost, but my disposition would be to run the service at a loss, so far as the poorer people who might find themselves involved under this portion of the Act are concerned, and perhaps to make a little compensating profit on the people who could afford to pay.
But you will not have anything to do with it. The Minister for Finance will rule all this.
We will have something to say.
It is an extraordinary admission.
The Parliamentary Secretary cannot say that this does not concern retailers, that it will be mainly, if not altogether, the manufacturers. May I point out what has been happening in the courts during the past two or three years? It has all arisen because samples have been taken from patent and other foods got up and ready for sale in containers. All this has originated in actions against the retailers and not the manufacturers. The samples were taken from the retailers, and when the prosecution was brought, it was against the retailers. The practice has been that it was the retailer who was paying through the nose and not the manufacturer. So far as I see, this section, far from giving relief there, is going to magnify the trouble.
I should like a little information as to the extent of Section 75. It applies to all the regulations in these sections we have been discussing and it would cover the case Deputy Hughes mentioned of a living animal being seized. Take the case of a beast belonging to a farmer. It will be seized, probably, by the Gárdaí. What the Gárdaí do with the beast the section does not say. They may eat it for all I know. But whatever expenses would be consequent on the seizure, they would be chargeable to the owner of the beast. He would be doubly burdened. He may lose the beast. Someone will have to prove that the beast was ill or emaciated or dangerous in some way. There is a new principle involved here and that is that a man may be subject to a type of charge that he never had to meet before.
We do not propose to charge for seizing the beast.
I am opposed to Section 75. We have been pointing out that the Government, unable to see how they can impose additional taxes on the people, have been throwing the whole weight of a considerable part of this measure on the local authorities. Now they have found other pockets into which to put their fingers. Under this section they will put their fingers into the pockets of people who are producing food of one kind or another and they will take money out of these pockets in relation to the output of these people. That is a definite tax on production. It is a new tax of a very interesting kind. It shows the extremes to which the Government are going in arranging their taxation policy for the future.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should remember that whatever charges are imposed under this section will be passed on. The manufacturer or producer is not going to bear the imposition. He will pass it on to the customer. We should be concerned not to increase the cost of food on the poorer sections and, whatever charges are incurred in the matter of ensuring that the best quality food will be produced, they ought to be borne by the State and should not be passed on as a further imposition on the people.
Would that relieve the poor from having to pay anything?
It will relieve them to that extent, anyway.
What would the Deputy tax?
I would not tax food— which is what the Parliamentary Secretary wants to do here.
But you are not telling me what you would tax.
I will tell you a lot of things on another occasion that should be without tax.
The Parliamentary Secretary approves of a tax on food— is not that the position?
No—on the people who make a profit.
We have so much taxation to-day on all sorts of commodities that there is nothing now left to tax but food—is that the position?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 76.
I move amendment No. 43:—
Before Section 76, to insert a new section as follows:—
A person who wilfully obstructs the execution of a regulation under this Part of this Act shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding £10 for each day on which the offence is continued or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine or fines and such imprisonment.
It is intended to provide a general penalty in respect of any person who wilfully obstructs the execution of a regulation under Part IX of the Act.
The same old point about summary jurisdiction arises here?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:—
In sub-section (1), line 26, to delete the words "or otherwise dispose of".
I put this down in order to get information. I presume we intend to allow rag and bone dealers to eat? Does this prevent them eating on their own premises?
It is not intended to, anyhow.
Do you make it an offence for them otherwise to dispose of food on their rag and bone premises?
Could he give food to a poor man?
Or to an apprentice?
Perhaps the section is too wide.
"Or otherwise dispose of". Surely consumption is disposing of?
Yes, and so is burial.
You do not want these men to eat when they are engaged in their particular job?
That would be going too far. They will be allowed to eat wholesome food. I will look into amendment No. 44 and also amendment No. 45.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 47:—
To delete paragraphs (a) and (b), and in paragraph (c), line 57, to delete the word "sufficient".
It is the same claim which has run through the whole of this Bill, to ease the burden of proof on the part of the prosecution. The procedure in criminal cases is that the burden of proof is on those who allege that an offence has been committed. I do not know why it should be necessary to cast the burden of proof on a defendant in the way that it is sought to cast it in proceedings in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b). As regards the latter part of the amendment, proposing to delete the word "sufficient", I think that that is a new phrase in our statutes. The section would then read that the analyst's certificate is evidence of what the analyst said. I think the object of that paragraph is to make the analyst's certificate evidence of the facts stated, unless the defendant wishes to have the analyst come forward and give evidence in person. I do not know if it was intended that the word "sufficient" should be camouflaged as conclusive. It might be argued by the prosecution that the word "sufficient", in effect meant "conclusive" and the defendant could not by other expert evidence contradict the findings of the analyst as set out in the certificate. It is essential that a defendant charged with an offence of this kind should be permitted to give his own expert testimony in opposition to the analyst's certificate. My amendment by deleting "sufficient" would leave the analyst's certificate as evidence of the facts therein stated, and as such would be receivable in court.
The section makes certain provision in relation to prosecutions for an offence, and, amongst other things, sets out in paragraphs (a) and (b), which the amendment proposes to delete, that:—
"(a) any food shall be deemed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been sold or to be intended for sale (as may be appropriate) for human consumption,
(b) any material or article which is found on premises used for or in the preparation or manufacture of food to be sold for human consumption ..."
It goes on to deal with any material found on the premises. The provisions set out in the section are in replacement of certain provisions that operate in law as it applies to-day. Under the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907, which it is proposed to repeal, we find it set out in sub-section (2). It reads:—
"For the purposes of regulations made under this Act, articles commonly used for the food or drink of man shall be deemed to be intended for sale for human consumption unless the contrary is proved."
Coming to the amendment, and dealing with the value of the analyst's certificate, it is provided, in the case of prosecutions under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, Section 21, that:—
"At the hearing of the information in such proceeding the production of the certificate of the analyst shall be sufficient evidence of the facts therein stated, unless the defendant shall require that the analyst shall be called as a witness, and the parts of the articles retained by the person who purchased the article shall be produced, ..."
The sufficiency of the certificate of the analyst in evidence seems to have been clearly set out in that section. That is the principle embodied here. Deputy Costello and Deputy McGilligan would have more information on that matter than I have. It has never come to my notice that there was any complaint arising out of the phrasing of the Act of 1875. It is still in operation. I do not know that it has given rise to any dissatisfaction.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say why he has left out the latter part of Section 21, which states that portion of the sample is to be retained?
I have not left it out for any particular reason. I have only an extract from the section here.
I think as the Parliamentary Secretary read the section the defendant might require the portion of the sample used by the analyst to be retained.
I do not know that there is any material point in it.
Paragraph (a) deems any food to have been sold or intended for sale for human consumption. If under the section a Guard came upon the premises of a rag and bone merchant, and found that gentleman at his dinner, is the food deemed to be intended for sale? Surely that is absurd.
I do not think he will get into any trouble for taking his dinner.
Apart from that he must prove that it was his own dinner. It is deemed to be intended for sale. I do not think that was meant. Finally, if any materials are found on the premises that are capable of being described as intended for sale they are deemed to be so intended. Why should not these things be left to the ordinary onus of proof? The onus is on the prosecutor. Surely it would be possible to know whether "sufficient" means prima facie or conclusive evidence. We ought to know what the Parliamentary Secretary wants. Does he mean that the evidence of the analyst is conclusive and that therefore no rebutting proof is to be given? It ought to be possible to get some information on that.
I will have it looked into.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
I move amendment No. 49:—
In paragraph (d), page 38, to delete all words after the word "prosecution" in lines 13 and 14.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what his objects are in making a person who is charged with an offence of this particular kind liable for the costs.
Not merely a person who is found guilty but a person who has successfully defended himself.
Although he has been declared not guilty of the offence by the court. Sub-section (d) says that if the defendant in any prosecution proves certain things the defendant shall be discharged from the prosecution but shall be liable to pay the costs incurred by the prosecutor unless he gave due notice to the prosecutor that he proposed to rely on the said defence. Is there any precedent for a performance of that particular kind?
I do not know about precedent but the intention I read into the section as drafted is that the greatest possible inducement should be offered to the defendant, if he is going to put forward the defence contemplated in paragraph (d), to inform the prosecutor in time. In the ordinary course of things, if a defendant took this line and intimated that he did intend adopting this defence, he would not be brought into court at all. Proceedings might be taken against the manufacturer but, at any rate, there would be a good defence if the defendant were going to adopt it. If he does not intimate that he proposes to take this particular line of defence until the case actually comes into court it means that a whole lot of litigation that could otherwise be avoided has been incurred.
So that the position that the man is being put into is that he is being charged with an offence for which he may be severely punished and he is asked to state beforehand what his defence is going to be.
No; he is given a good defence. If he will state it he is allowed out.
At what particular point is he supposed to state it? Is he supposed to state it when the inspector or whoever the official may be comes into his place to remove the article, or is he supposed to state it when he gets a report that he is going to be prosecuted, or is he supposed to state it when he gets a warrant for his arrest?
So long as he states it before he is brought into court, it is safe to assume that he will not be brought in at all.
Why? I can imagine that if it related merely to whether he proposed to rely on the defence of a warranty or not but he has to prove more than the warranty. He has to prove the warranty in (i); he proves whether he has reason to believe or not in regard to certain things in (ii) and in (iii) that he sold it in such condition as when he purchased it. The prosecutor, given information about a warranty defence, could say,"Nevertheless, you allowed the stuff to deteriorate on your premises".
Amendment put and declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 50:—
To add a new paragraph at the end as follows:—
(e) For the purposes of this section a name or description entered in an invoice shall be deemed to be a written warranty given pursuant to a stipulation made at the time of sale that the food to which the entry refers is of such a nature, substance and quality that a person can sell or otherwise deal with it under that name or description without contravening any of the provisions of this Act or of regulations made thereunder.
I have already spoken on this but I should like to add briefly to what I have already said. This, with a slight change, is taken from the latest English legislation on the matter. It has been a matter of comment here for years, as it has been in England, that the retailer, the man who in good faith, takes stuff, which is afterwards found to be, say, contaminated, the retailer who takes stuff from a reputable manufacturer and sells it, may nevertheless be penalised unless he has taken the precaution to get a written warranty, and very few retailers ever take that precaution. Quite a number of manufacturers will not give a warranty, even if asked for it, and it is no good to make the defence that you have sought one. In England a slight change is made. It does not relieve everybody from the possibility of prosecution, it enables the State still to make somebody responsible for an offence, but it shifts the burden from the retailer in certain limited circumstances. It only applies in the circumstances in which there is a name or a description which may be regarded as something amounting to a warranty, something that is so clear that no second substance could be sold under the particular description. In particular, under this Bill and it is into the frame-work of this Bill I want to fit it, it would have relation to articles that are standardised. Supposing under the earlier sections the group of Ministers concerned have established a standard for certain stuff and have said, for instance, that milk is not to be sold unless it conforms to certain standards, why should not the retailer be entitled to claim that a statement has been made to him in an invoice that something has been passed on to him described as milk?
Where the milk is standardised, why should not the retailer be able to stand on that as if it were a written warrantly instead of having to go through the performance, which, of course, he will never achieve, of looking for a written warranty? If he gets a written warranty, he then gets a certain degree forward in his defence. He does not get the whole length. He has to prove what is contained in the other two subsections—that the stuff is of a certain quality and all the rest of it, and that he had no reason to believe that it was otherwise than it was purported to him to be. I ask here that we should say that a name or description entered in an invoice shall be deemed to be a written warranty that the food to which the entry refers is of such nature, substance and quality that the person can sell under that name or description without contravening any part of the Act or regulations made thereunder. As I say, it is the new legislation in England and it has been produced there because of the feeling that there the retailer was badly treated in connection with this particular type of circumstance. I suggest that we should realise in the same way the difficulties of the retailer and we should make this limited approach to him. It does not go very far. It simply says something shall be considered a warranty and that fits into the framework of paragraph (d).
I am prepared to examine it in the light of what Deputy McGilligan has said but I am not favourably disposed towards accepting the amendment. According to Deputy McGilligan's statement regarding this amendment, taking the example he gave, milk, a mere mention on the invoice of "milk" would appear to imply that when the commodity was delivered and sold it conformed with the regulations under Section 71 and whatever standards may have been prescribed under Section 72 and possibly, also, the requirements of Section 73. I wonder is it wise? If we hope for any material improvement in standards of foods from the operation of this Part of the Bill when it becomes an Act, if we concede too much in relation to these sections, will we not bring about a position under which the results that all sections of the House would aim at will be beyond achievement? Perhaps Deputy McGilligan would make it clear to me that there is an insuperable difficulty on the part of the retailer in getting a written warranty. If he can merely produce an invoice and pass that off as a warranty for the purposes of this Act, it seems to me that we are weakening the section to the point where it will be practically useless. Is there any insurmountable difficulty on the part of a retailer in getting a warranty?
There is plenty. Whether a retailer gets a warranty in writing or whether, under my amendment, he gets an invoice with a name or description, either of these things does not get him out of the prosecution. Under paragraph (d) he has to prove that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold the thing described as milk that it was of a different nature or quality or in a different condition and that he sold it in the same state as when he purchased it. Those things are parts of the successful defence. Even though he proves that the article was not changed and was sold in the same state as when he got it and that he had no reason to believe it was anything different from what it was purported to be sold under, that does not get him out unless he has a written warranty. Even if he gets a written warranty, or has this name or description, he has still to prove that he purchased it as being of the nature, substance and quality and in a condition which would not contravene the regulations. The only slight change I ask is that instead of a warranty he can say that he has an invoice with a description on it and let that pass for a warranty.
Is there not a material difference?
If a man invoices milk to me, he may be a producer or a producer wholesaler, he knows that he is purporting to sell me something inside the regulations. Why should I not be enabled to pass the offence back to him if I have proved that I sold it in the state in which I got it; that I had no reason to believe it was anything except milk in accordance with the regulations; and that I purchased it as being of that type? Why should I not be able to rely on the invoice just the same as on the warranty? Let us take other things. Suppose people buy imported foodstuffs in containers. Injustice is often done to a completely innocent retailer, a man to whom the court will say when fining him: "We believe you did not change the product; but there you are, the law says I must fine you and here is the fine." The only way a man can get out of it is by having a written warranty. Retailers never get that. Manufacturers will not give a warranty. They know that retailers must buy somewhere. Once they take the line that they will not give a warranty, the retailer is at their mercy. He must get stuff to sell and, if anything goes wrong, he has to meet it.
I do not break down this system of making responsible the man who sells. I am not talking about a civil action that may arise later under which the person who sells may be brought up under the ordinary law. I am talking merely of the prosecution. Why should not a person be enabled to get out of a prosecution if he says: "There is the invoice and on it is a description that is a well-known description and that is as good as any warranty"? The amendment that I suggest is taken out of the latest English legislation, with one change. The change I have made is that I have put in the phrase: "a written warranty given pursuant to a stipulation made at the time of sale." That is not included in the English Act. It is a thing which retailers are asked to demand of wholesalers when they are getting invoices from them— that they should write a letter putting on record that the invoice is required as a stipulation made at the time of sale.
Could we not plan so as to force the manufacturer to give a warranty?
He will not do it.
Particularly at the present time.
Arising out of Deputy McGilligan's statement with regard to milk, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that milk is a different problem from many of the other problems which may arise under the section. For instance, you may have a retailer pleading under sub-section (3) (d) that he sold milk as he received it, whereas he could have easily adulterated it. Such things have happened. No producer or wholesaler will ever give a warranty to a retailer that the milk is pure, although the retailers often demand it. They are advised legally that they should never do it. The retailer may adulterate the milk. It lends itself to adulteration in the hands of a retailer. Mill stuffs or meals, for instance, do not lend themselves to adulteration. Butter, however, can be adulterated by mixing margarine with it. Retailers have done that, as has been proved in court. Milk may also be adulterated in the hands of a retailer. I want to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that this section may be unfair to producers or wholesalers of milk. A retailer may plead that he sold the milk as he received it, although the milk had been adulterated by adding water. If a retailer can plead under this section that the milk was sold as he got it from the producer or wholesaler——
He has to prove it.
He can plead it.
He must prove it. The onus is on him.
Under sub-section (3) (d) it is sufficient to plead it; it is a good defence.
No. Look at paragraph (d), "if the defendant in any prosecution proves". The onus is on him.
The section may be all right in respect of products which cannot be adulterated or altered in the hands of the retailer. It is all right in regard to cornflour or other meals which cannot be adulterated in the hands of the retailer. But in regard to milk and milk products, it is very dangerous and unfair to the producer or wholesaler. There was one case recently where a retailer pleaded in court that he sold the milk as he got it from the wholesaler. In a very short time the contrary was proved, because he was actually found watering the milk. The provision is dangerous in that respect. It is all right where the retailer cannot alter the substance or nature of the food, but it is a different matter when he can alter the substance and nature of products, such as milk and milk products.
Is there not a case in which a cow put one over on both the wholesaler and the retailer? Has it not been proved that the milk from a cow was not up to the legal standard, and, even though the man sold the milk as he got it from the cow, he could still be prosecuted?
Since it is the Minister for Agriculture who will make the regulations with regard to milk, I was wondering if it would be possible for him to leave out the question of a written warranty?
No.
Deputy Allen raised a point as to a foodstuff with which the retailer cannot interfere. That is the worst case of hardship of the lot—the article which comes in in a sealed container and with which the retailer can do nothing. He admits in court that he has not done anything with it and the court accepts his attitude that he believed he had got what he had ordered and, notwithstanding all that, unless he produces a written warranty, he is to be convicted and fined. I think that is a terrible hardship.
I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.
I move amendment No. 51:—
Before Section 78, but in Part IX, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) For the purposes of this Part of this Act and of any regulations made thereunder—
(a) food kept for human consumption in an establishment to which this section applies shall be deemed to be kept therein for sale for human consumption,
(b) where any such food is consumed in the establishment by any person, it shall be deemed to have been sold for human consumption,
(c) in any prosecution for an offence under this Part of this Act in relation to any such food, the food shall be deemed, until the contrary is proved, to have been kept for human consumption in the establishment.
(2) Each of the following shall be an establishment to which this section applies:—
(a) any school or college,
(b) any hospital, sanatorium, preventorium, nursing home, convalescent home or similar establishment.
The new section is to apply to certain establishments—hospitals, sanatoria and similar institutions—the idea being that food supplied for human consumption in such establishments can be regarded as offered for sale or sold to the patients, or, in the case of an institution, to the people who live in the institution. Food may be raised on a farm and used by the management of such an institution, such as milk, butter, cheese, beef, mutton and so on, and the idea is to ensure that such food offered for consumption to a particular section of the community in these institutions should be of the required standard.
Was the Parliamentary Secretary at a boarding school in his early years?
The food there is not always up to standard.
I wondered if this was a question of getting back at it.
Under paragraph (b), by whom will the food be deemed to have been sold?
By the proprietor of the institution, I presume.
By the principal of the school?
The principal might not be the owner or proprietor. If it were a school, presumably it would be the management. It would not apply to primary schools because the position would not arise, and there are not many secondary schools which have farms attached to them.
Does "school" exclude a primary school?
In practice, it could not arise.
What about school meals?
The school management do not provide or produce the school meals.
If, in a primary school where school meals are distributed, any of the food is deemed by the Departmental inspectors to be objectionable, who will be covered by the section?
I should say the local authority.
There is nothing about the local authority here.
Food is not stored in schools.
"Where any such food is consumed in the establishment, it shall be deemed to have been sold for human consumption". In a primary school where food is consumed under a school meals scheme, by whom would it be supposed to have been sold for the purpose of this paragraph?
Since there has been reference to food in primary schools, I want to say that my attention has lately been drawn by many national teachers, outside of the towns, in my native county to the fact that there is not one school in ten which has a drop of pure drinking water in it in Tipperary. I think the same thing obtains in other counties, and it is a scandal. I am sorry I was not here when the point about water supplies went through because the House would have heard something about it.
Amendment No. 51 is being passed, I take it, with the recognition that it applies to primary schools?
Strictly speaking, yes, because it says "any school or college", but I cannot see it operating in so far as primary schools are concerned.
Suppose the youngsters took lunches to school with them?
The wording is "food kept for human consumption in an establishment".
Look at (b)—"where any food is consumed..."
It is any "such food", and the "such food" is in (a).
Is a youngster's luncheon not food under that section?
It is very hard to understand the Parliamentary Secretary's approach to some of these matters and the lack of balance which he displays. Here is a matter involving hospitals, sanatoria, preventoria, nursing homes and convalescent homes. Why is the section confined to establishments of that particular kind and to schools and colleges? Why is it confined to that type of establishment?
Has the Deputy in mind any other type of institution to which it could be applied?
If the Parliamentary Secretary were serious with regard to all this, he would take in hotels and lodging houses.
And military barracks.
I think we have caught them already.
They will get an awful shock if they find it out.
It is quite clear that not many people knew the terms of the public health law.
It is quite obvious that many people, including the Parliamentary Secretary, did not know the full implications of the provisions even of this Bill.
Yes, I have learned a lot as to the lack of knowledge of public health law.
Where are the military barracks in this?
I do not think they are in now.
So you may get a bad herring in a military barracks all right, but you cannot get it in a hospital.
We trust a Department of State to feed its employees properly. That might seem strange, but we do.
You would not trust a local authority.
I trusted them last night and there was a whole lot of trouble about it.
Does the phrase "nursing home" include a private nursing home?
It would, yes.
It is an extraordinary selection of establishments for this treatment.
Not many nursing homes produce food.
Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand the implication of this.
I do well.
"For the purposes for this Part of the Act or any regulations made thereunder." Then take (b)—"where any such food is consumed in the establishment by any person, it shall be deemed to have been sold for human consumption."
That is right.
So that, where any food which comes under the displeasure of the public health authority is consumed in a hospital, sanatorium, preventorium, nursing home, convalescent home or similar establishment, the management of the establishment may be prosecuted under this Bill.
Is there anything wrong with that?
No. I am asking why it is limited. If there is a purpose in the idea at all, why is it limited to these establishments, where really one would imagine there was less likelihood of bad food being served up?
Is not all that caught under Section 77, which says that any food, any food whatever, shall be deemed to be sold or intended for sale for human consumption? Why do you single out then the food of hospitals, schools, colleges, nursing homes, and so on?
The position under this section seems to be that a person may go as a sick lodger into a nursing home and he has elaborate protection under this Bill, but he may be in a home as an ordinary lodger and he gets no protection at all. At any rate, I want to know if the intrusion into the nursing homes is the thin end of the wedge of intrusion into other kinds of establishments where people are kept and fed.
Well, we would like to see them well fed, no matter where they are, with good wholesome food.
We would like to know what is meant.
Why should a patient in an institution that would be free not have the same protection as the one where they would pay? Is he not equally entitled to the same protection?
That is not what the Parliamentary Secretary has here.
Oh, yes it is. It is definitely laid down there.
No. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a selection of particular types of establishments into which he is going to intrude.
Do we not get at the others through the shops?
In regard to the smaller establishments, where the ordinary citizen will go, where is it that he has not protection?
If the Parliamentary Secretary intends that this legislation shall intrude itself into a hospital, sanatorium or nursing home, to see whether the food in there is bad or not, where is he going to stop? Into what other kind of establishments or places where food is served is he going to enter, or is he going to stop at this?
We hope to get after the people where the food is served through the retailers and manufacturers.
Surely, a hospital, nursing home or convalescent home will buy its food in the same way as an ordinary domestic establishment?
Yes, but I have mentioned the institutions that produce their own food.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that "such food" in paragraph (b) means the food referred to in paragraph (a), that is, food kept for human consumption in an establishment?
I suggested that.
Well, would he look at (c) in relation to any such food, which means any food kept in an establishment, that food then is deemed to have been kept in the establishment.
What about a prison?
Why segregate all these? Is it not all caught under "any food" in Section 77?
I do not think it is.
"Any food" is deemed to be sold for human consumption.
I do not think it is. However, if it is caught there we do not want to catch it twice.
The amendment opens up extraordinary vistas. Could we get an answer? A nursing home, let us take it, is a place where a sick man goes for lodging and detention and the law is going to intrude itself into nursing homes under this.
Yes.
That is for the purpose of seeing that the food is good, or at least that it is not rotten. Now, if the law is going to push itself into nursing homes for that purpose where the sick lodge, is it the intention that it is going to push itself into lodging houses where the healthy lodge?
No, it is not intended to push itself into lodging-houses and hotels. We think we have ample machinery here to deal with the manufacture, distribution, storage and sale. What we are really concerned with in this section is the institutions that produce their own food and do not come within any of the categories we have dealt with already.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say in what way nursing homes or convalescent homes produce their own food?
Many of them do. They have farms attached and manufacture cheese and butter and milk products, for example.
Could not that apply to a hotel? Could a hotel not have a farm?
I do not think that is the general practice.
But it could apply.
Of course.
And I think it does exist, as a matter of fact.
I suggest that, if that is the intention, the section ought to be drawn tighter. I do not see any particular reason why the State machinery should be made so expensive and so elaborate that it should penetrate into, say, all the nursing homes in the City of Dublin for the purpose of seeing that there is no rotten food served to patients there. The machinery will be big enough and costly enough to do a number of things planned in this Bill, without elaborating it to that extraordinary extent.
Would the Deputy concede there might be homes in some parts of Ireland where it may be necessary to exercise the power?
I do not know.
There may be a tendency to work off the bad stuff on the lodgers. There was an old song a comedian used to sing here, alluding to the lodger:—
"Hennessy, the lodger, is fond of luxuries, bedad, and hasn't much to say,
As none of us could use it
We didn't want to lose it,
We kept it for the lodger and he had it for his tay."
There may be a tendency to work it off on the more humble boarding-house lodger. People may go to traders where they get the stuff which is going a bit bad.
In the sub-section there is not a word about producing food.
We have already dealt with every other contingency, except the contingency where the food is produced in connection with those institutions.
It certainly is not dealt with here. This section would apply to food bought or stored for consumption in a school or college. There is nothing in it about the food produced in the institution. Deputy Dockrell some time ago asked what about a prison.
A prison is a State institution and we trust the State to feed its prisoners.
They might have a dishonest contractor.
Yes, but they have honest officials and a vigilant Government.
Can we have a clear understanding that under this section it is not intended to carry out inspections of nursing homes or maternity homes in the City of Dublin for the purpose of examining the food there?
Not in a routine way, but if we get a complaint as to the food being served, we certainly will investigate it.
Is not this already covered under Section 77?
It is covered under that section.
Deputy McGilligan made that point two or three times to-night.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:—
Before Section 78, but in Part X, to insert the following new section:—
In this Part of this Act, the expression "the Act of 1941" means the Local Government Act, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941).
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In sub-section (2), page 38, to delete lines 23 and 24 and substitute the words "expenses of the office shall be paid by the said council and raised by them as a county-at-large charge".
This also is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:—
To delete sub-section (3), and substitute the following sub-section:
(3) The county medical officer of a county shall—
(a) be the chief medical officer of the county for the purposes of this Act,
(b) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the council of the county under Section 10 of the Act of 1941,
(c) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the urban sanitary authority of any urban district within the county,
(d) perform such duties as may be defined or assigned by a declaration under Section 20 of the Act of 1941, applicable to him.
How is the county medical officer paid at the present time? Is there not a contribution from the Custom House?
You refer to the county medical officer?
Yes.
Not as such.
As tuberculosis officer there is a 50 per cent. recoupment?
There is a 50 per cent. recoupment on the cost of the scheme. That includes 50 per cent. of the portion of the county medical officer's salary accepted for recoupment under the scheme.
Where he is acting as county tuberculosis officer, 50 per cent. of the salary is recouped?
Half.
I thought so.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing to alter the present law and putting the whole cost on the county rates?
There is no change in that direction at all.
There seems to be a change here. At the moment 50 per cent. of the county medical officer's salary is recouped to the county. The salary might be £1,000.
This Bill does not inter fere in any way with recoupment.
As the Bill is drafted, there is no protection for the local authority.
There is no protection for the local authority in the existing law, either. I was protecting them here last night and I got very little help.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section—
(4) If the county medical officer of a county is aggrieved by a decision of the urban sanitary authority of any urban district therein in relation to duties assigned by the said authority to him under paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of this section, he may appeal against such decision to the Minister in the prescribed manner and on notice to the said authority, and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect—
(a) the Minister, after consideration of such appeal and of the representations (if any) of the said authority in relation thereto, shall either (as he thinks proper) refuse such appeal or give to the said authority such directions as he considers will remedy the grievance of such officer,
(b) if any direction is given by the Minister under paragraph (a) of this sub-section to the said authority, the said authority shall comply with it.
Section 78 (2) of the Bill set out:—
"The office of the county medical officer of a county shall be an office under the council of the county and the salary and expenses of the office shall be raised by the council of the county as a county-at-large charge."
That has been amended so that the salary and expenses of the office shall be paid by the county council. In amendment No. 54 the county medical officer of a county is required to perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the urban sanitary authority of any urban district within the county. The amendment is for the purpose of providing machinery for an appeal to the Minister by a county medical officer who feels aggrieved by the decision of any urban sanitary authority in relation to the duties assigned to him. The county medical officer is really, to some extent, under the control of both the county council and the urban authority. This is only a machinery amendment so as to provide an appeal to the Minister in case the officer feels aggrieved.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:—
To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(6) The following provisions shall apply in relation to a person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held, in a permanent capacity, the office of county medical officer of health of a county under Section 21 (repealed by this Act) of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925)—
(a) such person shall, upon the commencement of this section, become and be the county medical officer of such county under this section,
(b) the first-mentioned office shall, for the purposes of Section 44 of the said Act, be deemed not to have been abolished.
This is to prevent a person who may hold the office of county medical officer in a temporary capacity from becoming, upon the commencement of the operation of this section, a permanent medical officer. Under the section as drafted a temporary officer might, when the section comes into operation, automatically become a permanent officer without having to go to the Local Appointments Commissioners.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In sub-section (6), after the word "shall" in line 53 to insert the words "on his signifying his willingness in writing to the health authority".
My purpose is this. We have not heard very much from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the extent to which the duties and responsibilities of a county medical officer will be changed as a result of this measure. But they will be very considerably changed, to an extent that there will be a radical alteration in the terms of his appointment and the general work he will be required to do. That being so, there is to some extent a change in the contract between himself and the local authority. I suggest in my amendment that on his signifying his willingness in writing to the health authority he shall become the new medical officer. I want also to put in the new sub-section outlined in amendment No. 58 which says:—
Before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) A person who immediately before the commencement of this section held the office of county medical officer of health of a county under Section 21 (repealed by this Act) of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) and who does not desire to continue in office on the passing of this Act, shall be retired and shall have his period of office for the purpose of calculating his pension increased by one-third of the number of years served, or not more than ten years, whichever is the least.
Where you have a public servant who is in an office with a particular contract with the local authority, and the terms of the contract are substantially changed, I submit it is in accordance with practice to give that person the opportunity of resigning and compensate him for his loss of office. I suggest there are considerable changes taking place in the duties that will devolve on county medical officers under this measure.
Amendment No. 58 is related to amendment No. 57.
If we accepted amendment No. 57 and did not accept amendment No. 58, county medical officers might find themselves in a worse position than under the section as drafted. I do not subscribe to the view put forward by Deputy Mulcahy that we are, under this Bill, extending the duties of county medical officers of health.
We are doing nothing of the kind. We are undoubtedly providing them with a better machinery for the purpose of discharging their duties. We are not imposing any new duties upon them. There is no earthly reason why we should afford them an opportunity to resign, and add ten years to the period of their professional services.
Or one-third.
There is no foundation for such a proposal. As far as I am aware, the county medical officers of health have not the slightest intention of resigning. They welcome the provisions of the Bill, because they know, when it becomes law, they will be in a better position to discharge the duties which they are trying to discharge at the present time under considerable difficulties and handicaps. Suppose a medical officer of health has reached the age of 60 or 65, are we to say to him: "Now is a good time to resign and to add ten years to your service? You will get a good pension". Apart from that, the whole idea behind such a proposal has no foundation. I stated already, and I say again, that we are not imposing new duties on our county medical officers of health. Their duties in relation to health are of the widest possible nature at present. There is no extension of them, but we are providing better machinery to enable them to discharge these duties with the fullest satisfaction.
The Parliamentary Secretary says we are not imposing any more duties on these officers. I think we are imposing duties under paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), the provision of "adequate and sanitary housing accommodation". How could the responsibility of providing adequate and sanitary housing accommodation be the responsibility of the county medical officer? That is the responsibility of the local authorities.
That is a responsibility of county medical officers already.
It is the responsibility of the local authorities to provide accommodation as well as finance. County medical officers could not be responsible for adequate housing. How could they be?
As executive officers.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that county medical officers are getting a better machine. They are being given greater responsibility for the machinery that existed already. The amendment states that the county medical officer shall be the chief medical officer for the purposes of the Act. It seems to me that county medical officers are now being made chief supervising officers of the whole medical health services in their area, in respect to dispensary doctors, nursing services and the various institutions. They get new responsibility in relation to all these persons and establishments. How the Parliamentary Secretary can assert that by being given new machinery and new responsibility they are not being saddled with greater responsibility I do not know. It seems to me that under the Bill the whole relationship of a county medical officer of health to the medical organisation in his area is being radically changed.
He is getting assistance. The district medical officers are brought in to help him.
He is getting machinery for which he as chief medical officer is going to be responsible.
There is no use in debating it. That suggestion is absolutely absurd. There is no need to continue debating a matter like this. Every Deputy knows well that medical officers have no fault to find with the Bill, nor have they complained that it is going to impose any additional duties upon them. They are very glad that they are going to be furnished with a more efficient machine for the proper discharge of their duties. Why should this House set out to induce them, by adding ten years, to leave the service, as well as adding the expense to the rates when, if they go out, they will have to be pensioned?
A radical change in the position of the county medical officers is being brought about by the Bill. This is a completely new contract with new responsibilities.
It is not a wonder that some of them have not complained?
They might be afraid.
It is not for me to say why so many people, particularly of the medical fraternity, keep their mouths shut.
It is a pity the influence would not pass around.
County medical officers were one of the fraternities that were not consulted about the Bill before it was framed.
Did they not have a good deal to do with it when they saw it framed?
I do not know. The Parliamentary Secretary knows more about what took place. I am not curious about it.
The Deputy has not to go far to get information.
The House is being asked to pass a section that will radically change the responsibility of these officers and, therefore, there is a radical change in the contract entered into between the State, as represented by the local authorities, and those who are county medical officers of health. It is not right that we should pass a law radically changing the terms of the contract without giving them the traditional facility to opt out and leave the service, with compensation for loss of office. For county medical officers of health this is loss of office of a particular kind with an offer of a change. If there is even one who is not satisfied with the change and who considers the responsibilities that are being placed on him under this Bill are not the kind of responsibilities that he wishes to undertake or that he thinks himself capable of undertaking, he should be allowed to go out. I do not know if I detected in a phrase of the Parliamentary Secretary that there may be some of them that may not be up to the standard that is required here and that he may be shifting them in a couple of years. I do not think that is fair. If men are performing satisfactorily the particular kind of work that they contracted for, it is not good enough to impose increased responsibilities on them by Act of Parliament and then in two years' time, if the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else thinks that they are not equal to their new duties, just to push them out. This Bill is definitely changing the responsibilities and the contract of county medical officers of health and I think the House should recognise that. It is a mean practice and it is an unworthy practice that by an Act here we should change contracts of this particular kind and not make the usual provision that has been regarded as the normal type of thing to do in legislation up to the present, that is, to agree that there is a breach of contract and, in addition to whatever pensionable rights derive under the contract, to give additional service for pension purposes because of such breach of contract.
The arguments of Deputy Mulcahy will leave everyone stone cold. It would seem to the House that he had in mind some medical officers of health who probably feel that they are unable for their duties, and this is an easy way out for them. That is the only thing that would strike any Deputy listening to him. But we do know that the medical officers of health will have new machinery and new powers under this Bill——
And new powers bring new responsibilities and new work.
New powers for enforcing the law that they have been trying to enforce without those powers in the past. That is the only difference in their status. We know quite well that they will have new machinery and better machinery for doing the work that they have been trying, very often under difficult circumstances, to do in the past. Is not that true? Medical officers of health, as we know them, were officers who devoted all their time and gave all their energy. They worked an ordinary day like any other citizens. Their hours are not fixed; their hours are not extended in this Bill; their remuneration is not reduced. Under this Bill, maybe their remuneration will be increased, for all we know.
Might it?
We do not know, but we do know that there is no section in the Bill reducing it.
If their work is not going to be increased and if their responsibilities are not going to be greater, why did we get this little red herring thrown into this discussion?
Take it out.
Who started the red herring? It was the Deputy who brought the red herring across. This is a red herring brought in as an amendment. It is quite true it does not appear in the Bill except as a red herring introduced on this amendment by Deputy Mulcahy. We do not even know whether it is a salt one or not, but certainly none of the arguments advanced by Deputy Mulcahy would influence the House or any member of the House to make provision to encourage comparatively young men to retire and to give them ten years or one-third of their service in respect of the few years that they have been in the service. That is what it amounts to. You are encouraging a set of comparatively young men, none of whom has been in the service for longer than about 20 years, to leave at this stage. I think the House will be very slow to impose such an additional burden. Deputy Mulcahy, and probably rightly so, on many occasions complained about the burden this Bill may impose on local authorities. He comes in here now with an amendment that would put a substantial burden on local authorities.
In very many avenues in life men can carry on only by making contracts with one another and understanding that these contracts will be honourably upheld. If the State enters into contracts, the State ought to be scrupulous in the way in which it should keep those contracts To-day, the State is not so scrupulous about the way in which it does things and, apparently, Deputy Allen has as little scruples as the Parliamentary Secretary in certain of these matters. I feel substantial backing for my argument that under this section the duties and the responsibilities of county medical officers of health will be substantially increased when they find themselves county medical officers and in recognition of that fact, which, I think, is fairly clear in the back of Deputy Allen's mind, he suggests that county medical officers will get increased pay. Of course they will.
It is not being reduced in this Bill.
But those who are not satisfied to accept increased responsibility, even for increased pay, should not have their contract broken in the way in which this proposal definitely breaks it. That is my purpose in introducing this amendment and I introduce it as a matter of principle.
Might I point out again that there is not any question, or cannot be any question, of a breach of contract with the medical officers of health in this matter. I do not know whether repetition will get the facts to sink in but, once again, let me say that we are not adding to the duties of our county medical officers of health. We are merely providing them with a more efficient machine for the proper discharge of their duties. We were told that the State should be scrupulous in the observance of its contracts, and while I do not disagree with that principle, I do want to say quite definitely that there is not any question of even a breach of faith with the county medical officers in this regard. Deputy Allen has apparently registered in the back of his mind the possibility that, arising out of this Bill and because of the contents of this Bill, there may be some increase in salary. Deputy Mulcahy seemed to take comparatively kindly to that also.
I am not taking kindly to it.
All I want to say on that issue is, that there is no undertaking given to the county medical officer of health or to anybody else in association with this Bill that there will be any increase in salaries. If there is any question of the adequacy or other wise of their remuneration, that will be adjudicated upon quite apart from anything that may arise in this Bill. There are no increased duties being imposed upon them and, on the basis of this Bill, no case could be made for increased remuneration.
And there is no increase contemplated?
Not arising out of this Bill—none whatever.
That is a rather peculiar qualification.
There is nothing peculiar about it. I do not admit for a moment, and I never have, either in this House or outside it, that this Bill is imposing increased duties upon county medical officers of health, because there was no limit to their duties as county medical officers of health under the existing law. There is a lot of to-do about all this question. Even if we were imposing new duties on them, we have a statutory right to do that. Deputies must be acquainted with the terms of the Local Government Act, 1941. Section 10 (1) (b) says:—
"Every officer appointed or servant employed by a local authority shall perform such duties and be paid such remuneration as such local authority may from time to time assign to him."
Then we come to Section 20 (1) of the 1941 Act which says:—
"(1) The appropriate Minister may by declaration do all or any of the following things in respect of a specified office in relation to which he is the appropriate Minister or in respect to such of the officers in relation to which he is the appropriate Minister as belong to a specified class, description or grade, that is to say:—
(a) define the duties of holders thereof,
(b) assign a particular duty to holders thereof,
(c) define the places or limits within which all or any of the duties of holders thereof are to be performed.
(2) Every declaration made under this section shall have the force of law in relation to the office or offices in respect of which it was made and to holders thereof."
Therefore, there is no question whatever of the statutory powers that exist at the present time to impose extra duties on medical officers of health, if it were necessary to avail of these statutory powers. But it is not necessary to avail of these or any other statutory powers in relation to duties arising under this Bill, because this Bill does not impose any extra duties on them.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say if this Bill changes in any way the relationship between the county medical officer and the dispensary doctor?
This Bill does not control relationships, nor does any other Bill. Changing relationship does not impose duties.
Does it impose duties on the county medical officer in relation to dispensary doctors?
Duties?
Responsibilities or duties.
Will the Deputy point out any duties?
Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question? He denies that there are increased responsibilities or duties placed on the county medical officer of health under this Bill. I ask, in relation to the dispensary doctors in his area, whether his relationship with them will be in any way changed under this Bill; whether he will have greater responsibilities or duties in relation to the work carried out by them?
I have already replied that the dispensary medical officers are being brought to his assistance in the discharge of his duties and will thereby lighten the burden considerably.
Except that he will have greater responsibility for their work and for supervision.
And less responsibility for the discharge of his own.
I should like to get a little more information on this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary gets annoyed because, apparently, we are not as well informed of the views of county medical officers, dispensary doctors and the others as he is. May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are more amendments to this Part of the Bill in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary than to any other part of the Bill? That is due to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, as he admitted in an earlier discussion, had his consultation with the county medical officers of health subsequent to the Second Reading of the Bill and not before it was introduced. Am I to take it that all the amendments to this part of the Bill were as a result of consultation with the county medical officers of health, on their representation and at their request?
You are not.
None of them?
I answered the question.
Let me put another question. How many amendments in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to this Part of the Bill are on the Order Paper as a result of representations made by the county medical officers of health?
I will make a calculation for the Deputy, but it does not really matter, because they are only machinery amendments. They are not of any great importance.
It matters to me. The Parliamentary Secretary is taunting this side of the House with not knowing now what he himself apparently did not know until he had an opportunity of having a consultation with the county medical officers of health. Therefore, I ask again how many of these amendments to this part of the Bill in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary were put down as a result of this consultation with the county medical officers of health? That is a particularly fair question in view of the line taken by the Parliamentary Secretary, and perhaps he will tell me now.
Go ahead; you are doing well.
I always do well.
You are in the best of form.
I am pointing out to this House, and perhaps it is news to some Deputies, that it was only after the Bill had got a Second Reading that the Parliamentary Secretary had this consultation. It was as a result of that consultation that we got most of these amendments. That is giving some information to the House, and it is also trying to extract more for the benefit of the House from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary says this Bill does not impose one single new duty or responsibility upon the county medical officers of health. Does the Parliamentary Secretary say that the county medical officers of health themselves admit that? He implied that a moment ago.
They have not said anything to the contrary.
I will leave that answer to the House. Whether they have or have not said it, I have no hesitation in saying, as a result of a few weeks' discussion of this Bill in Committee, that it certainly does impose new and far more onerous responsibilities on them. I do not think there is any question about that. If we go back to Section 29 particularly, there is no use in the Parliamentary Secretary telling me that there is nothing in that that he had not under previous Acts. That was exploded here long ago. I have not any particular reason to plead for any extra benefits or concessions for the county medical officers of health. No matter how much the Parliamentary Secretary or Deputy Allen may scoff, I do say that there is a definite principle involved in this amendment. They ought to admit that. The Parliamentary Secretary quotes from the 1941 Act. He is merely quoting there the conditions laid down when a man accepts a position. There are no new duties, he says; there is better machinery to enable him to perform his duties in a more easy fashion. But the Parliamentary Secretary would not say that the salaries are not to be increased. He says they are not to be increased as a result of anything in this measure. That is pure eye-wash. If they are increased, how are we to know whether they are increased because of this measure or because of any other measure? Nobody but the Parliamentary Secretary will know that.
Perhaps the Deputy would permit me to answer a question he has put to me?
Certainly.
He commented on the number of amendments standing in the name of the Minister to this section. I find that their number is seven.
Mr. Morrissey
This Part of the Bill.
I am talking about this section.
I specifically mentioned this Part of the Bill.
The section under discussion deals with county medical officers of health. There are seven amendments, and not one of them was suggested by the county medical officers of health.
Again, the Parliamentary Secretary is at his old game.
These are the amendments which deal with the county medical officers of health.
Am I to take it that the only section of the Bill discussed by the Parliamentary Secretary and the county medical officers of health was this particular section?
The Deputy is not to take anything of the sort.
Of course, I am not.
You will not get out that way.
Nor is the Parliamentary Secretary going to slip out either. I asked him a question which he will not answer—how many of the amendments to this Part of the Bill were put down as a result of his conference with the county medical officers of health?
Are we not discussing the conditions of employment of the county medical officers of health?
I am talking about this Part of the Bill and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that quite well. He knows that it would not suit his line of argument to answer my question.
I do not believe there is a single amendment to this Part of this Bill that was suggested by the county medical officers of health.
Or arose out of the conferences with them?
Or arose out of the discussion.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says that, I accept it fully.
It applies definitely to Section 78, and I believe it applies with equal accuracy to every section in this Part of the Bill.
It explains why the Bill is in the condition it is in.
I accept that statement from the Parliamentary Secretary.
Perhaps the Deputy——
I suppose I am now going to be told I am out of order?
I suggest that we ought to get back to the amendment.
I was expecting that from you. I am, therefore, to take it, from what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that the conference with the county medical officers of health was fruitless——
No.
——that there was no suggestion they could make which would make for an improvement of the Bill as submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary after Second Reading?
The Deputy would be quite wrong in that. I refer to this Part of the Bill. First, we began on the section and then we moved to this Part of the Bill, but we cannot move on to the full Bill. They did make useful suggestions in regard to other Parts of the Bill.
There was no contribution they had to make to this Part of the Bill. I take it that they did not make any contribution to this Part of the Bill at that conference which necessitated any amendment of it.
You can take that.
I am perfectly satisfied to accept that from the Parliamentary Secretary. It is very interesting and very enlightening. On this amendment, however, the Parliamentary Secretary has stated that this Bill imposes no new duties, not a single new duty or responsibility, upon any medical officer of health. I take leave to doubt that.
Mr. Corish
I was under the impression that the Parliamentary Secretary in one of his statements intimated that he wanted more money for dispensary medical officers. I should like to know if I heard aright and if he did make that statement. Secondly, I should like to know if he meant to include county medical officers of health in that statement. As Deputy Morrissey has said, it is very hard to believe that, if this Bill becomes an Act, the county medical officers of health will not have more duties to perform. He admits himself that dispensary medical officers will, and I think it only reasonable to expect that the county medical officers of health will also.
I think the amendment is reasonable, because I believe that, when by recent local government legislation, boards of health were amalgamated with county councils and the officers transferred to county councils, in all cases major officers were given the option of signifying their willingness to retain their status—in other words, to retain their jobs—and it is only reasonable to give county medical officers of health the same option. I believe also that, under that recent legislation amalgamating boards of health and county councils, these officers also had the right to appeal to the Minister if they thought their duties were increased or made more onerous, and for that reason I am prepared to support the amendment. It does not mean a whole lot. It will not disturb the position with regard to public health or the affairs of a county council to any great extent.
Amendment No. 57 withdrawn?
Amendment No. 57 has been moved to prevent an additional piece of State brutality. I think the House is being very badly treated by the Parliamentary Secretary in the attempt he has made to fool the House that the work and responsibility of the county medical officer will not be substantially greater.
If the House has been interested in the Bill, it has had an ample opportunity of understanding it in the past few weeks, and it ought not to be easy to fool the House.
Why should I withdraw an amendment put down to prevent a piece of State brutality? I do not withdraw it.
Mr. Corish
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has answered the question I put already, but——
Your question does not arise on this amendment and anyhow I had answered it before.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 58:—
Before sub-section (7), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) A person who immediately before the commencement of this section held the office of county medical officer of health of a county under Section 21 (repealed by this Act) of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) and who does not desire to continue in office on the passing of this Act, shall be retired and shall have his period of office for the purpose of calculating his pension increased by one-third of the number of years served, of not more than ten years, whichever is the least.
We have just discussed this matter.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 79.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In sub-section (1), line 5, to delete the words "one or more than one" and substitute the word "an".
I move this amendment, apart altogether from the interesting discussion we have had about the duties of the county medical officers of health, in the course of which the Parliamentary Secretary said that no additional duties are being put on these officers. The section says:—
"The Minister may by Order provide that there shall be one or more than one assistant county medical officer for a particular county."
It implies that there is to be considerable volume of work for these officers other than the work at present carried on by county medical officers of health. It also implies that the number of things which may be done under this Bill is greater than any of us could conceive, and perhaps greater than the Parliamentary Secretary himself has any conception of. My particular interest, as I have reiterated on section after section, is that I stand here as the champion of the ratepayers of my county. They have no protector against the actions of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government in imposing additional and unreasonable burdens, in imposing fresh taxation, on them, except the Deputies here, and their own Deputies in particular.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made no case whatever for the appointment of one or more than one assistant county medical officer of health. When I originally put down the amendment restricting it to one, I was convinced that there might be additional duties which might make it necessary to have an assistant; but, having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to Deputy Mulcahy's amendment to the other section, I think there is no room whatever for doubt that there is no necessity for an assistant in any county, that the duties of the county medical officer of health are not extended in any way in this Bill, which is not imposing any new duty on them. I must oppose any attempt to give power to appoint these assistants ad lib, whenever the Minister chooses. The possibility of spending money on this particular section would be considerable all over the country, and I, for one, will not agree to it, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment.
We will hear the Parliamentary Secretary.
It would be interesting to hear the views of the House.
This is a proposal by the Parliamentary Secretary, that he may order certain things at certain times. We would expect to hear from him as to what is in his mind.
When a Deputy in opposition moves an amendment, one would expect that some members of the Party, if they were supporting it, would speak in favour of it and would endeavour to make a case for it. Sub-section (1) of Section 79 sets out:—
"The Minister may by Order provide that there shall be one or more than one assistant county medical officer for a particular county."
Deputy Bennett seeks to restrict the appointment of assistant medical officers to one appointment, regardless of any set of circumstances that may arise in any particular county. Circumstances may arise in certain counties where the assistance of more than one assistant may be necessary. The most likely development along those lines would arise out of the provision of sanatoria and the intensified development of the campaign against tuberculosis. It may be necessary to have more than one assistant in certain counties.
If it is not necessary, more than one will not be appointed. This proposal— which would be represented, I presume, as another of those encroachments by the Minister—is the counterpart of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1941. That section sets out that
"The appropriate Minister may, by Order, direct the kind and number of the officers to be appointed by a local authority for any purpose and thereupon it shall be the duty of such local authority to appoint for that purpose such and so many (and no other) officers as may be necessary to conform with the requirements of such Order."
I do not know if the Opposition Parties opposed that with corresponding vigour.
We are wakening up.
And it might be quite a good thing. Regardless altogether of the origin or inspiration of the opposition to this measure, I personally believe that it has done a lot of good.
What has?
The debate on this measure—not so much from the point of view of the improvement in the measure, but from the point of view of its educational effect on the public. The public are thinking in terms of public health now in a manner they were not thinking of it before this Bill came under discussion. I believe there will be a much better understanding of the magnitude and importance of the matters connected with public health as a result of the display we have had from the Opposition Parties. I give them credit for having made a few useful suggestions; I would not like to say that they have been of no help at all. They have, but I think a little less than 500 or 600 amendments would probably have done.
I fail to understand why, in a matter of health, an attempt has to be made to tie the Minister up. In section after section an effort is made to deprive him of powers that may be necessary, and almost certainly will be necessary, for the proper discharge of his duties. Day after day, in section after section, an effort is made to deprive him of those powers, utterly regardless of whether or not they were enshrined in the law when the Opposition Party were a Government. It looks as if the debate is going to continue in that way.
The next thing the Opposition hope to do, after awakening the public to the public health interests, is to get them to put the public health in its proper perspective with other very important aspects of the national life. I think Deputy Bennett rather misses the important point in sub-section (1). Whatever may be the genesis of the sub-section—and the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to go further back than 1941 for a starting point to this particular idea, as yet—at any rate——
Be careful, for fear I might turn up something else later on.
The Parliamentary Secretary might learn something if he keeps on turning up.
Then I would be accused of being fixed in the cobwebs.
It might be better to be fixed in some of the old cobwebs than in the new ones.
I produced a centenarian last week.
An old cobweb might stop a bleeding, but some of the new ones would almost start it. Why should this section not read: "that the local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, provide that there shall be one or more assistant medical officers of health"? Is the local authority to be completely set aside and this whole business to be a brass-hat affair, the high brass-hat being the Minister, and all action in relation to public health carried on by order, dictated from the Minister? That is the objection I take to this section, if objection is to be taken at all.
If the local authority is to be called a public health authority, it ought to have some kind of responsibility thrown on it to look after the machinery and see whether the machinery is adequate. The authority should at least be in a position to make recommendations to the Minister for increases or changes in that machinery. We are dealing here with a new public health scheme and, apparently, we are not to have any kind of consultative council here on top, to bring general thought on social medicine together for the information of Parliament or of the Minister. Down the country the so-called public health authorities will not be allowed to suggest whether there ought to be one, or two, or three assistant county medical officers. They have to leave all these decisions and recommendations to the Minister. That is what I see wrong with the section.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary should try to be consistent in his arguments. In the last section he argued that, as there were no increased duties or responsibilities thrust upon the county medical officer——
That is right, on the county medical officer. This deals with his assistants.
Now we are making provision for one, or more than one, assistant, where the existing county medical officer is not capable of performing all the duties imposed on him as a result of this legislation. This obviously has proved that the Parliamentary Secretary feels that the duties will be so onerous that one man will not be capable of performing them. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary does not trust the local authority to make the provision. We must still have control and order from the Custom House and, regardless of what the local authority feels so far as ample provision for public health administration in an administrative area is concerned, the Custom House will decide, over its head, what provision should be made with reference to county medical officers. I would expect that in dealing with this matter the arguments and reasons advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary would at least be consistent. He has shown no consistency.
I do not agree with Deputy Hughes. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is quite consistent.
You fix it up for him.
The Parliamentary Secretary said there will not be one single additional duty imposed on the county medical officer, and to ensure that there will not be, he is going to give him enough assistants. They will take on the additional duties. That is the point. There will be plenty more work but, so that there will not be any heavier load on the shoulders of the county medical officer, we will supply him with enough assistants to shoulder the extra burden. It is not the first time I said that it is only as we move along we begin to see this picture opening out.
You are right in that.
Deputy Mulcahy asks, at this stage of the Bill, why the Minister is insisting on providing— why he will not allow the local authority to provide. He asks that question at this stage of this Bill and after the Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill—why are we not going to allow the local authority? Is it not clear to everybody in the House that there will be no local authority, as such, in this country? That is the reason this is being done. The local authority will be there for one purpose. We are told here that the Minister may, by order, provide an assistant or assistants, and then the Bill goes on to say that the local authority shall strike a rate and raise the money to pay them. The local authority is there only in name. It is there as a sort of "Aunt Sally" for the ratepayers.
All over the country, when we have a few more of these assistants appointed and salaries fixed by the local authority—to wit, the county manager —we will have a lot of people attacking the county councils, as foolish people in Dublin have been attacking the corporation about raising the rates and, of course, ratepayers in the country, if the Minister can help it, will not see him hiding behind the facade of the so-called local authority.
The local authority will be there to receive the rotten eggs and the Minister will not. That is the only function they will provide. Deputies are waking up to it as this Bill goes on. There may be one or more than one assistant. There can be ten if the Parliamentary Secretary considers they are necessary or desirable, and the local authority will have no function except to provide ten additional salaries. They will not have the fixing of the salaries either. All they will be allowed to do is to pay.
There is evidently a great danger in this; with all these new infectious diseases there are great possibilities. Any young fellow seen scratching himself when going in the direction of a bus will mean an extra medical officer of health. The middle-age spread will be another source of trouble. It is possible you may have five or six assistants. Is there any instance where there is a second county medical officer at the moment? I am not aware of it.
There is no limit provided in this sub-section to the number of assistant medical officers who may be appointed. I think if the Parliamentary Secretary wanted to meet the House in a reasonable way he would consider altering the sub-section by putting in some limit. He did try, more or less, to provoke additional opposition, if that was his idea, by suggesting that this debate has awakened considerable interest and has had an educating effect on the public. I happened to notice that it has awakened some prominent medical men and they have started writing to the Irish Press in a very critical vein towards this Bill and all it sets out to achieve; so there seems to be a little truth getting into the news as a result.
Has the Deputy ascertained that the writer is a prominent medical man?
If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to belittle or degrade a particular medical officer——
Is the Deputy not entitled to hold an opinion until the contrary is proved?
Of course he is, but I am only asking him.
I know of no man in this House, not even excluding myself, who can ask a question in a more offensive way than the Parliamentary Secretary, and put more into it.
I did not ask the Deputy.
With all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I say it is a question he should not have asked.
When I put down this amendment, I did not anticipate it would give rise to as interesting a discussion as we have had. The gods have been good to me. The Minister's argument on the previous section gave me ammunition to make a case I would not otherwise have made for the amendment. But the Minister has failed to make any good argument against it. I am not relying on the case that the Minister made for the amendment when he more than suggested there were no extra duties whatsoever being placed on existing medical officers or that their duties were being extended in any way. The Parliamentary Secretary has denied that and made no case for any extra county medical officers.
My chief objection to this Bill, and it is that of other Deputies, is that whatever good is in it—and there is a lot that is good in it—is obliterated by this blot, that the Government is providing no financial assistance to work it, but is placing the burden on the unfortunate ratepayers, who are already incapable of bearing the other burdens placed on them. Deputies could not put down an amendment proposing that the Government should bear the expenditure incurred under this measure. That would be ruled out of order. Accordingly, the only way we can lessen the burden on local ratepayers is by offering all the opposition we can to placing any extra taxation on them. This is the one section on which we see a possibility of preventing even an extra halfpenny being placed on the rates. Ratepayers are now unable to help themselves, as those who have been elected to represent them on local bodies have no longer any power. These local representatives have not had any power for the last ten years. The only possible help the ratepayers will get is whatever help they get in this House, to resist the imposition of extra taxation.
In his spare time, I ask the Deputy to look at Section 11 of the Act of 1878, which is now being repealed.
The Parliamentary Secretary need not ask me to look up any section of any Act of Parliament. I do not care tuppence if all the Acts of Parliament passed here or any place else provide for what the Minister is trying to provide in this Bill. I will be against it.
Amendment put, and declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In sub-section (2), page 39, to delete lines 9 and 10 and substitute the words "and expenses of the office shall be paid by the said council and raised by the said council as a county at-large charge."
This is only a matter of phrasing.
It means that the local authority will pay one way or another.
Where an order is made by the Minister that a local authority is to provide an assistant county medical officer, will portion of the salary be recouped by the Department?
The existing practice will continue.
On the Report Stage will the Parliamentary Secretary consider inserting an amendment providing that that practice will continue?
No.
In order to safeguard local authorities?
No.
Local authorities are entitled to consideration in this matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:—
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
(b) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the council of the county under Section 10 of the Act of 1941,
(c) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the urban sanitary authority of any urban district within the county,
(d) perform such duties as may be defined or assigned by a declaration under Section 20 of the Act of 1941, applicable to him.
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 62:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-section:—
(4) If an assistant county medical officer of a county is aggrieved by the decision of any urban sanitary authority of any urban district therein in relation to duties assigned by the said authority to him under paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of this section, he may appeal against such decision in the prescribed manner and on notice to the said authority and thereupon the following provisions shall have effect—
(a) the Minister after consideration of such appeal and of the representations (if any) of the said authority in relation thereto, shall either (as he thinks proper) refuse such appeal or give to the said authority. such direction as he considers will remedy the grievance of such officer,
(b) if any direction is given by the Minister under paragraph (a) of this sub-section to the said authority, the said authority shall comply with it.
This amendment provides for an appeal to the Minister. It is the same principle as arose on amendment No. 55. An assistant county medical officer may have to discharge duties under an urban authority, and it is necessary to insert this amendment, in order to give him the right of appeal to the Minister if he feels aggrieved about salary, or any of the duties imposed upon him.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 63:—
To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(6) The following provisions shall apply in relation to a person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held, in a permanent capacity, an office in a county under the title of assistant county medical officer or assistant county medical officer of health—
(a) such person shall, upon the commencement of this section, become and be an assistant county medical officer for such county under an Order deemed to have been made under this section,
(b) the first-mentioned office shall, for the purposes of Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), be deemed not to have been abolished.
This is consequential on amendment No. 56.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:—
In sub-section (6), line 43, after the word "shall" to insert the following words: "on his signifying his willingness in writing to the health authority".
I explained my attitude towards this matter already.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 65:—
To add at the end a new sub-section as follows:—
A person who immediately before the commencement of this section held an office or offices in a county under the title of assistant county medical officer or assistant county medical officer of health and who does not desire to continue in office on the passing of this Act, shall be retired and shall have his period of office for the purpose of calculating his pension increased by one-third of the number of years served, or not more than ten years, whichever is the least.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 79, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
When this legislation becomes an enactment will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what he considers the position generally will be as far as county medical officers of health are concerned? I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has examined the question carefully, and I should like to know if he anticipates that an assistant medical officer of health will be required in many counties. If so, can he tell the House to what extent assistants will be required?
I do not think that assistants will be required on any very large scale. The provision that is being made in the section under discussion is merely to provide for a contingency in which it might be necessary to make one or more appointments of assistant medical officers, but I do not anticipate that it is going to be in the near future. In fact, so far as I am able to foresee future developments, I do not think that we will need many of these assistant medical officers.
Not even in the larger counties?
In the areas where we have sanatoria or where special institutions may be provided we may possibly require some additional assistants, but I do not envisage any very big development under the section. It is merely a machinery section that will be available if it should be necessary to operate it.
I can understand that on the outbreak of epidemic——
That would be temporary. For a temporary appointment, I think, you would not require it. This section envisages permanent appointment.
If a man is appointed assistant medical officer of health on the outbreak of an epidemic does it mean that he will become a permanent appointee?
No. We would not need statutory power for that type of emergency. This section contemplates making permanent appointments. It is to provide machinery for the making of permanent appointments.
I should like to take advantage of this section to get some information on another matter. The Parliamentary Secretary, in the course of the discussion last week—I think on Section 34—talked about a campaign of case-finding in relation to tuberculosis. I gathered that it was the intention of his Department, when this Bill became law, to initiate an intensive campaign with particular reference to tuberculosis. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would be good enough to tell us by what machinery that is going to be done. Does he consider that the county medical officer will be able to superintend that campaign in relation to tuberculosis, apart from all the other activities, or is it in relation to that campaign and others that this section was inserted; or are we to take it that the campaign in connection with tuberculosis will be conducted by the ordinary dispensary doctors who become district medical officers under this Bill?
The Deputy, I presume, is aware that in most counties at the present time we have an assistant county medical officer of health who is specially earmarked for tuberculosis work. Presumably, where we have a tuberculosis medical officer—and that is in most areas—the tuberculosis medical officer will supervise any case-finding campaign that may be launched. But, in the main, the personnel that would man the case-finding campaign would be more of the technician type, such as radiographers. As soon as we are able to supply mass radiography plant we hope to provide the facility as rapidly as we can to make it available throughout the provinces. Of course, that will undoubtedly be a slow development. We have been held up for quite a long time in the provision of the plant in Dublin. It will be technical personnel that will be required for that purpose rather than professional. The reading of photographs will be a fairly technical process but provision will be made for experts where there is any doubt. If there is any doubt or difficulty we will have to have the assistance of radiologists for the reading of pictures that are not particularly clear.
On this particular section I do not think the matter arises but at any rate I have no hesitation in giving the Deputy any information that I have at my disposal but I do not think I can give him very much more guidance than that. Whether that is sufficient to satisfy him or not or whether he will be able to pick any hole in it for a debating point, I do not know. He appears to be in very good debating mood this evening. He is entitled to these moods. He seems to enjoy them. We made more headway yesterday when he was not here, but he is welcome back.
Unfortunately, the ramifications of the Parliamentary Secretary's Department are so wide that I had to travel 100 miles yesterday in order to prevent him from still further encroaching on some of the people's rights.
Unfortunately, you headed in the wrong direction.
In any case, I would be much more at my case dealing with the Parliamentary Secretary here. However, I am thankful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the information he gave. I did not raise the point merely as a debating point. I am thankful to him for the information he gave regarding the technical approach to this question of tuberculosis in so far as mass radiography is concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary's reply dealt with what happens when the cases have been found and brought to the appropriate institution where the technical experts could be brought to bear on them. There are, as he said, assistant county medical officers of health whose time is given almost completely to tuberculosis work. Even then, with what they have been able to do and what they are still doing, am I to take it that this is the full extent of the effort to be made in case-finding?
We have issued a White Paper on tuberculosis and I think it is fairly comprehensive and our plans are detailed.
I do not want the Parliamentary Secretary to get impatient with me. I am not really stalling. I am looking for information.
It does not arise on this.
I suggest that the Deputy could raise the matter on Section 83 where it might be more appropriate.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to get on to points of order and rule me out, I will put myself in order immediately. If that is going to be his attitude, I can make every point I want to bring out strictly relevant to this section but I do not want to approach it in that way.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 80.
I move amendment No. 66:—
To delete sub-section (3), and substitute the following sub-section:—
(3) The city medical officer of a county borough shall—
(a) be the chief medical officer of the county borough for the purposes of this Act,
(b) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the corporation of the county borough under Section 10 of the Act of 1941,
(c) perform such duties as may be defined or assigned by a declaration under Section 20 of the Act of 1941, applicable to him.
Section 80 as introduced followed the wording of Section 78 dealing with county medical officers. Amendment No. 66 alters the wording so as to conform with the new wording of Section 78 as amended by amendment No. 54. It is merely a drafting amendment, consequential on amendment No. 54.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
Before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) The city medical officer of a county borough shall be known as the——City Medical Officer (with the name of the county borough prefixed).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:—
To delete sub-section (5) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(5) The following provisions shall apply in relation to a person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held, in a permanent capacity, the office of medical superintendent officer of health of a county borough under Section 11 (repealed by this Act) of the Act of 1878—
(a) such person shall upon the commencement of this section become and be the city medical officer of such county borough under this section,
(b) the first-mentioned office shall, for the purposes of Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), be deemed not to have been abolished.
This is consequential on amendments Nos. 56 and 63.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:—
In sub-section (5), after the word "shall" in line 14, to insert the words "on his signifying his willingness in writing to the health authority".
I move this amendment for the same reasons that I moved amendment No. 57.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment No. 70:—
Before sub-section (6) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
A person who immediately before the commencement of this section held the office of medical superintendent officer of health of a county borough under Section 11 (repealed by this Act) of the Act of 1878 and who does not desire to continue in office on the passing of this Act, shall be retired and shall have his period of office for the purpose of calculating his pension increased by one-third of the number of years served, or not more than ten years, whichever is the least.
Amendment put and negatived.
Section 80, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 81.
I move amendment No. 71:—
In sub-section (3) to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraphs:—
(b) perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the corporation of the county borough under Section 10 of the Act of 1941,
(c) perform such duties as may be defined or assigned by a declaration under Section 20 of the Act of 1941, applicable to him.
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:—
To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following sub-section:—
(6) The following provisions shall apply in relation to a person who, immediately before the commencement of this section, held, in a permanent capacity, an office in a county borough under the title of an assistant medical officer of health—
(a) such person shall, upon the commencement of this section, become and be an assistant city medical officer for such county borough under an Order deemed to have been made under this section.
(b) the first-mentioned office shall, for the purposes of Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925), be deemed not to have been abolished.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:—
In sub-section (6), page 41, line 2, after the word "shall" to insert the words "on his signifying his willingness in writing to the health authority".
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment No. 74:—
After sub-section (6) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
A person who immediately before the commencement of this section held an office or offices in a county borough under the title of assistant medical officer of health or deputy medical superintendent officer of health and who does not desire to continue in office on the passing of this Act, shall be retired and shall have his period of office for the purpose of calculating his pension increased by one-third of the number of years served, or not more than ten years, whichever is the least.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 81, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can give us any information as to the assistant medical officers contemplated in the City of Dublin. I do not wish to look for information too soon in regard to this matter, but, concerning the capital city, the Parliamentary Secretary probably has some idea as to the number of assistant medical officers he has in contemplation.
There is no immediate change contemplated. This is merely a machinery section to provide for the contingency that additional appointments may be necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 82.
I move amendment No. 75:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert the following new sub-sections:—
(2) The office of a district medical officer shall be an office under the county authority for his district, but——
(a) where the district of a district medical officer consists of a part in a county and a part in a county borough, such district medical officer shall, as respects the part in the county, be an officer of the county and, as respects the part in the county borough, be an officer of the corporation of the county borough.
(b) where the whole or any part of the district of a district medical officer is situated in an urban district, the office of such officer shall, as respects assignment of duties (other than duties relating to infectious diseases) to be performed in the whole or the part of the district situated in the urban district (as the case may be), be deemed for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1941 to be an office under the urban sanitary authority for the urban district.
(3) Where the district of a district medical officer consists of a portion of a dispensary district, sub-section (2) of this section shall have effect in relation to him as if any reference therein to a dispensary district were a reference to such portion of a dispensary district.
The object of this amendment is to declare the office of a district medical officer to be an office under the county authority for his district, subject to certain modifications as follows: (1) where the district of a district medical officer is partly in a county and partly in a county borough, he shall be an officer of the county council as regards the part of his district in that county and an officer of the corporation of the county borough as respects the part of his district in the county borough; (2) where the district of a district medical officer is wholly or partly in an urban district, his office shall as respects assignment of duties (other than infectious disease duties) to be performed in respect of the whole or part of his district situated in the urban area, be deemed, for the purposes of Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1941, to be an office under the urban sanitary authority for the urban district. Section 10 is the section which provides for an appeal to the Minister by an aggrieved person. The third modification is: where the district of a district medical officer consists of portion of a dispensary district, the above-mentioned reference shall have effect in relation to him as if any such reference to a dispensary district were a reference to such portion of a dispensary district. It is really a machinery amendment. There is no principle in it that could be regarded as contentious.
In what circumstances is it contemplated that a district medical officer will operate over an area which consists of pieces of two districts?
In Dublin some of the dispensary districts are partly in the county borough and partly in the county. The same applies in some of the rural areas. As to the larger question of the extension of duties that may be in contemplation under the mother and child scheme, I think we might leave that until we meet the sections which specifically deal with it. Presumably, we will have a rather extensive discussion on these sections. The whole plan will have to be discussed in detail.
There will be additional duties only under one heading.
Under the mother and child scheme.
Is that the only heading?
Yes, but that is apparently an extensive heading, because the mother and child scheme will extend into the school medical inspection and deal with a child up to 16 years of age.
Is that the only direction in which the dispensary medical officer's work will be extended?
May I ask in relation to that whether the district medical officer mentioned here is to be the same person as the person described in an earlier part of the Bill as the authorised medical officer?
Could the Deputy give the reference?
I cannot put my finger on the section, but I think that was the term used in an earlier section. I want to know whether the district medical officer and the authorised medical officer are one and the same person. If so, it would mean that these medical officers would be exercising functions in relation to earlier sections as well as the mother and child scheme.
Under the infectious diseases provision the dispensary medical officer is the medical officer of health for the dispensary district. He would be an authorised officer for certain purposes. As I am sure the Deputy is aware, the county medical officer is the medical officer for making the detention order; but the district medical officer has very definite functions as medical officer of health, apart from his duties as a dispensary medical officer. He will, of course, be very much of a health officer under the new system, if he is brought into medical charge of the mother and child scheme, and the inspection of school children which will arise under the development of that scheme, if the plan is adopted by the House.
I raised my point to ascertain if there would be other duties under the Bill imposed on the local medical officer as distinct from duties which will arise under the mother and child scheme.
I cannot think of any.
None other?
None that comes to my mind.
I do not want to pin the Parliamentary Secretary down at the moment, but if he is satisfied that we can discuss fully, when we come to the mother and child part of the Bill, any extension of the duties or responsibilities of the medical officer, we know where we are.
I am not aware of any other extension. Nothing comes to my mind other than that. In the meantime, when I think the matter over, if I advert to any further extension of his duties, I will mention it when we come to discuss the mother and child scheme. I do not want to go away from it, but I do not think there will be any further extension of the duties.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 76:—
In sub-section (2), page 41, line 14, to delete the word "these" and substitute the word "those".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 77:—
In sub-section (5), page 41, to delete in line 26, the word "district" and to insert in line 27, before the word "or", the words "of a dispensary district".
This also is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 83.
I move amendment No. 78:—
To delete sub-section (2).
Section 83 proposes that a health authority may disseminate information and advice on matters relating to health by advertisements, notices, pamphlets, lectures, radio, cinema exhibitions and any other means, and the sub-section which I move to delete says that the Minister may by Order direct every health authority, every health authority of a particular class or a particular health authority, as to the subjects in relation to which, the manner in which and the extent to which they are to exercise their powers under sub-section (1) of this section and a health authority to which any such direction relates shall comply therewith. Again, the health authority for a district is not to be allowed to use its initiative in relation to its district and the problems of its district to decide what means it will adopt to spread information and intelligence with regard to health matters. It is again the brass-hat operating, when it should be left to local circumstances and the local representative intelligence saddled by the local elector with responsibility for looking after the situation. I think it very wrong that a health authority should not be given a free hand to decide in what way it will carry out its duty of educating its public on health problems.
Sub-section (1) of this section is the one which appeals to me perhaps more than any other in the Bill, in that I believe, given proper effect to, it would probably do more for public health than many of the very drastic sections in the earlier parts of the Bill. It is rather a pity that sub-section (2) goes on to destroy the spirit and the helpfulness of the provision. In relation to this matter of education on health matters by publicity and propaganda, what we want is not the Minister at the top directing the local authority but the closest possible co-operation between the Department and the local authority, and if the Parliamentary Secretary would only insert the word "advise" instead of "by Order direct", we would get far better results. I am perfectly satisfied, from my knowledge of local authorities, that, in relation to public health, local authorities will be only too pleased to carry out any publicity or advertising of a propaganda campaign which the Department, out of their experience and as a result of the advice of their experts, advise should be carried out, but I object again, as we have had to object in regard to various sections, to giving the Minister power to direct a local authority to do anything he thinks fit and to make the local authority pay for it. The Parliamentary Secretary, in my opinion, would get better results if he acted merely in an advisory capacity.
Personally, I believe that we have not been doing anything at all like what we should do in the matter of publicity. Our newspapers, our hoardings and our schools, in particular, have not been used at all for educating our people in the matter of attaining a better standard of health, and perhaps—what we heard so much about last week—better standards of cleanliness and so on. If we had set out earlier, in the last 20 or 25 years, on an intensive campaign of education, there would be no necessity for a Bill of the type we have before us. So far as I am concerned, either as a member of this House or of a local authority, I would be prepared to vote for any expenditure within reason under this heading, because I have far more faith in its lasting results than I have in the results to be secured from the operation of some of the drastic sections in the Bill. You may bring a person by force into an institution and you may, by force, clean, disinfect and disinfest him for the time being, but the mere fact of doing that will not change his habits. If he is a person who is naturally dirty, a person whose dirty state does not arise because of the conditions in which he lives, I am afraid it is only a very temporary relief.
I have far more belief in the lasting effect of an educational campaign carried on through the newspapers and through publicity of every description in the cinemas and, above all, in the schools. I believe we can do more by a proper educational campaign in the schools, and particularly in the girls' schools, towards having not only a healthier race but cleaner and more economically run homes, on which health depends to a great extent. I am very sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has put in this word "direct" again, and is taking powers to direct a local authority to do what he thinks should be done instead of giving them advice. I would like to give my fullest possible support to this section, and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with me now, I think he will later. I do not know whether I can take his smile as suggesting that he could never hope to find himself in agreement with me or whether it means simply that he has no faith in anybody—local authority or anybody else—outside himself and his own Department.
No; I was thinking we would make a tremendously fine combination.
We would.
That is the amusing thought that passed through my mind.
It would all depend on who was on top.
It would not do to have Deputy Morrissey on top of me—I would be crushed.
The Ulster lads may be on top of the country, but they are not quite walking on the Munster fellows yet. 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, 11th April, 1946.