Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1946

Vol. 103 No. 13

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee and Report Stages.

Sir, what about the Money Resolution?

Do I understand that we propose to set up two new Ministries, involving the setting up of staff and so on, and that the House is not going to discuss, under a Money Resolution, the general direction in which the costs will fall and from which the moneys will have to be provided to carry on these new Departments?

That is provided for in the Principal Act. There is no need for any further Money Resolution. That matter was considered, I can assure the Deputy.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Maybe we could hear what Section 2 is for?

I do not know if it is necessary to read the section. I assume that the principal Opposition can read it. It provides, according to the marginal note, for the establishment of a Department of Health. It points out that the Government may by Order appoint a day, to be the appointed day for the purposes of this section, and then goes on to say:—

"(2) On the appointed day a Department of State to be styled and known as An Roinn Sláinte or (in English) the Department of Health shall stand established.

(3) The Minister who has charge of the Department of Health shall be styled An tAire Sláinte or (in English) the Minister for Health.

(4) The following enactments, that is to say, the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1939, and the Act of 1925, shall apply to the Department of Health and the Minister having charge thereof as if that Department had been established by Section 1 of the Principal Act.

(5) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Amending Act of 1939, the Department of Health and the office of the Minister for Health shall be deemed to have been established immediately upon the passing of this Act, but any Order which is made, in relation to that Department or that Minister, under the said sub-section (1) before the appointed day, shall not be expressed to come into operation on a date earlier than the appointed day."

That is the purpose of this section.

Now, Sir, having demonstrated that the Minister is able to read and able to count, may I say that he told us, when last dealing with this measure, that the setting up of these new Ministries would not involve any new additional payments? I asked in a Parliamentary question to-day for information as to how the Department of Local Government and Public Health had inflated itself with personnel since 1932 and how it was proceeding at the present time. In reply to-day, the Minister told us that, taking a certain number of sections in the Department—firstly, the Department of Local Government and Public Health, secondly, the National Health Insurance and the widows' and orphans' section and then some minor sections such as the General Register Office, Dundrum Asylum and a special section dealing with the establishment of sanatoria for tuberculosis purposes —the staff under the Department increased from 181 established and 70 unestablished persons, making a total of 251, on the 1st January, 1932 to 285 established and 105 unestablished, making a total of 390, by the 1st January, 1945; and that it had increased by the 1st January, 1946, to 306 established and 115 unestablished, making a total of 421.

Would the Deputy relate that to this section?

I am trying to find out something about the Ministry of Health. The Minister has been assuring the House that the establishment of these two new Ministries will not increase the overhead expenses of the Civil Service beyond the swollen condition to which the emergency brought some of them.

Is that not more or less a Second Reading speech and exactly what was debated on the Second Reading?

If the Minister is simply going to use his majority here to force a Ministry of Public Health and a Ministry of Social Security through this House, then he can do it and do it with as little or as much explanation as he pleases. We had a very long period of debate here on the questions of public health, over a Bill about which—as we intimated then and as it has now officially been made known— none of the medical fraternity was ever consulted when the drafting of that measure was proceeding.

That is outside the scope of this section. It was debated at length on the Second Stage. Possibly it may have some relevance.

The Minister can call in his Party and can force this section through the House, with or without as little information as he cares to give the House. The subject of public health was fully and elaborately discussed at Easter, and the subject-matter of that discussion is now finding its way into the wastepaper basket. I am asking the Minister when he proposes to put before the House the legislative proposals that this section, as well as his voting strength in the House when he calls it in, suggests.

I take it that this new Ministry is going to be established more or less from the staffs in the Custom House and the Local Government Department. Is it the intention of the Government that a separate building should be used and a separate staff transferred there, or is it the idea that the new Minister should occupy a certain portion of the Custom House and have grouped around him the permanent officials there who have been dealing with that section of the public health which is going to be transferred to the new Ministry? Can the Minister give us any idea as to whether the new Ministry can be worked with the same staff, or will there be an augmented staff, and, if so, to what extent?

I do not think that Deputy Dockrell's question arises on this section at all, but I feel that I ought to point to the bankruptcy of the reason which is being exhibited by the Leader of the principal Opposition Party in this House.

If it has done nothing more it has made you talk.

He opposes this section because he alleges that I have given no reason——

——for the establishment of a new Department of Health. We had a very full debate on that matter on the Second Stage in which the whole ground was covered categorically and in great detail by those who support this Bill. In that connection I should like to emphasise that those who support this Bill are drawn not merely from the majority Party in the House, not merely from this Party which has a majority over all other Parties in the House, but that it is supported by the Labour Party and by the Irish National Labour Party as well, so that there is no question of steamrolling, nor is there any doubt as to what the representatives of the people who sit in this House want.

This Bill has been acknowledged, even by a Deputy who sits as a colleague on the Front Opposition Bench with the Leader of the Opposition— Deputy Mulcahy—to be vitally necessary for the preservation of the health of the people, and one might almost say for the preservation of our population. We cannot afford to carry on with an overloaded Department any longer. It requires some clarity of vision to see that. The decision which the Government has taken has been approved not only by the majority of this House on the Second Reading of this measure, but has received the emphatic endorsement of the medical profession and of other interests which are concerned with the health of our people. That is the justification for the establishment of the Ministry of Health.

The Minister has not answered Deputy Dockrell's questions.

Because they are not relevant to my Bill.

They are relevant to this extent, that he expressed gratitude that the Minister might have heard from any section in the House that the setting up of a Ministry of Health arises out of the hope that people have that, by going to the expense of doing that, they may take matters affecting public health out of the catacombs of the Custom House, and remove them away from the futility and incompetence that has characterised the operations in the Custom House for so many years past. I do not think that is a sufficiently good reason, or the only alternative that we have, for the setting up of a new and expensive Ministry, in view of the fact that not so long ago we were told there was sufficient competence and sufficient staff to deal with these matters without exciting any fears in the minds of the people for the safety of their health.

Is the Minister going to answer my question? He says it is not relevant. Presumably, then, the same question would not be relevant on Section 3. Surely I am entitled to ask on this section for some explanation and some details with regard to the transfer. For example, are we to find that a Minister has been appointed on the appointed day, and that there will be no building in which he can sit down and no staff to receive him? Surely that is relevant in this section?

All that matter will arise in due course on the Estimate after the Bill has been passed.

Is the Minister also suggesting that there will arise on the Estimate to be passed in the spring the question as to why, having told the Seanad—and reproved a Senator for not understanding it—that the Taoiseach was going to issue a White Paper dealing with the whole question of the Ministry of Public Health before we dealt with this Bill, it has not been issued? Will it be in order to discuss then—will that be a sufficiently timely occasion to discuss— why the Taoiseach has not issued that White Paper?

That might be, but not now on this section.

The question of the Custom House apparently borders on this, and does the Minister think that we might be able to discuss it on this Estimate? I do not know whether the Chair could strengthen our hope on that matter, that we would be allowed to discuss the location of this Ministry when the Estimate which the Minister speaks of will come before us.

It would be hypothetical.

I would like to have the Minister's opinion on the other matter, even though it might be hypothetical. Will it be in order to discuss on the Estimate, which the Minister speaks about, the question why we had not received the White Paper that the Taoiseach promised the Seanad would be issued?

The White Paper is not on this section.

It is as much on the section, I admit, as the Custom House, and the Minister graciously vouchsafed a certain amount of information about the Custom House. It is something to go on with. Will the Minister tell us anything about the White Paper?

The White Paper is not on the section.

Mr. Corish

Perhaps it would be relevant for me to ask if it is the intention, in the case of the local bodies, to set up different departments? In the case of a county council, is it the intention to have a separate section dealing with public health and another section dealing with social welfare?

All that was discussed on the Second Reading, and the Deputy must now confine himself to what is in the sections of the Bill.

Mr. Corish

The only reason I mention it now is that it was never answered.

Surely, if we are discussing the setting up of a Ministry of Health under this section, Deputies are entitled to ask what the effect of the setting up of that Ministry will be on the machinery working under local bodies throughout the country?

That question was asked on the Second Stage.

Is there any reason why it could not be discussed thoroughly and systematically on the Committee Stage? I submit there is not. I suggest that if anything may be discussed on this stage, even within the strict limits laid down, it is how this machinery of a Ministry of Health will affect the administrative machinery throughout the country—how it will react on the work of the local bodies. I suggest we should have some statement in that regard.

That is a matter for the Second Stage, and it was discussed on the Second Stage.

In a formal way I want to plead against that ruling.

If we are asked to set up a Ministry of Health as a separate piece of machinery, I submit we are entitled to discuss in Committee how that machinery will dovetail into the local machinery throughout the country and what will be the effect of the new machinery.

On the Second Stage the setting up of two Ministries was approved by the Dáil. On that stage the question the Deputy now asks was discussed. Surely Deputies do not desire a repetition of Second Stage debates on every section?

Surely a discussion on how one piece of new machinery will dovetail into the existing machinery in the country should be permitted definitely on the Committee Stage? I suggest such a matter could not adequately be discussed on the Second Stage.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá 51, Níl 20:—

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Roddy, Martin.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and O Briain; Níl: P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Sir, under this section the Department of Social Welfare will be established. I went very fully over the reasons as to why such a Department was necessary during the discussion on the Second Stage of this Bill. The machinery for the establishment of the new Department is exactly the same as that which is provided for the establishment of the Department of Health under Section 2.

The position we are in with regard to this section is exactly the same position that we were in in regard to the last section. We are not going to be told to what extent this new Ministry will be removed from the area of the Custom House. We are not going to be told in what way the machinery of the new Ministry will dovetail in with the local machinery and the local services. In particular we are not going to be told any of the reasons at the back of the Taoiseach's mind when he stated that he was going to set up this Ministry, not for the purpose of giving better service and not for the purpose of making any economies in the existing administrative machine but for the purpose of having these matters brought under the control of a Minister expert in such matters. Evidently we are going to be told just as little about it here to-day. I think the Minister might, therefore, get his voting machinery into operation once more in order not to waste Parliamentary time. There are a number of Private Members' motions which must be discussed before we rise for Christmas. We wasted sufficient time on certain matters at Easter without wasting time unnecessarily here again before Christmas.

Would the Minister say if workmen's compensation will be brought within the ambit of the new Department? That particular question was not adverted to either in the explanatory White Paper or on the Second Stage of this particular Bill.

The existing system of workmen's compensation will not be transferred.

Is it the intention to leave it under the Department of Industry and Commerce?

Yes, until a more comprehensive scheme has been evolved.

Sir, is it possible for us to get any information as to the cost of the new Department?

And the proportion of staff that will be required, together with any reduction likely to be made in the staff of the existing Department over which the Minister now presides.

I dealt with that question very fully on the Second Stage.

If the Deputy would refer to column 1421 of the Official Report of the 22nd November, 1946, he will see that the ground is covered there at some length.

Length without breadth.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 19.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Carter, Thomas.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Patrick J.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Norton, William.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Loghlen, Peter J.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Skinner, Leo B.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard S.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Coogan, Eamonn.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keating, John.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kissane and O Briain; Níl, Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Sections 4, 5 and 6, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

When will the Report Stage be taken?

As the Bill has been reported without amendment, could we have the remaining stages now?

No, we will give you the Fifth Stage to-morrow.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Fifth Stage be taken to-morrow.
Top
Share