Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1949

Vol. 114 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Dundrum Asylum.

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,350 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1949, for the Expenses of the Maintenance, etc., of Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Asylum (8 & 9 Vict., c. 107; and No. 19 of 1945).

The additional sum required under sub-head A of this Estimate is mainly due to the very heavy expenditure in connection with medical treatment of patients. Under sub-head B the additional sum required is due to improvements which have been made in the dietary of patients and also to increased prices of foodstuffs. The extra expenditure on uniform and clothing under sub-head C is due to an underestimation of the cost of these items for the current year. For some years it has not been possible to obtain full requirements or satisfactory quality in clothing materials and the improvement in this position during the current year is reflected in the extra cost under this sub-head. Under sub-head D additional expense is mainly due to the provision of a cine-projector and to the cost of materials for occupational therapy. There is also an estimated deficit under sub-head E due mainly to increased cost of feeding-stuffs and farm requirements. The total amount of £1,622 required will be partially offset by increased Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £271 which arise from an increase in the receipts from the farm and garden, and the net additional sum necessary is, therefore, £1,351.

It is a pity that Deputies will not rise on the Vote.

If you proceed immediately after the Minister we do not get a chance.

The Deputy need not be so sharp. There is plenty of time.

We should like a little more information on the matter of sub-head H.

I do not find any sub-head H in this Vote.

I am referring to Vote 68.

We are discussing Vote 43, Dundrum Asylum.

Association of ideas.

Would the Minister say if there has been any change in the policy of control with regard to this particular institution. Has there been a setting up of some kind of visiting committee as distinct from the previous procedure?

A visiting committee has been set up to investigate and to give us all the assurance that the conditions in Dundrum Asylum are completely satisfactory. I felt it was a desirable development that a group of people as in other institutions in the country should be authorised to investigate, to visit, and to hear complaints in Dundrum Asylum, and if there were any deficiencies in the organisation or inadequacies in the diet or living conditions that they would be reported to me and I should do everything I could to improve conditions.

Will the Minister say how this visiting committee is selected? The Minister is aware of course that in other institutions under his care there is a special Act of Parliament which lays down the method of selection of the visiting committee and they have certain statutory rights and functions. Would the Minister say whether they come under the same category, say, as visiting justices appointed to our prisons and are there any statutory conditions relating to them and their responsibilities.

This committee has no statutory powers. It was appointed by me under regulations which were made under the enactment which governs Dundrum Asylum.

There is no consultation between the Minister and the Minister for Justice in respect of this particular institution?

Not in regard to the appointment of that committee.

The Minister will be aware that some time ago I brought to his notice by way of Parliamentary Question a very unfortunate incident in the asylum concerning the death of an inmate. This was followed by an inquiry into the circumstances, I think, by way of an inquest.

Will the Deputy say under what item that will arise?

Salaries, wages and allowances of the officers; the duties of the officers or the clothing for patients, etc.

It would hardly be the treatment of patients would it?

It was concerning the alleged neglect of their duties by some of the attendants in the institution which led to this incident.

I fail to see what it would come under. This is not a main Estimate. The Deputy might save it up for the main Estimate.

I find I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Connolly. This is an institution which is not in the ordinary sense the same as we experience under, say, the local government. This is an institution in which there are persons under the care of the Minister for Justice really. They are the same type of patients but in one institution you have one set of Acts of Parliament and so forth controlling it. The type of incident to which Deputy Connolly is referring can be dealt with by the individual representative on the Hospitals Board.

If this is paid for in this institution it must be on some Estimate.

The point is that if this Estimate comes into the House in specific relation to this particular institution surely this is the Estimate on which one would want to raise certain matters. I raised the matter of the selection of the officers to this board. They are not responsible to this House. They are responsible to the Minister. They have certain statutory responsibilities under the Acts of this particular institution, but there is a question of what arises in the institution which must be discussed somewhere. That is why I have sympathy with Deputy Connolly although I do not know anything about the case.

Will the Deputy look at the first two words of the Estimate. It is a Supplementary Estimate and you are confined to the items therein.

Could I not argue, Sir, that if the wages and salaries are referred to in the Estimate, one can refer to the officials who are in receipt of those salaries and stretch it on to the duties they are supposed to perform.

The sub-head of Salaries, Wages and Allowances does not arise. If the Deputy will look at the second page he will find an andditional sum required for medical treatment.

I do not fully remember the question to which the Deputy refers but I think the particular questions around that time were the expression of a general feeling of dissatisfaction with conditions in Dundrum Asylum at that time and subsequent to that time. It might be helpful to the Deputies to know that this visiting committee who went in with full authority to investigate every aspect of the organisation and administration of the institution found that on full investigation the only criticism of the place they could make was that there was an inadequate number of blankets supplied to the patients. That is the sum total of the remarks made by this committee, and I think it is a reasonable answer to the other rather wider suggestions which have been made in regard to it. That insufficiency in blankets has since been rectified.

Where is there an indication of the increased number of blankets provided for the patients?

These are supplied by the Board of Works.

It is not exactly in regard to that matter that I am concerned. It is with regard to the lack of permission for the public and the Press to attend a certain inquiry held in that institution. That is the matter I was going to raise, and I reserve the right to do so later.

I wonder if I am quite in order in saying that for the last 26 years I have been holding inquests in Dundrum Asylum anything from six to 12 times a year and during that period a full inquiry has always been made into the death of any particular patient in that institution? Never once has there been the least reflection on the administration there, nor at any time has there been any ground for thinking that any neglect has taken place. I can assure the House that these inquiries were held sometimes with juries and sometimes without them, and on all occasions the fullest possible inquiry has been made into the death of the person. Sometimes that involves an inquiry into the medical treatment which each patient receives there. I can only say that after 26 years' experience there nothing could have excelled the kindness which was shown to the patients.

Under sub-head B the Dáil is asked to vote an additional £414 for the victualling of patients and rations for attendants. Is that due to an increase in the number of patients and attendants or an improvement in the victuals or rations?

It is due to two things, an improvement in the type of food served and an increase in the cost of the food.

Does the Minister remember all the promises he made about reducing cost?

Oatmeal is the particular one referred to.

Is that exempted from the general promises?

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share