Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1953

Vol. 137 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 63—Health.

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £6,225,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1954, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Health, and certain services administered by that Office, including Grants to Local Authorities, Miscellaneous Grants and Grants-in-Aid.

This Estimate is being taken this year earlier than in previous years because it contains a new sub-head—K, Hospitals' Trust Fund (Grant-in-Aid)—and it is necessary to have the authority of the House before payments from the sub-head can be made. Unfortunately such payments will be needed almost immediately if the hospital building programme is not to be delayed.

It is customary on the Estimate to review some of the main vital statisticsrelating to the previous year. Because of the early date at which the Estimate is being taken, a greater number than usual of the figures have necessarily to be provisional but any that I quote may be taken as sufficiently accurate for present purposes.

The birth rate per 1,000 of the population for 1952 was 21.8 as compared with 21.2 for 1951.

There was a decrease in the general death rate, from 14.3 per 1,000 of the population in 1951 to 11.9 in 1952. The rate for 1951 was the highest recorded since 1941 and was largely attributable to influenza deaths.

The infant mortality rate was again much too high at 41 per 1,000 births compared with 45 for the previous year.

I am glad to be able to report a continuing decline in the tuberculosis death rate. The number of deaths from all forms of tuberculosis for 1952 was 1,595 (subject to final verification) as compared with 2,107 for 1951. This represents a rate of 54 per 100,000 of the population as compared with 71 in 1951 and 91 in 1949. While it is gratifying to see that tuberculosis mortality continues its downward trend, the rate for this country is still high compared with, say, Denmark, where the low rate of 14 per 100,000 of the population was attained in 1950.

While, as I have said, the death rate from tuberculosis shows a welcome decline, the death rate from cancer was 139 per 100,000 of the population in 1952 as compared with 137 in 1951.

The total number of deaths from measles increased from 22 in 1951 to 45 in 1952, and deaths from poliomyelitis from 13 to 16. Though there was little change in the number of deaths from diphtheria, the fact that deaths from this disease are still occurring underlines the necessity for availing of the inoculation facilities readily available to everyone free of charge. There can be little doubt that inoculation is the most powerful weapon we have against diphtheria and we must continue to use it if the death rate from this cause is not to soar again. It is for that reason thatthe publicity campaign which my Department is carrying out continues to stress the need for ensuring that children are protected from this killing disease.

Happily our clear record in regard to smallpox, now of many years' standing, continued during 1952 but the danger of an outbreak is not nearly so remote as is sometimes thought. Plans for dealing with a possible outbreak here must be and are ready, but the only real protection is that given by recent vaccination and I must continue to urge parents to have their children vaccinated. That service, like the diphtheria immunisation service, is available free of charge to everyone.

By far the greatest part of the work of my Department is regulated by the provisions of the Public Assistance Act, 1939, the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, the Health Act, 1947, and the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, and it is under these headings that I propose to review the work done during the past year.

Because, however, the hospital building programme is common to the work done under the first three of the Acts mentioned and because it is responsible for so large a part of this Estimate, and for the first time, I propose to say something about it at this stage. I want to make it quite clear that I do not regard that programme as an end in itself but only as a means to an end. I am fully aware that it is the service provided, and not the premises, which really matters in a hospital or other health institution and that from the point of view of the welfare of the patients an old building can be quite as effective as a first-class, up-to-date institution. Nevertheless, the prospects of providing a good service in a good building are much better than the prospects of providing that service in an unsuitable one, and that is one of the reasons why we are replacing, as rapidly as possible, present accommodation which is unsatisfactory.

Substantial progress is being maintained on the short-term building programme. As a measure of the progresswhich has been made on it already, 4,200 extra beds of an estimated total of over 7,000 will, it is expected, be provided by the end of 1953.

What is not so satisfactory is that the cost of carrying out the programme will far exceed the original estimates, due to increased building and other costs. As I have already told the House, all readily realisable assets of the Hospitals' Trust Fund have been spent on the hospital building programme and in meeting the deficits of the voluntary hospitals which have risen in runaway fashion despite substantial increases in the rate paid for local authority and national health patients; and the Hospitals' Trust Fund and the income from future sweepstakes will fall far short of meeting the balance of the cost of the short-term programme and other commitments of the fund. The deficiency which will have to be met over the next four to five years is likely to be in the neighbourhood of £15,000,000. The Government gave long and anxious consideration to this problem and I am glad to say that, notwithstanding a great volume of commitments in regard to other capital projects, they decided that the deficiency in the Hospitals' Trust Fund should be met, as needed, by Grants-in-Aid from the Exchequer. The substantial initial grant of £4,500,000 will need to be made in this way during the financial year 1953-54, and provision for that sum is made in the Estimate now before the House.

I would like the House to see in perspective this new liability assumed by the Exchequer.

From the commencement of the sweeps up to the completion of the present short-term programme the sum paid out from the Hospitals' Trust Fund will have amounted to about £47,000,000 towards which the Exchequer will have contributed the £15,000,000 I have mentioned.

An alternative way of looking at the position is in relation to the period of the short-term building programme only. The amount of the grants promised for building works, the amountrequired for payments of deficits and the other sums chargeable to the fund during that period for expenses of the Hospitals Commission and miscellaneous grants for research, etc., will amount to £36,500,000.

Is that for the short-term programme?

Yes. It began about three years ago. Of this sum £15,000,000 will be found by the Exchequer and the balance will have come from the balance in the fund when the programme started in 1949, the proceeds of sweepstakes during the period of the programme and the limited income from investments from the commencement of the programme until now when all the investments are liquidated to meet commitments.

During the currency of the programme to date £11,000,000 has already been spent on hospital building works.

Before leaving this question of the Hospitals' Trust Fund I would like to pay a tribute to all associated with the collection and the spending of the moneys for the excellent work they have done. Thanks to the fund, we now have, in the cities and throughout the country, numerous new and reconstructed hospitals of a very high standard and, while there is much that still remains to be done in the way of improving facilities, we are immeasurably better off than if the sweepstakes had not come to our aid.

To come back to the progress which is being made with the short-term building programme, I must first report on the regional sanatoria, for which I am directly responsible under the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Act, 1945. Dublin and Cork regional sanatoria are well under way, and should be finished next year. The remaining regional sanatorium, at Galway, is even closer to completion and a part of the institution, with accommodation for over 280 patients, is now functioning.

I think it is proper that I should pay an overdue public tribute here to the very valuable assistance which has been given by the building and engineeringindustries, and by some firms in particular, in carrying out arrangements for the advance purchase of materials needed for the Dublin and southern regional sanatoria. These arrangements were initiated by my predecessor, Deputy Dr. Browne, at a time when, owing to the critical international situation, it seemed possible that the work might be held up owing to difficulty in securing materials. The assistance of these industries and firms, which was given as a national service and without any profit whatever, has made it possible for the work to proceed with the greatest possible speed.

The House, I know, will not expect me to refer in detail to the position of the several hundred projects included in the programme, and I propose to mention only a few of special interest. In the case of the two major general hospitals to be provided in Dublin, that is, the new St. Vincent's and St. Laurence's Hospitals, planning to the budget has presented difficulties. Agreement has been reached with the St. Vincent's authorities which enables them to proceed with the completion of planning of the new hospital at Elm Park. I expect to see representatives of St. Laurence's Hospital in the near future, and to reach a final decision then about the building of the proposed new hospital at Cabra. I am glad to say that very satisfactory progress is being made with the reconstruction of St. Kevin's Hospital and that the standard of accommodation for patients there has been vastly improved, and will be further improved over the next few years. Rapid progress is being made with the building of the new cancer hospital at Oaklands, Rathgar, which will accommodate 150 patients. The treatment unit in this hospital has been opened and the whole hospital should be functioning later in the year.

The planning of the new Coombe Maternity Hospital is proceeding and construction work on the regional general hospitals at Galway and Limerick is making good progress.

Striking progress has been made with the provision of additional accommodation for mental defectives. A new institution has been opened at Lisnagry, near Limerick, for femalemental defectives, and the Brothers of St. John of God have acquired new premises at Celbridge containing accommodation and teaching facilities for 180 high-grade mental defectives. The erection of a 180-bed extension to the home conducted by the Brothers of Charity at Glanmire, Cork, is in progress and work has started on the building of a 120-bed extension to St. Joseph's, Clonsilla, which is conducted by the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul. I have also approved a scheme of extensions and improvements at Stewart's Hospital, Palmerston. All told, the scheme relating to mental defectives included in the programme initiated in 1948 should make available 1,400 additional beds, which should greatly relieve this very pressing problem.

In the case of clinics and dispensaries, I am hoping for a very rapid improvement in the position. In the case of the county clinics, which will provide facilities for specialist consultations in each county, most of the works have started, or are near the point of starting, and this service is gradually coming into operation as the clinics are completed.

I was glad to note that in the recent debate on a Supplementary Estimate for my Department, Deputies showed a very keen interest in the improvement of dispensaries. I told the House on that occasion in some detail what was being done about them, and all I wish to say about them now is that Deputies, particularly those who are members of local authorities, can further this work materially, and if each will do all that he can in this respect in his own area it will be a great help.

On the general question of the disbursement of grants from the Hospitals' Trust Fund there have been suggestions that having regard to the fact that the sweepstakes were initiated on behalf of the voluntary hospitals an undue proportion of the funds has been used for the benefit of local authority hospitals. I should make it clear once and for all that under the Public Hospitals Act, 1933, the Minister forHealth was given authority to disburse these funds after consideration of the reports which he receives from the Hospitals Commission on applications for grants which have been made to him. Nothing in that Act requires the Minister to allocate any set proportion either to voluntary or local authority hospitals and the intention was that the funds should be disbursed to the best advantage of the hospital and allied services of the country as a whole. Consequently as the moneys are disbursed strictly in accordance with the powers conferred by an Act of this House there is, in spite of suggestions to the contrary, nothing improper in the manner of their spending.

Voluntary hospitals provide only about one-third of the hospital bed accommodation in the country but by the time the short-term programme has been completed the authorities of such hospitals will have received more than two-thirds of the funds which have been or will be provided from the sweepstakes. I have had discussions with deputations from the Associated Hospitals' Sweepstakes Committee which represents the voluntary hospitals on this general question and they have told me that they were satisfied that there were no grounds for complaint on this score.

The committee I have mentioned was perturbed in regard to the deficits position of the participating hospitals. The aggregate of the deficits in 1939 was £157,500. For 1948 it had risen to £399,500 and in the following year it had reached £473,700. At that stage it was apparent that the figure could not be allowed to increase indefinitely and in June, 1950, my predecessor decided to "peg" them for a period of three years at the average for the years 1947 to 1949, at the same time authorising local authorities to pay increased capitation rates for patients sent by them for treatment. The increase was 10/6 per week i.e. from three and a half to four guineas. At the same time the rate for national health insurance patients was similarly increased, and it was decided that payments on foot of the deficits would be made, as to nearly half, about 15 months earlierthan usual and, as to nearly the remaining half, about nine months earlier than usual.

In the event, when the amount of the deficits for 1950 became finally known, it was apparent that it would be necessary to make some further adjustment. I was in full agreement with the principle of a limitation and I regarded my predecessor's basis as a suitable one to adopt but I made certain adjustments which I considered were justified by changed circumstances. As a result most hospitals had their deficits paid in full in respect of 1950, the first year of the three year period. The amount paid reached the very large sum of £508,774.

When it seemed that the 1952 deficits would far exceed even the figures so adjusted, I authorised local authorities to increase their capitation rate to five guineas a week (four and a half guineas for sanatoria) from the 1st January, 1952. This compares with a pre-war rate of two guineas, an increase of 150 per cent. It has now become clear that, with the deficit payments on the existing basis, even this increase will not cover the expenditure of some of the hospitals and I have, therefore, authorised a further increase of seven shillings weekly in the capitation rate for hospitals and sanatoria with effect from 1st January, 1953. It is obvious that some alteration in the basis of paying deficits in respect of 1953 and subsequent years will be necessary and I am reviewing the whole position. When the proposals in the new Health Bill are made effective, local health authorities will be responsible for paying voluntary hospitals for a larger proportion of their patients.

Other things being equal, this increased income from local authorities should have the effect of reducing the deficits, or at least of containing them within reasonable limits. The voluntary hospitals do excellent work and, of course, are an integral part of any health service which we may provide; but having regard to the position of the Hospitals' Trust Fund and to the fact that the deficit payments have increased in runaway fashion bynearly 250 per cent. from 1939 to 1951 as compared with a general cost of living increase of only about 125 per cent. in the same period, some steps must be taken to encourage economies and to bring down the amount of the deficits. I have that matter, also, under consideration.

Under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, it is estimated that one-third of the population is entitled to a full range of medical assistance, the work of the dispensary medical officer in his dispensary or in the patient's home when he attends to give domiciliary service being backed by the district and county hospital and by the voluntary hospitals which care for patients sent to them by local authorities at a charge of £5 12s. a week. There has been little development of this service in the year at the general practitioner level. An experiment in the holding of evening dispensaries has been commenced in Dublin City and in Sligo town, but otherwise there has been little significant change.

There has, however, been some improvement in the specialist backing of the dispensary medical officer. Orthopaedic surgeons on a regional basis have been appointed in four regions, one covering the Counties of Cork and Kerry and Cork City, another the Counties of Kilkenny, Waterford, Tipperary, Leix, Offaly and Carlow and Waterford City, another the Connaught counties and Donegal and a fourth the Counties of Louth, Meath, Westmeath, Monaghan, Cavan and Longford. Another will, it is hoped, be appointed soon for Limerick City and County and Clare. The service which these surgeons can give is limited by the extent to which they can secure hospital beds for their patients but improved facilities in that respect are being provided.

Clinics are held in each county at regular intervals and the district medical officer has, therefore, in his own area a specialist colleague to whom he can refer cases for further investigation and any necessary treatment. I need hardly stress to Deputies the advantage which this represents both to the patients and to the dispensary medical officer. Deputies havetold me that the service is very much appreciated both by the doctors and the patients.

A similar development has taken place in three regions in regard to radiologists and appointments will shortly be made in two other regions. This should save pressure on hospital beds in addition to providing a better and more rapid service than at present.

Other major developments in this direction must await the provision of more county clinics. When the clinics are provided and staffed, patients will have within their own counties many of the specialist services which they could obtain otherwise only by long and unwelcome journeys to hospital centres like Dublin and Cork— journeys which the patient is inclined to defer until it is too late. The general practitioner service under the public assistance code has had, of course, for many years the backing of the county surgeon and the county physician. The new specialist services will not supplant but will supplement and improve that support.

In the recent debate on a Supplementary Estimate for my Department, some Deputies referred to what they called the inadequacy of the salaries of dispensary midwives. These midwives are paid on a salary scale of £120 to £150 a year. They are part-time officers, and I cannot accept the contention that for the amount of work done they are underpaid. Over the country as a whole, the average number of maternity cases dealt with on behalf of their local authorities by each of these dispensary midwives has worked out at just under 17 per annum in recent years, which means that each midwife gets an average, over the whole country, of £7 14s. per case.

Looking at the matter from another angle, the amount of time spent on dispensary midwifery by these officers, averaging 17 cases yearly, must be small; and for this small expenditure of their time, they are paid a salary of £120 to £150. Unlike private midwives, the dispensary midwives have an assured income for those cases whichthey attend on behalf of the local authorities, and moreover, they also have the right to private practice as well.

I cannot tell the House what fee the private midwife in general gets; but I do know what happened in 1951-52 in three specimen counties for which I recently got figures. In one of these the average number of cases dealt with by 46 private midwives was 17, at an average fee of three guineas; in the second one, 17 midwives had an average of seven apiece at £3 to £3 15s. per case, and in the third, 12 midwives attended an average of 21 cases each at a fee ranging from three to five guineas. These private midwives certainly did not do as well as their colleagues in the local authority service, who drew their secure and higher income for attending an average of 17 local authority cases each in the same year, and who, in addition, were able to take on private cases. On these facts, I think no reasonable individual can argue that for the work she does, the dispensary midwife, on average, is not paid enough.

County homes come under the heading of public assistance. Deputies will remember the White Paper on the reconstruction and improvement of these homes issued in October, 1951. The proposals in the White Paper included the development of these institutions or other premises as hospitals for chronic sick, and as homes, in fact as well as in name, for old people; and the provision of special and separate institutions for the care of other classes which are at present accommodated in the county homes. The cost of carrying out the works necessary to implement the reforms will be met by loans raised by public assistance authorities. Repayment of the loans will be spread over a period of 40 years and the State will contribute one-half of the annual loan charges, up to a maximum of the loan charges on a sum equivalent to £500 per bed in each reorganised institution.

The total capital cost of the work is estimated at £5,000,000. The authorities concerned have been invited to submit their comprehensive schemes to give effect to the White Paper proposalsand a number have already done so. Once the schemes have been approved in principle there should be little delay in getting ahead with the necessary works. The Estimate now before the House contains the modest sum of £1,000 as the estimated sum which will be necessary in 1953-54 to meet the State subsidy on the loan charges, but it is adequate for the making of a very substantial start during the year.

I now come to the Mental Treatment Act, 1945. That Act was comprehensive and introduced many new features. The passage of time has revealed certain respects in which it could be improved and I hope to introduce legislation within the next year to bring about those improvements. In the past year, improvements in the mental treatment service followed the same pattern as in the preceding years. Premises and facilities for treatment are being improved as far as available funds permit and the extern psychiatric clinic service was expanded somewhat.

I would like to emphasise again what has been said so often before—that we have great need for a more enlightened public opinion on the subject of mental illness and that there is no more disgrace attaching to it than there is to physical illness. If people would avail to a greater extent of the clinics in the early stages of mental illness, much suffering to patients and to relatives would be avoided.

The activities of my Department in the past year under the Health Act. 1947, have been considerable. To describe them in detail would take up an undue amount of the time of the House and consequently I will confine myself to some of the more important.

Probably the greatest and most expensive single problem covered was tuberculosis—local authorities are now spending on the service very little less than £3,000,000, half of which, of course, is recouped from the Vote— and I propose to deal with it briefly under three main heads—prevention, diagnosis and treatment.

Under the heading of prevention, I presume that I may confine myself tothe narrower aspects and that I need not refer to such matters as better housing and living conditions generally. Apart from propaganda advocating care of general health and avoidance of the more normal risks of contracting tuberculosis, the main activity has been an expansion of B.C.G. vaccination. The national B.C.G. Committee set up in 1949 as an interim measure to get a service going in counties which were not ready at that time to provide a service of their own, had carried through about 108,000 vaccinations up to 31st December last, spread over a large part of the country.

The areas which operate their own service as part of the normal public health service—the Cities of Dublin and Waterford and the Counties of Kilkenny and North Tipperary—carried through a further 25,000 vaccinations up to that date. Figures for the current year should be even better, as the schemes are now operating more efficiently and the public, having become aware of the benefits of the procedure, are coming forward in greater numbers. The immunity conferred by these vaccinations should in the future have a considerable effect on the cost of the tuberculosis service.

The quality of the diagnostic service has been constantly improved by better organisation of the public health field service, improved local facilities for full-plate X-rays and, particularly, by the availability of the mass miniature X-ray service provided by the National Mass-Radiography Association. This last-mentioned service, although it is only now getting fully into its stride, has already done a vast amount of very useful work, and has X-rayed about 150,000 persons.

In regard to treatment, the cry is for more and still more beds. I have not attempted to evaluate the various factors which contribute to that demand—greater willingness to avail of treatment provided, improved case-finding and improved therapy in sanatoria which saves the lives of patients but incidentally increases the average length of stay in the institutions. I am reasonably satisfied, however, that there is no increase in the incidence of the disease. The number of bedsoccupied by pulmonary tuberculosis patients under the tuberculosis scheme in tuberculosis institutions and tuberculosis sections of general hospitals was 5,695 on 31st January last. This represents a very great increase in the number of occupied beds over the number a few years ago.

While the provision of beds for cases of pulmonary tuberculosis has got the lion's share of the publicity on the pressing problem of increased bed accommodation, there has been no neglect of the need to provide beds for cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis. Co-operation between health authorities and the orthopaedic surgeons I have referred to has resulted in the making available of beds for such cases in self-contained sections of county and district hospitals as a temporary measure pending the provision of more suitable accommodation in special regional institutions.

The first of these institutions to become available is the former Woodlands Sanatorium at Galway, which, with the transfer of its pulmonary cases to the new Merlin Park Sanatorium, has become the long-stay centre for orthopaedic tuberculosis patients for Connaught. Into it have been transferred patients who were on waiting lists at home or were occupying beds needed for more urgent cases in acute hospitals. Other new institutions are in course of construction at Gurranebraher, Cork, and at an advanced stage of planning at Kilcreene, Kilkenny.

In regard to the institutions I have been talking about for the treatment of tuberculosis patients, I feel that it cannot be too often repeated that the level of treatment is as good as is given anywhere. Medical, surgical and nursing services are of a very high standard and conditions generally, which are of so much importance to long-stay patients, have improved considerably in recent years.

Before I leave the subject of sanatoria I feel I may be expected to say something of the new drug which some time ago appeared to give promise of providing a solution to the tuberculosis problem. The drug in its various formsis under test in a number of our sanatoria—local authority and voluntary —and until the tests are completed I think Deputies will agree that it would be inappropriate that I should express a final opinion. I regret, however, that I must say that the earlier very bright hopes will not be realised.

I mentioned earlier that the incidence of certain other infectious diseases had declined. I do not propose to deal with them in detail but I think it well to remind the House that for the scheduled diseases, which, of course, include tuberculosis, a free diagnostic and treatment service is provided, so that no person need defer treatment on grounds of its cost. It is hardly necessary to remind Deputies of the provision for payment of maintenance allowances, in addition, to persons suffering from certain of these diseases. The amount of these allowances has recently been increased appreciably. It has to be remembered that the allowances are intended to do no more than provide a reasonable minimum family income when a breadwinner becomes unable because of the disease to continue to provide for the family, and so to encourage him to accept treatment at the earliest possible stage while he still had excellent prospects of recovery. The bill for these allowances in the current year is estimated at £580,000 which, the House will agree, is quite a considerable sum.

Before I leave this question of infectious diseases, I want to emphasise that no patient can be regarded as cured until he is back at his old job or trained for some other job most suited to his post-treatment condition. Two voluntary committees, in Dublin and at Toghermore, County Galway, are doing excellent work in training ex-tuberculosis patients but they would be the first to admit that, excellent though their work is, only the fringe of the problem has been touched. I am at present considering the whole problem of rehabilitation; and I have included in the Health Bill some provisions which should help in dealing with it.

The registration provisions of the Food Hygiene Regulations made underthe Health Act, 1947, were brought into operation on 1st October, 1951, for hotels, holiday camps, restaurants, fish-mongers and poulterers and on 1st April, 1952, for butchers and pork butchers, and premises where ice-cream is made or where a manufacturing or wholesale food business is carried on. While premises will not be registered unless they comply with the regulations, I think that traders have found the health authorities reasonable in their requirements for the improvement of premises. The number of premises requiring extensive alterations is relatively small and large-scale improvements or the purchase of elaborate equipment will not be insisted on unless they are absolutely essential.

A standard for ice-cream was brought into operation on 1st August last, after consultations with the trade interests concerned. Ice-cream must now contain at least 5 per cent. by weight of milk fat, 9 per cent. by weight of milk solids other than milk fat and 10 per cent. by weight of sugar.

In view of the impending improvement, in accordance with the Health Bill proposals of the maternity and child welfare services, I do not propose to deal here in detail with the various steps taken or to be taken to improve these services. The only reference I propose to make in that regard is to the paediatric service now provided by the three Dublin maternity hospitals in regard to children, during the first six weeks of life, born in these hospitals or on the hospital districts. The funds for the service are provided partly by Dublin Corporation and partly from the Vote now before the House. The service is working reasonably well considering the initial difficulties and, provided these difficulties are resolved, will prove a considerable asset to the public in Dublin. As I have said, it is limited to children born in the hospitals or on their districts and this is an undesirable limiting factor which will have to be overcome.

I dealt in some detail with the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, on the Second Stage of the Health Bill and consequently I do not propose to go into the matter in any detail now. There are, however, a fewfigures to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. Expenditure by local authorities on health services to which the Act applies rose from £5,650,000 in 1947-48 to over £10,630,000 in 1952-53. The Exchequer bore only 16 per cent. of the expenditure in 1947-48 but in 1952-53 it bore 50 per cent. Stated another way, local authority expenditure rose in the period by £573,000 or about 12 per cent. Exchequer contribution increased in the same period by £4,405,000 or about 480 per cent. These figures speak for themselves and provide, I think, the complete answer to any criticisms that the Exchequer has not been generous in its support of the health services.

In a recent debate on a Supplementary Estimate for the Health Vote it was stated by Deputy Sweetman that the Kildare County Council had experienced difficulty due to delay in the final determination of its position in relation to the grant. I have since looked into the matter. Kildare is one of the small number of authorities for which standard expenditure has not yet been finally certified, owing to a delay in the completion of a final audit of accounts but the grants paid to Kildare have been based on figures supplied by the county council and verified as far as possible by my Department. The margin of possible variation from these figures is, I am satisfied, extremely small, and the estimated balance of grant at present due to the county council in respect of the four financial years 1948-49 to 1951-52 is only £658. The advances of grant paid for the year 1952-53 amount to £103,300 or 95 per cent. of the total estimated grant, in line with the payments made to every other health authority and were made on the due dates. I cannot accept therefore that the county council has suffered materially as the Deputy suggested.

The industrial and economic loss resulting from ill-health each year is of course immense and the amount of suffering caused to mind and body is incalculable in terms of money. The Government are satisfied that expenditure on health services is fully justified both on economic and humanitariangrounds and are determined to continue to expand and improve the health services in this country until we have reached a position where medical services of as high a standard as any obtainable in any other country will be readily available to all our people who need them.

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I do so because I think the Dáil should be given an opportunity of expressing what I feel is the feeling of very many people outside this House of grave dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Minister and the Government have dealt with the many problems facing the country in the field of health. I think the Dáil, by referring back this Estimate, would show its disapproval of the handling of the situation over the last year by the Minister and the Government of which he is a member. The Minister is responsible for one of the most important Departments in the State and he has under his control the expenditure of a very large amount of public money.

We listened to the Minister's statement to-day and to the many facts and figures he gave us illustrating the manner in which our health services are run and the extent to which the State helps in the running of these health services. The criticism we make of the Minister's statement is based mainly on what he has omitted from that statement and our chief criticism is directed towards his failure to deal with the many urgent matters in the field of health to which no reference was made at all to-day. The Minister and his colleagues have spent their time during the last year shadow-boxing with the problem of health. First of all, we had a White Paper on the proposed legislation. Subsequently, the Government backed down on many of the more important aspects in that White Paper and recently they brought in a Bill designed allegedly to carry out the principles upon which they asked the people to vote them into power in 1951.

In referring back this Estimate it isincumbent on us to show our disapproval of the manner in which the Minister and the Government have brought about the deadlock that exists at the moment between the Government and the medical profession. Their handling of that situation has been very inept. They are gradually moving into the position where real progress is becoming more and more difficult. I believe the present deadlock could have been avoided.

Another item calling for criticism is the inclusion by the Minister in the Vote for his Department this year of a sum of £4,500,000 as a Grant-in-Aid to the Hospitals' Trust Fund. I am not opposing in any way the extension of Exchequer aid to the Hospitals' Trust Fund but I must mark our disapproval of the inclusion of this sum of £4,500,000 for expenditure on a capital project without any indication of that when the Book of Estimates was first presented. We have been endeavouring to query various items in the Supply Services this year which we do not think it proper to meet out of taxation. It was part of the policy of the inter-Party Government that capital development could not be carried on if every item of a capital nature included in the Supply Services had to be met out of taxation. We believed that if the £9,000,000 odd provided for capital projects had to be met out of taxation, then only a certain proportion of that expenditure could be made if it had to be met by way of taxation. We adopted the principle, a very sound principle based on very sound finance, of segregating the two services. The present Government when in opposition attacked the inter-Party Government for doing that but none the less when they had an opportunity subsequently of bringing in a Budget they adopted the same principle. I sincerely hope they will adhere to that principle again this year and that the people will not be asked to pay taxation in the coming financial year for items that are clearly of a capital nature.

We have asked the Minister for the figures for the capital items included in the Book of Estimates and he has given us a sum of £9,300,000 but he didnot include in that sum this expenditure of £4,500,000 for hospital development. That is clearly an item of a capital nature. I think we are entitled to criticise the probity of bringing in on the Vote for the Minister's Department an item of £4,500,000 to be met by taxation in the coming financial year but which, on further examination, proves to be an item of a capital nature.

That is a matter for the Minister for Finance and not for the Minister for Health.

It will be a matter for the Minister for Finance when we come to discuss the Budget but this Estimate has been prepared by the Minister's Department and it is he who is responsible for it.

I think there must be general agreement of the urgent need for improvement in our health services. Many of the very important matters requiring consideration and immediate implementation have not been dealt with by the Minister this afternoon. Recently we had a discussion on the appalling condition of the dispensaries and we were informed by the Minister that it was hoped to improve that situation. So far no proper or effective steps have been taken to ensure that those attending dispensaries get the proper facilities. In 1951 over 800,000 attended the dispensaries throughout the country. Deputies who have experience of the City of Dublin know the conditions of some of the dispensaries here. Possibly rural Deputies have a worse tale to tell in relation to country dispensaries. In 1951 it was proposed to expend £2,500,000 on dispensaries but only £19,000 was actually spent. The proportion spent on developing dispensary facilities is altogether inadequate.

There is a point of view, and it is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy, that the dispensary system is a bad one. I cannot see any hope for the abolition of that system for many years. Experience in England has shown that one cannot do away with that system altogether. That, however, does not provide an excuse for not improving existing facilities sothat people will have a place in which to sit when they are waiting their turn, that doctors will have a couch on which to carry out examinations and that there is running water provided. I feel that it would not be too much to hope that a secretarial staff would be appointed at least to the larger dispensaries. In that way, much of the ordinary secretarial work which now takes up the time of doctors could be carried out by a secretary, even on a part-time basis.

We have had very little indication of what has been done in the past year to improve the nursing services and of what it is proposed to do to improve them still further in the future. We have read the startling statement published this year in the White Paper that 1,000,000 of our inhabitants avail themselves of public assistance services. The persons who come within the public assistance category have very little, if any, nursing services outside those provided in public assistance hospitals. There should be a follow-up system in respect of nurses from dispensaries and from child welfare clinics.

In his speech, the Minister referred to the appointment of specialists throughout the country. That is a matter which requires urgent attention. It is quite clear that there is far too much centralisation of specialist services in Dublin City—particularly in relation to pathology and radiography. Specialist services must be de-centralised into regions so that it will not be necessary to transfer patients to Dublin City—sometimes with the risk of grave danger to themselves—for services which should and could be given in regional hospitals or in some of the larger county hospitals.

Another aspect of the functions of the Minister's Department to which he did not refer—and one which requires urgent attention—is the provision of dental clinics throughout the country. Such provision at the moment is inadequate. Virtually little or no dental services are available for, as we now learn, the very large body of persons who come within the public assistance class.

Similarly, with regard to the school medical examination system. Anybody with experience in these matters is aware of the total inadequacy of the present system of school medical examination. There is at present before the Dáil a Bill to extend even further the class of persons who will come within the school medical examination service. No indication has been given of the efforts which have been made in the past or which will be made in the future to recruit staff for school medical examination purposes so that we shall not have what very frequently amounts to a mere formal examination by school medical officers once a year or thereabouts.

The Minister and his Department should give more attention to the matter of the provision of child welfare clinics. There is an Act in existence—an Act dating from 1918—which empowers local authorities to set up that type of clinic. Very few local authorities have availed themselves of the provisions of that Act. The child welfare clinic system has been developed very favourably in Dublin City. It is a great pity that more progress has not been made in this very important field of public health.

The general conclusions to be drawn from a review of our public health system are that we need more doctors, more school medical officers, more specialists in regional hospitals and more nurses in relation to the dispensary service and to the child welfare clinics. The recruitment of such staff is, to my mind, an urgent necessity. This Oireachtas could pass a Bill offering free medical services to every person in this State and it would be a dead letter from the date it went on the Statute Book if the facilities to give that aid were not available.

We are legislating—allegedly—to improve the health services at a time when our existing services are very poorly staffed and when the accommodation for persons who avail themselves of the dispensary system is inadequate. These matters require urgent attention by the Minister and his departmental advisers. I shouldlike to see a much greater volume of agreement in relation to these matters than has been possible heretofore. There are a number of general principles on which we are all agreed and on which members of the medical profession are agreed. I do not think there is anybody in this House and certainly I do not know of any member of the medical profession who does not desire very strongly an improvement in our health services. Since this State was founded, we have been endeavouring to bring about better social conditions for our people. In that period of 30 years, we have gone a long way towards bringing about a more Christian society but one of the most important problems has still to be solved—the problem of giving our people an efficient, improved and extended health service.

I think that the unfortunate handling of the situation by the Minister since he came into office almost two years ago is a matter on which we are entitled to comment adversely. It is most unfortunate that the attainment of the desirable end—on which we are all agreed—should be made all the more difficult by the fact that public health has now become a matter of politics. It should be possible to find a way out of the difficulty. I see no reason why there should be any antagonism between State services on the one hand and, on the other hand, the medical profession and the public voluntary hospitals: I see no reason why it should not be possible to get together to improve the facilities which the people of this country require.

I can see no reason why a proper council of health should not be established to advise the Minister. It could also do some administrative work and help to foster a spirit of amity in the discussions in relation to the provision of better health services for the community.

We are all aware that a council of health is in existence to-day. I do not know when last it met or what work it did. Certainly, if it met within the past year its work has been most ineffective. I think the Minister gave little or no regard to it and that itsfunctions are very nominal indeed. If that type of council of health is not suitable then a suitable one should be set up. The report of the Vocational Organisation Commission, some years ago, outlined a type of council of health which might do the sort of work which I have in mind. That recommendation in the report should perhaps be changed or modified to make it a more efficient and workmanlike body, but I think the blueprint is there and it should be carried out.

There is no necessity for the deadlock that has now come into existence between the State and the medical profession. There is no natural antagonism between the State and the medical profession or the State and the voluntary hospitals. The relationship between these three parties could be harmonised to the benefit of the community as a whole if representatives of these three interests in the community met together in a national council and worked out a proper method of handling our public health services.

We have the situation now in the country where the Hospitals' Trust Fund has become largely exhausted. I agree wholeheartedly with the decision of the last Government to spend the Hospitals' Trust money. In view of the depreciating currency, in view of the depreciating assets represented by that money, in view of the vital need for new hospital building of every type, that decision was a correct one. I, however, do not think it is a natural corollary to the spending of the Hospitals' Trust Fund on hospital building that we now have a situation where the State must control the voluntary hospitals. There is no principle at all involved. The State has given and does give substantial grants to various organisations and all it asks is that the amount requested is not excessive and that accounts are shown so that it can judge what sums should be granted to various bodies.

If it is alleged that the voluntary hospitals are inefficient, if it is alleged they are badly run or that they could be better run by the State, then there can be an argument for State control of the voluntary hospitals. But I havenot heard that argument yet and the experience which I have had is that the voluntary hospitals are playing a very important, and in the City of Dublin, a vital role in providing very efficient health services to the persons who avail of them. These are, of course, of their very nature voluntary institutions and until it can be shown and demonstrated very clearly that their work is inefficient or bad, there is no principle which should bring this House to nationalise the voluntary hospitals.

As I have said, there is no natural antagonism between our voluntary hospitals and the State, and the system of paying their deficits has been of great assistance to the voluntary hospitals. In the past couple of years many of these hospitals have been forced to realise some of their assets and past savings in order to meet their current deficits. If the Hospitals' Trust Fund was not available, these hospitals could not have carried on.

Up to now the deficits have been met not wholly but very largely by grants from the Hospitals' Trust Fund. A ceiling was put on the deficits of £400,000 and we are informed by the Minister that it was recently increased. I think it will have to be increased further and I should say incidentally— because it does not perhaps arise on this Estimate so much—it will have to be increased further because of the Government's financial policy. We are, therefore, faced with the necessity of increasing that ceiling to probably £600,000 a year if not more. It is still quite clear, however, that the annual income to the Hospitals' Trust Fund is sufficient to meet the current deficits of the voluntary hospitals unless they go well over the £1,000,000 mark and at present it is hoped, at any rate, they may be stabilised somewhere around the figure at which they are running at the present time.

There is, therefore, in my opinion, no need for one penny of that £4.5 million that is being voted now in this Estimate to the Hospitals' Trust Fund to be spent on the deficits of the voluntary hospitals. We have been told by the Minister that it is to be spent on hospital building and he has not told usthat a penny of that sum will be spent on making good the deficits of the voluntary hospitals. In this set of circumstances I do not think there is any principle involved and until it can be shown—and I think the onus will be very strongly on those who are alleging it—that our voluntary hospitals are inefficient, that they are not giving proper services and consequently could be more efficient and could give better services if they were under the control of the State, the State is not justified in nationalising them. I think we should be glad because of the great and indeed noble work that the voluntary hospitals have been doing in the past to mitigate the misfortunes of ill-health which have come to the members of our community.

There are many aspects of our public health services which require improvement. They will not be improved by passing the Health Bill of 1953 into operation. They will be improved by an energetic Minister for Health with the drive to recruit the necessary staff, with the drive to see what are the services that need most improvement and the facilities which require to be extended. They will not be improved, either, by the situation which has now developed through the administration by the present Minister of his Department over the last year and more and the deadlock between the medical profession and the State. The time has now come to face the problem of improving our public health services by trying to get agreement between the State, the medical profession and the voluntary hospitals.

I can see no reason why there should be any difficulty in reaching that agreement. I believe all parties to such an agreement would be anxious to see better public health facilities in this country and, as I have indicated, the proper way to bring about such an improved situation would be the establishment of a national health council.

I should like first of all to congratulate Deputy Costello on his approach to this Estimate. I think one can gather from his speech that he is in agreement with the necessityfor improving the health services, and he has given expression to a criticism of conditions that exist at the moment which I certainly welcome. It was, perhaps, a fortuitous circumstance that brought him into the position of moving that this Estimate be referred back.

Having said that, I think that Deputy Costello realises that any deadlock that exists between the State and the medical profession is not of the Minister's making, and that if any person has done everything within his power to end such a deadlock it is the Minister. But, apparently, for some reason or other, the medical profession seem to think that no legislation passed by this House, or no efforts made by the Government to improve the health services, will have their co-operation unless they dictate the terms. We should be perfectly clear on the position, and it should be perfectly clear to the general public where the responsibility lies if there is any such deadlock and if that deadlock results in any delay in putting into operation efficient health services for the people.

As far as the House is concerned, and if we are to take the viewpoint that has been expressed by Deputy Costello as being the viewpoint of the Party that he belongs to, then it would appear that that Party, as well as the Fianna Fáil Party and other Parties desire an improvement in the health services: that we want better dispensaries, more doctors, more nursing staff, and that we want a general reorganisation of the health services that will ensure that those services really benefit the people.

I think that if we can discuss this Estimate in that atmosphere, we may find at the end—and I think it would be a very good thing that it should be so realised by the medical profession outside—that there is general agreement in this House in regard to the necessity for improving the health services, and that if the medical profession want to be in a deadlock with anybody they are in a deadlock with this House, and not only in a deadlock with the Minister as they try to maintain.

Deputy Costello's speech was a very severe criticism of the health services as they exist, and it was no less severe because it was expressed in mild terms. If that is the position and if there is general agreement in this House that there must be an improvement, then I think it would be much better for the representatives of the medical profession outside to give up this trailing of the coat, this bellicose attitude which they are adopting, and this attitude of non-co-operation. They have condemned the Health Bill, apparently, lock, stock and barrel. They say they are not going to operate it, but every other section in the community must obey the law and must co-operate with the lawfully elected Government. The medical profession apparently think they are not to be required to do that.

I am glad that the Minister and the Government have taken the step of ensuring that the very large amounts of money that are necessary to improve the health services will be made available, and I hope that no political capital will be sought to be made by anybody because the bill for health services is going to be as big as it is. Deputy Costello has faced the situation, that it is necessary, if we are to have efficient health services, that we must spend the amount of money which the Minister says he requires. There is some difference on details, and perhaps a substantial difference, as to whether portion of that money should be borrowed or whether it all should be provided out of taxation year by year.

That is a matter we can discuss at another time, but the position is that as far as the people of the country are concerned, they require better health services than we have and they are prepared to pay for those health services.

When the Minister had conferences with the representatives of the local authorities a scare was sought to be created and, in fact, was created when the Minister gave to the representatives of those local councils an idea of how much the new Health Bill would cost the ratepayers. As far as I can judge, after one of those conferences,Deputy Sweetman, who is the Whip of the Fine Gael Party, rushed into publicity with the suggestion that the improved health services under the new Health Bill would place a very substantial burden on the rates. We had from that on, in certain newspapers and in certain local councils and from certain uninformed and unintelligent people, very severe criticism of the improved health services, severe criticism of the Minister and of the Government for introducing, or suggesting, legislation that would put some burden on the rates and on the ratepayers of the country.

How foolish that attitude and that campaign was can now be seen. There is no objection that I can see either to the Health Bill, which the Minister has brought in, or to the Estimate that he has before the House this evening. If there will be criticism it will be that not enough money is being spent on health services and that the Government are not invested with sufficient power and authority to ensure that the most efficient health services are available for the community.

In this discussion on health services it is better that the matter should be approached in a realistic way with everybody contributing his best in the general interest than that it should be made the play toy of Party politics.

I agree with Deputy Costello that the voluntary hospitals have in the past contributed a good deal to ensuring that we had better health but, like everything else, the voluntary hospital system has had to be buttressed for a number of years and is now being further buttressed by the provision that is being made for it here. In the long run a time will be reached when it cannot be buttressed any longer.

The responsibility for ensuring the good health of the people is undoubtedly a responsibility of Government. In my view the voluntary hospitals, as they are termed, should be State hospitals and should be completely under the control of the State, to ensure that the best services that can be provided will be available for the community as a whole.

As Deputy Costello says, there can be grounds for argument about that.I have given my view. He takes the view that he has not been convinced that that would be an improvement. At least, he takes the view that it can be argued. It is a great development in this House that we have the leading spokesman of Fine Gael in this debate agreeing that this is a matter that can be argued, discussed and decided in this House.

Deputy Larkin in the speech he made on the Second Reading of the Health Bill gave expression to views which coincide entirely with my views in regard to health. He gave expression to views which coincide, I think, with the views of the majority of Deputies. That is a welcome development.

Marvellous progress has been made in the last couple of years in regard to the consideration of problems such as this. When we begin to review the history of our approach to problems such as this a very high tribute will be paid, justifiably, to the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Dr. Noel Browne. Our education in regard to matters of this kind has been very rapid in the past couple of years and for that we are deeply grateful to Deputy Dr. Noel Browne.

Medical equipment at the moment is very expensive. The people are entitled to the best medical equipment and the best medical facilities that can be obtained. The voluntary hospitals, because of their peculiar constitution and their methods of finance, are not in the best position to be able to acquire all the up-to-date equipment they need if the health of the people is to be maintained at the high level at which it should be maintained. There is no one in this small State, so far as I can see, that can provide that expensive equipment and those expensive facilities except the State. When such expensive facilities and equipment are obtained, they should be available to every person in the State no matter who he or she may be. There should be no question of what money that person has, no investigation of means, if it is a question of ensuring that those facilities are made available. We have not reachedthat position yet. The Minister has gone a certain distance in that direction. He has not gone far enough. Our education and our progress have been rapid and if education and progress continue at the present rate the defects in the legislation and in the proposed legislation will be overcome in the very near future.

I can never understand the attitude of mind which dictates that, if a person is to be healed, that person's income, his bank balance, if any, must be investigated. In this particular season of the year most people read about the miraculous cures and the instances of healing and even of the dead being brought to life. No one will find in that story the question being put: "What money have you got? If you have enough money, I will not cure you. If you have enough money I will not bring you to life". That is not in the story. Where the person asked to be healed he was healed. Now we are told that it is ungodly to provide free medical attention if it can be ascertained that the person has a few pounds stored away somewhere. However, we are making considerable progress. Criticism that was expressed here or in the country two years ago would not be expressed to-day and certainly that is a wonderful and a rapid advance.

We need more doctors and better facilities for them. We need decent dispensaries where the couch and the running water that Deputy Costello spoke about will be provided, but we also need a somewhat different outlook in regard to the people who attend these dispensaries—that they will be treated as human beings when they go there and that every courtesy and care will be shown to them. One has only to go into the public out-patients department of some of our big voluntary hospitals in the city to see the way in which the unfortunate people are treated—not because the staffs want to treat them unfairly but because the facilities are not available and cannot be available under the present system. The number of doctors necessary is not available and when poor unfortunate people go in there with their children—I have seen itmyself—they have to spend hours, the best part of the day, before there is anyone to see what is wrong with them. I came across a case only recently of an injured child brought into a voluntary hospital who was turned away and told to report to another hospital without any examination at all. Undoubtedly that was due to some neglect on the part of the person before whom that injured child was brought. There is need of a revolution in our attitude of mind to those who attend dispensaries and public clinics in our voluntary and general hospitals. It will require very active effort by all of us to see that that revolution in thought and in action is brought about.

As Deputy Costello said, we need more specialised facilities all over the country in regional hospitals. I mentioned this matter on the Vote for Health on other occasions in the past four or five years. We need the very best specialists in suitable centres throughout the country so that they will be quickly available in case of emergency to assist those excellent surgeons and doctors in county hospitals. One realises in the big Dublin hospitals how important in an operation it is to have an experienced anaesthetist. Down the country we have the local surgeon trying to do the operation himself and trying, as anaesthetist also, to keep the patient alive during the period he is doing that serious operation. I have spoken to some of these surgeons and they explained to me how unfair it was to have that responsibility put on them. I hope it will not be very long until these specialised services are made available for all our surgeons in the county hospitals to assist them in performing their operations.

Deputy Costello referred to our nurses. We need more nurses but we also need a system of justice for them. They are not being paid as they should be paid, the facilities that should be available for them are not available and unfortunately in some of the voluntary hospitals they get very short shrift if they happen to disagree with some of the people who have no medical or nursing training but who happen tobe in charge of them. This city was shocked a couple of years ago by the dismissal of nurses from one of the voluntary hospitals. On the breakfast plate there was a short typed notice——

I do not think that would arise on this Estimate.

If I cannot raise it on this Estimate, where can I raise it? We are providing £4,500,000 additional and also quite a lot of other moneys for these hospitals.

It is not the function of the Chair to say where it should arise, but it does not arise on this Estimate.

It has been stated —very properly—by Deputy Costello that we need to recruit more nurses. They must receive ordinary elementary justice: if we do not provide that, they will not come. We want to recruit them and we cannot expect them to come and remain if they can get better conditions and treatment only a few short miles away. Nurses who object to directions not signed or given properly to them are summarily dismissed out of one of our Dublin hospitals—not inexperienced or inefficient nurses but experienced and efficient nurses. Our nurses have one request—to be treated as an ordinary worker in the matter of justice. They have no organisation, apparently, to protect them. They devote their lives to the service of the people, yet they are treated that way in one of our voluntary hospitals. In my view, that is entirely wrong. I know the Minister cannot yet do anything about it.

If the Minister is not responsible, the Deputy should not discuss it on the Estimate.

He is not responsible at the moment, but if the system I advocate were in operation he would be responsible and he would ensure that nurses received justice.

Now give us the other side of the story.

I am not permitted. There is only one side of the story.

It is completely out of order.

I am prepared to give the whole story. It is a scandalous story as far as the hospital is concerned. I will give the whole story if the House requires it.

And if the Chair allows it.

Yes. We need to recruit more nurses but we must ensure that they are treated properly, fairly and justly and it is only by giving them that fair, honest and just treatment that we can expect to get from them the nursing and skilled services that the community should have.

The debate opened on a general note of agreement and I am glad that this subject can be discussed in this way. I would avail of the opportunity to suggest to the Medical Association that they should get down off their high horse and co-operate with the Minister. They shot their bolt when we were dealing with the mother and child scheme introduced by Deputy Dr. Browne. Many bolts were shot at that time but the people generally through the country and, because of that particular controversy have learned many things. They will insist on adequate and efficient medical facilities and an efficient health service and we are on the way to have those. There are many grounds of criticism of the voluntary hospitals, of the health services as they are, and of our rotten dispensaries. I have heard no more severe critic in this House of some of these dispensaries than Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. But, with a measure of goodwill and co-operation on all our parts and a measure of determination we can remove all the institutions we are ashamed of and put in their place more efficient and better institutions. That is our duty here.

I welcome the increase in the health Estimate. I would vote for a muchlarger increase in the Estimate to ensure the good health of the people and to guarantee that every person in the State who needed medical facilities would have those facilities when he needed them to improve his health without means test of any kind. If we can approach this problem in a sensible way, then the matters in regard to the nationalisation of the hospitals and of the medical services will fall into their proper place and will be brought about in the not very distant future.

I should like to put before the House some views I have on what type of a health service this country wants and for which it is, in my opinion, prepared to pay. Any scheme which will win the approval of the vast majority of the people must be, I suggest, a scheme that will permit all classes to avail themselves of the service without any loss of pride or dignity. It is most important for a successful scheme that it will appeal to all classes or to the great majority of classes and that it will be freely available to these classes. It should be a scheme which will provide the best medical skill in the country for all the people, irrespective of cost. It should be a scheme that will aim at improving the present health of the people, that will prevent the spread of disease and that will cure disease. I will try within these limits to give my views on how such a scheme should be financed, what it should cover, and the type of service it should give. A scheme that will embrace all without loss of pride or dignity must be one under which the services will be given to the people as a right and not as a charity. It must be neither a red-ticket scheme nor a white-ticket scheme and must be without the taint of the poor law system. There must be no public confessions of inability to pay in order to qualify. It is much better that some people who are able to pay should secure free services than that many who need the services should, because of their position or pride or dignity, go without them for themselves and their families because they are not prepared to make this public confession of inability to pay.

People in this country are being blackmailed into paying or going into debt for medical services which they are unable to pay for out of the wages they earn. Take the case of a bank clerk in a small country town. Under the proposed new scheme, if he paid £1 a year so that his wife would qualify under the maternity section of it, he would immediately be brought before his manager and told that because of that action he had brought humiliation on himself and indirectly on the bank.

Has he not his own medical scheme already?

Take a man in a more or less similar position who is working for a private firm in a small town or in a city and who has not the benefit of any medical scheme. I will take a town because in a town people know more about each other's affairs. In a small city or in a big town that man cannot because of the very nature of his position freely admit that it is necessary for him to pay a qualifying contribution in order to provide the services that it is his duty to provide for himself and for his family. Anyone who has experience of that knows that what I am saying is perfectly true. There are many people who have gone into debt to provide medical services for themselves and their families, services they could ill-afford. On the other hand, many people have failed to provide such services because they are not prepared to make a public confession of their inability to pay and so qualify under the present health services.

The solution, I believe, is to compel all people to pay some proportion towards a health services scheme. If each of us had to contribute to a scheme we would at least have the face-saving device of being able to say that we are entitled to avail of the services provided because we contribute towards the provision of those services. Workers could make that contribution through the medium of their social welfare contributions. Farmers could be based on their poor law valuation. Shopkeepers and others could be assessed on an incomebasis and the contribution stopped at the source.

As far as the Government is concerned such contributions would be welcome ones. As far as the people are concerned they would be welcome, too, because the people never want charity. The people are prepared to pay as far as lies within their means. In the proposed new Bill qualification is optional. The mere fact that a person is prepared to pay a fee indicates that that person is desirous of his own volition to qualify under the scheme. He is admitting that he is not able to pay for the health services he requires. If the scheme were compulsory people who were compelled to pay for medical services would decide to avail of such services. Compulsion would ensure also that all types would avail of the best services the country could afford and we would do away with poor law, red tickets and white tickets. The people would be content in the knowledge that they and their families would not suffer because of lack of money.

This nation not only can but must afford such a scheme. The best brains available must be procured. The best hospitals and the best equipment must be provided. Once this House decides on that principle the question of providing the money will be solved without any great difficulty. Compulsory contributions would be a big factor in the running of such a health service and the people will be quite willing to pay whatever contribution is necessary because they will know that in the future the best medical services and health services generally will cost them nothing. In an average household at the moment, consisting of a man, his wife and two or three children, medical services can very easily amount to £10 or £15 in the year. Workers will be content to pay a substantially increased contribution in the future so long as they know that health services in the future will be free, that their health requirements will be fully met and that they will get the most skilled attention that can be provided.

All that will probably mean increased taxation. If the Labour Party is convincedthat the purpose for which taxation is required is a good one that Party is prepared to support the imposition of such taxation. I suggest that a national scheme on a regional basis, such as that suggested, will in the long run ensure a saving on individual health schemes from the point of view of local authority administration. There is at the moment duplication of hospitals and duplication of medical staff. If health services were run on a properly co-ordinated regional basis there would be a considerable saving in so far as local authorities are concerned and the local bodies would be quite willing to allow the money they are spending now to go forward into a common pool. I would like to pay tribute to local authorities, including that of County Waterford, for the services they are providing. In County Waterford the services are as good as could be got anywhere.

Part of the present social welfare administration should really form part of the Department of Health. How can we hope to improve the health of our people if practically one-third of the population is in the lower income group, if practically one-third is unemployed? I speak especially of the women and the children. No young child and no mother should be deprived of what nourishment they require for their development. I have here a copy of the National Nutrition Survey. Part III of that survey consists of a dietary survey of large and small towns. On page 10 we read:—

"In Tables 7B and 16B, which give the percentages of requirements obtained when the classification is according to expenditure on food, calcium stands out as a nutrient whose intake was not completely satisfactory. In the lowest group on Table 7B, where the expenditure on food was below 10/- per diet-head weekly, only 59 per cent. of the calculated requirement was obtained, and even where the expenditure was between 10/- and 15/- the figure was still 12 per cent. short of a satisfactory intake."

In the second next paragraph we read:—

"The intake of calories in both large and small towns fell short of estimated requirements in the lowest expenditure group and the measure of the deficiency was fairly alike in both cases. ... It follows that since these figures are averages, covering considerable numbers of people, there must have been in both groups several families whose intake of calories fell substantially short of their estimated requirements."

Part V of the National Nutrition Survey deals with a dietary survey of farm workers' families. In the summary on page 11, we read the following:—

"The consumption of meat, milk, eggs, vegetables and fruit increased consistently as income increased, and decreased with almost equal consistency as the number of persons in the family increased."

In other words, those who have the money to buy food can get enough of what they require to eat and those who have not enough money must do without.

If we are to be serious about a health scheme we must not only ensure that foods are available but also that the money to buy the foods is provided within the health scheme. That matter is at the moment under the Department of Social Welfare. I suggest that, in any future health scheme, that section of the Department of Social Welfare should be transferred to the Department of Health.

During the war, when foods were scarce, the British Government saw to it that certain vitamins and certain foods which were not in plentiful supply were made available to mothers and children under a certain age. It has now been discovered that, instead of having a weaker race as a result of the food shortages which were experienced during the war years, Britain's young boys and girls of to-day are of an improved standard, from the point of view of health, compared with children who were brought up in the pre-war years.

I was interested in what the Minister had to say in his introductory speech on the subject of infant morality. As will be seen at column 1622 of the Official Report of the 17th July, 1951, Volume 126, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, in reply to a question by me, informed me that in 1950 the mortality of infants under two years was practically double that of infants under two years in Great Britain. Our infant mortality rate was higher than that of England, Wales or Scotland. Is not that a shocking state of affairs? A good deal of infant mortality is attributable either to a lack of proper food or care and attention for the mother during the period of her pregnancy or to the lack of proper nourishment for the child during the vital first year of its life. The provision of good homes and shelter for our people plays a vast and important part in improving the health of our people. Thank God, we are tackling that problem.

On the question of the prevention of disease, I suggest an extension of the school medical examination service and a general X-ray check-up for boys, girls and adults. At this point, I should like to pay a tribute to Dr. Deeney, who has inaugurated a general check-up on T.B. He and his staff have been going through the country and checking-up on town after town. He did an excellent job in my own home town with the aid of his staff and of some voluntary Red Cross workers. He has now reached the stage where he has cleared up the question of who needs medical attention from that angle and who does not. I understand that he proposes to keep in touch for a number of years with the people who need medical attention. An extensive B.C.G. vaccination scheme was carried out with his co-operation. The motto "prevention is better than cure" should be borne in mind in any health scheme which we may have in this country.

To safeguard the health of our people, full medical attention and suitable appliances are imperative. As a member of the Labour Party, I should have no hesitation in giving the fullest powers to a Minister for the carrying out of any regulations which he considersnecessary for public health. It is stupid and foolish to talk about the liberty of the subject when, by giving that individual liberty, he will endanger the health of others. I suggest that that is not liberty but licence. I shall also be prepared to support any Minister for Health or any officials of Health so long as I am satisfied that their actions, however distasteful they may seem, are necessary in the interests of public health.

On the 18th March last, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare for certain information in connection with the sale of second-hand clothing. The question was as follows:—

"To ask the Minister for Health if there are any regulations to ensure that second-hand clothing offered to the public by second-hand clothing dealers are not carriers of some infectious disease; and, if so, what steps are being taken to have these regulations carried out in respect of hawkers who sell second-hand clothing on public market places on fair days."

I am not at all satisfied with the reply which I received and I will give the Minister my reasons. The reply was as follows:—

"Under the Infectious Diseases Regulations, 1948, the chief medical officer of the health authority, if he thinks it necessary to prevent the spread of infection, may require the destruction or the disposal in a specified manner, of any infected, infested or dirty substance, or any article which has been exposed to infection or infestation. It is considered that this gives the chief medical officer ample power to take action when it is deemed that second-hand clothes offered for sale may lead to the spread of infection.

The regulations prohibit the importation of articles of second-hand clothing from abroad unless they have been effectually disinfected."

I am not dealing particularly with the last paragraph in connection with clothing coming in from abroad but it is impossible for the medical officer of health of any county to keep such close tabs on infected houses whereclothing may come in contact with infected people that he could so order the destruction of the clothing even through his officials and through the reports which are necessarily made to him. The officials would be unable to determine which clothing was infected.

I suggest this as a way to deal with the problem, that either a regulation be made by the Minister that no article of second-hand clothing be permitted to be offered for sale without having attached to it some mark that will indicate that it was, and has been certified as, disinfected and is absolutely clear of infection. It could be a brand or a mark and you could have public disinfection centres in a county. Anyone exposing for sale second-hand clothing which did not carry this mark or certificate of disinfection would be made liable to prosecution and the police authorities would have power to deal with the case.

Take the case of a jumble sale which I saw taking place some weeks ago. It was carried out with all good intentions in aid of charity. Second-hand clothing was collected around by boy scouts. Without any examination or tests of any sort, it was offered for sale and could quite possibly spread infection throughout an area. I suggest it is stupid for us and it is a waste of time to try to cure disease when we do not take the simple steps to prevent its spread.

I disapprove equally of the practice down the country of holding cattle fairs in streets where there are butchers shops, bakeries and other food stores. I know that the local authorities have power to stop it, that they can provide a fair green, but I would suggest that the Minister should use the powers he has to compel those of us who are in the local authorities and who are not advanced enough in thought and in the interests of public health to provide such a fair green. I am quite satisfied you would have very little objection from the farming side and certainly very little from the ordinary townspeople, but I am equally satisfied you would have grave objection from certain shopkeepers who would believethey would lose a certain amount of trade because of that change. However, if things are unpleasant and if criticism must be levelled at somebody in the public interest, we should do it.

Another means of preventing disease is the inspection of our factories. I am not quite sure whose function it is at present; perhaps it is the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I know there is a system of inspection at present but I would suggest that the visits are few and far between. If it is not under the Minister at the moment, I think it should be part of the functions of his Department. The number of inspections should be increased. Without in any way wishing to make any adverse comment on our Irish industries, I wish to say—the Minister may be as well aware of this as I am—that many of these industries were started in haste with little capital. They were started in old buildings which were not entirely suitable for factories at all.

No doubt the best that could be done has been done but they need considerable improvement from the point of view of the health of the workers, and the hygiene which is so necessary for their health. I would suggest that a more thorough and frequent inspection is absolutely essential for the prevention of disease. We leave the curing of disease to our medical people but it is our duty to provide new buildings, up-to-date hospitals with up-to-date equipment. I welcome the fact that the Minister is prepared to give £4,500,000 towards that provision. He will never find the Labour Party disagreeing with any effort to put money into providing better health services.

There is one point in connection with our hospitals and that is the question of staff. I am in agreement with other Deputies who said that the staff manning our hospitals and catering for the sick are in no way getting the measure of justice they deserve. I could tell the Minister of individual hospitals at present under his control where there is one toilet, one bathroom for half a dozen nurses and 20 female attendants. These 20 female attendants are crowded into a barnlike dormitory without even a partitionto give them privacy. I am aware that the local authority is now making provision for an improvement in that direction. However, under our local authority, if an employer had such conditions, he would be hauled before the courts and prosecuted, and we calmly go on and speak about health services for the people while the very people who are to implement our health services are not even given an opportunity themselves to be clean in person or in habits.

I am afraid I must disagree with the Minister when he indicated that the midwives of the dispensary areas are very lucky people, that they are in receipt of a large sum of money for doing a small amount of work. He stated, as far as I remember, that the average for the year was 17 cases. On Thursday, 12th July, 1951, I asked the Minister for Health:—

"... if he will state the salary, including all allowances, of midwives who are employed by local authorities and the usual conditions of employment such as hours of duty holidays, etc."

The Minister's answer was:—

"Midwives employed by public assistance authorities are part-time officers. Their salary, inclusive of temporary bonus and uniform allowance, rises from a minimum of £140 to a maximum of £160 per annum. The period of annual leave granted to these officers is a matter for decision by the local authorities concerned, but in a recent circular to these bodies it was suggested that a period of four weeks should be allowed in all districts.

The hours of duty of midwives are not fixed—their services are available as required to patients entitled to them. The number of cases attended by the midwives varies from district to district. The highest number dealt with in any dispensary district, according to returns furnished in respect of the half-year ended 31st March last, was 80, but there were two midwives in that district. In only 16 districts did the number exceed 30 and the general average was 12."

A general average of 12 for a half year is, to my mind, an average of 24 for the year. Perhaps it has varied this year but I would point out that for each case there is a possible attendance of once at least and possibly more for a period of ten days, that that midwife very often has to travel a distance of eight, ten or even 12 miles. She has to travel in all weathers and at all times to attend cases when a demand is made for her services. In some years if the actual number of cases attended by her were divided by her salary, the result might show that she was getting an extraordinary amount per case. But it has to be remembered that her services must be available all day and all night when required. In other words she is a 24 hour per day person. We all realise that the duties she performs are of the utmost importance, and that a great responsibility rests on her.

I have indicated that she has to travel at her own expense to attend cases in all sorts of weather. The local authority of which I am a member asked for permission from the Minister to provide her with a travelling allowance of £50 a year. So far sanction has not been received. I take this opportunity of now putting the matter before the Minister. Everyone realises what an important service the midwives render to the wives of our agricultural, county council and other workers. It is time, I think, that some appreciation was shown of the service they give. It is well known that, in many districts at the moment, it is almost impossible to get a midwife because the salary offered for the position is too low. I cannot say that I agree with the Minister's opening statement in so far as it related to the midwives attached to our dispensaries.

I want to refer to a matter that I raised in 1950. It related to the provision of homes for mentally defective children. I had hoped that the Minister would have dealt with that in greater detail in his speech to-day. I know that it is almost impossible at the present time to get a vacancy in a home for one of these children. What ever health services are providedshould include ample provision for them. If necessary, more homes should be provided. I am sure that no person in this House would begrudge the spending of more money on a service such as that. The desire of every Deputy would be that, whatever money is needed, should be spent in making provision for those poor children so that they might be as happy as God permits in their present sad state.

I had hoped that the Health Bill, which will be before the House in a short time, would show a big improvevent on the services we have at present. I am afraid my hopes have been dashed somewhat. My expectation was that we would get away, as far as possible, from the idea "How much have you before I can tell you what service you can get?" The position is that there is a means test in practically every line of this new Bill. In fact, I think it is going to worsen instead of better the services in my constituency. At present a member of a local authority or a warden under a board of public assistance has the power to issue a red ticket because he honestly believes that the applicant is lawfully entitled to be provided free with the medical service he requires. Under the new Bill it is an official who is to act in that capacity. He will be acting in the name of the county manager. I believe that the efforts of those officials and of the county managers will be directed towards restricting the availability of medical services to as few as possible. They will be in a position to have information not only with regard to a man's means but of those of his children. Suppose, for example, a child of mine has £100 saved up in the Post Office, the position, I gather, will be that I would not be entitled to free medical service for any of the other members of my family.

I do not know whether we will be able to induce the Minister, on the Committee Stage, to alter that provision. I hope, when we make the attempt, that we will have the support of Deputy Cowan because in his speech to-day he was completely against a means test. He complained that peoplewere criticised for availing of these services at the present time because they had a few pounds tucked away. Under the new Bill, there will be something more than criticism for having a few pounds tucked away. People in that position who attempt to avail of these services will render themselves liable to a fine not exceeding £25. I wonder how will Deputy Cowan view that provision? I certainly will support him if he tries to have it removed. I suggest to the Minister that he should introduce an amendment to make the scheme as free and as easily available as possible. If he is prepared to do that he will have my support and the support of our Party.

The health of our people is the really important consideration. We are spending millions of pounds on the Defence Forces. I believe that another £2,000,000 is to be spent on new defensive weapons. I suggest that, instead of spending money on these purposes, we should spend it on our people in their fight against deprivations, want and disease. That, I suggest, is what we should direct our attention to. If the Minister imposes compulsory contributions on all of us, if he increases taxation for the purpose of improving the health of the people, for the prevention of spread of disease and the cure of those who are ill, then I for one will say that he has done a good job.

I welcome the Minister's very enlightened outlook on trying to improve the health services of our people. The Minister, I know, has a very hard job in trying to please everybody by meeting all the demands that are made on his Department by the local authorities and the voluntary hospitals. We, as members of this House, are faced with one broad principle, and that is whether or not we are going to stand up to our responsibilities and so help to try and improve the health of our people. We have touched only the fringe of things over the last few years. The advances made by the present Minister for Health are worthy of the support of the House. Anything that he can do to improve health standards will be welcomed by the people.

Deputies made the suggestion to-day that the public health services were made a political matter. I do not see how that applies in the case of a Minister who is handling these services in the way that the present Minister, Dr. Ryan, is handling them. He has tried to meet the criticism of all sections, even of those who allege that their position would be worsened if the Minister took certain decisions. I refer to the medical profession. Any decision that the Minister or that we as a Party had to take was taken in the best interests of the majority of the people and was taken only after serious consideration of the various problems.

The Minister is endeavouring to place at the disposal of every man and woman in the State first-class medical treatment, treatment that heretofore was beyond the means of a great number. People who are regarded as being in the middle class group were very often faced with big hospital and doctors' bills which they were unable to pay. Such medical expenses represented a millstone around the necks of people such as small traders, small farmers, white-collar workers. The poorer sections had one class of treatment available to them. A levelling up is due in such matters.

The Minister-piloted the Health Bill through its Second Reading in a most diplomatic, honourable way. He has tried to be helpful to all sections, even to those who are critical of him. I am sure that wisdom and common sense will prevail and that it will be realised that any decision taken by the Minister is in the interests of the majority of the people.

In many cases people will not go to hospital until they are in dying condition and very often will refuse to go to certain hospitals. Economics come into this matter. Specialist treatment is very often beyond the means of a patient. The provisions of this Bill will encourage people to avail of treatment in time and will obviate any embarrassment.

The Regional Sanatoria Act of 1945 is producing the results that we anticipated and is providing centralisedspecialist treatment for people suffering from T.B. The advances made in that connection merit the highest praise. Formerly, there was a tendency on the part of people who contracted T.B. to cloak that fact. There is a more enlightened view on that matter now and people are more ready to present themselves for treatment.

The introduction of mass radiography has proved to be very beneficial in discovering unsuspected cases of T.B. That service should be availed of universally. Recently I met a young man who told me, jokingly, that he was going for X-ray with a few other lads. The X-ray revealed that one of his lungs was very badly affected. The Minister is to be complimented on having this work carried out.

I notice that the demand from the voluntary hospitals for Hospitals' Trust Funds is becoming larger each year. The Minister has indicated that he is trying to deal with that matter. The Hospitals' Trust Fund cannot last for ever. The voluntary hospitals are not getting private subscriptions to the same extent as they did formerly. Their costs have increased. From my experience of the voluntary hospitals with which I have been associated I can say that they have been very well organised and administered by the governors.

I would ask the Minister to do everything in his power to encourage local authorities to provide suitable dispensaries in their areas and to remove those dispensaries that are in an insanitary condition. The provision of suitable dispensaries represents a big problem. The Minister will have a big job in trying to inculcate a more enlightened view in certain local authorities. Many dispensaries are in such a bad condition that it is almost impossible to give medical treatment in them. It is humiliating to the patient to have to attend at such places. A number of dispensaries have been built over the year, but there is need for more. This responsibility lies largely on local authorities, and they should do everything in their power to see that clean, up-to-date dispensaries are available for the proper treatment of our people.

Our county homes are still suffering from that cloud that they inherited from a foreign Power. They have definitely improved under our native Government but I would like, if this State could afford it, to see every stone removed and those county homes put in some other place. St. Kevin's Hospital in Dublin is one of the most up-to-date hospitals in the city, where there is first-class treatment, but there are still many people in the county who say: "If I have to go to St. Kevin's, I would prefer to stay at home." That is the feeling still, notwithstanding what the Department and the local authority have done to make it a first-class hospital. That feeling is still there, due to history, due to something beyond our control. I ask the Minister again to get local authorities to do everything possible to continue with the reconditioning of these old county homes, to eliminate the last stigma, to disperse the cloud that they inherited.

I am coming to a point now which was raised by other speakers. While grants have been given to provide proper treatment for mental defectives, there is still a large number on the waiting list for admission to one institution or another. While we have tried to improve our health services in other ways and have done our best on this side, too, we are still a long way behind. People have come to me from time to time and I have approached a number of homes for mental defectives, but I am told there is still a waiting list of some hundreds for admission to these homes. The Minister said to-day that certain wings have been built to the homes and I welcome that very much, as there was great need for it. There is a more enlightened viewpoint now and our people are anxious to get mental defectives away to a home, where previously they kept them at home if they were not troublesome. They are trying to get them away now so that they may become reasonable citizens themselves and not be a trouble to other people in years to come. I am delighted that enlightened public opinion has brought that about.

Unfortunately, there is a number of small children in mental hospitals to-day as there is no place for them in other institutions. It is a very bad state of affairs when we have not any place for these very small children other than a mental hospital. I appeal to the Minister to do anything possible —and I am sure I am pushing an open door in that respect—and to incur any expense necessary in order to deal with mental defectives or children who need accommodation and treatment.

The outdoor clinics set up under the 1945 Mental Treatment Act should be availed of a good deal more. Earlier treatment of that particular disease may be responsible for a number of people not having to go to mental hospitals at all for treatment later on. Unfortunately, it is like tuberculosis was years ago—people shun it and cloak it until the man or woman is too bad. In such cases it is hard for any Minister to do anything, but by enlightening public opinion we could encourage more people to avail of earlier treatment. We have in this country a number of trained psychiatrists, mental experts whose services are available for advice and consultation in any of the clinics set up under the 1945 Act. The more enlightened treatment to-day is definitely having good results and a number of persons are enjoying good health outside to-day who would not have it otherwise. I hope the 1945 Act will continue to give the results it was anticipated it would give when it was first introduced.

I want to go back now to an old burning question, a hardy annual of mine—cancer. Anything that can be done by the intelligent efforts of our State—or by States combining together—should be done for the relief of those suffering from that dreaded disease. The Minister for Health has made an advance during the year and has opened a cancer centre recently in Dublin. He has a Cancer Consultative Council working to see what they can do to advise him. They have travelled throughout the countries where cancer treatment has been advanced and where experimental cancer treatment has been carried out, with a view to getting the most up-to-date instrumentsto deal with this scourge. All the enlightened countries in the world could pool their resources and scientists during the war to manufacture weapons of destruction, but when it comes to curing a dreaded disease the story is different.

Here in this country more and more people are dying from cancer. What is the cause of it? I do not know, but a number of causes are alleged. As a result of the enlightened outlook and enlightened treatment, we have definitely got a hold on tuberculosis and tuberculosis is definitely on the decline. On the other hand, it may be that through more enlightenment now we have found out that people are dying from cancer in certain cases where years ago we did not know that. We have come to the point where we know definitely that these people are dying from cancer—cancer of the blood, ordinary cancer, cancer of the lungs, cancer every place on the body. We have not advanced very much at all in that regard.

There are two hospitals here for cancer patients with a great record behind them. Hume Street and the Northbrook Road hospital. They have done a tremendous amount of good work. A number of our surgeons because of their genius and excellent work are responsible for saving the lives of many of our people. If people are taken in time they can very often be cured of cancer. That dread disease is a scourge at the moment. Doctors allege that many things are responsible for the disease. The eradication or the cure of this disease will take a considerable amount of money and, if the Minister makes that money available, he will be serving the country well.

We have a Cancer Research Council here. Some of the leading men in other countries should be asked to advise us here in order to discover if it is possible to eliminate this disease. All the equipment necessary and all the most up-to-date instruments should be at the disposal of our doctors and surgeons here to combat this affliction of our people. During the last month four friends of mine, comparatively young men, have died of cancer. Numbers of others have gone in thesame way. Early diagnosis and early treatment are important factors in combating this disease.

I appeal to the House to give the Minister all the money he requires to carry out this good work. People must realise and appreciate the good work that is being done and the advances it is hoped to make in the future. Local authorities have a grave responsibility in so far as the health of our people is concerned. If they fail to make provision it is on their consciences the guilt for that failure will lie.

Rheumatism is making rapid inroads on the health of our people. I think recent statistics show that 300,000 people are suffering from one form of rheumatism or another. Numbers of those suffering from arthritis could be cured by cortisone, but the price of the drug at the moment renders effective or remedial treatment prohibitive. An important point in relation to this disease is the fact that there are no allowances for these unfortunate sufferers such as there are in the case of those suffering from tuberculosis. That is a point that should be considered by the Minister in his new Bill. We have some good clinics throughout the country, but we still lag behind other countries in our approach to the treatment and eradication of rheumatism.

Another point worthy of consideration is the position of children who are deformed at birth and who remain a charge upon their families all their lives. Some provision should be made for these under the new Health Bill. In a Christian country such as this ordinary charity makes it compulsory on us to do something for these unfortunate sufferers.

The Minister is taking courageous steps to try to improve the health of our people. He should be commended for that. People should not misrepresent his aims. They should recognise the Christian charity prompting the measures he is now taking. We can all of us see daily the sufferings of our people, and anything that is done to improve the health of our people is worthy of the highest commendation. Even if the Minister does not get any thanks for his good work from the present generation, posterity will be forever grateful to him.

Some of the things which have been brought before us in this discussion make clear the gravamen of the case made against the Minister which requires this Vote to be referred back. The Minister has reiterated what he told us in the White Paper recently, that one-third of the population are entitled to the full range of medical assistance. He tells us that, on the one hand, and on the other hand that he intends to make medical services of as high a standard as any country has available to all who need them here. With the description which Deputy Burke and others have given us of the dispensaries in the country, the gap between what is implied by one-third of our people, according to the Minister, being entitled to the full range of our medical services and the great ideals that are held out before us is a very considerable one.

It is because the Minister's work during the year does not appear to us to be aiming realistically at closing that gap that we ask that the Vote be referred back. It has been remarked that every Party here appears to consider it desirable to improve the health services of the country and wants to do that. That has been made perfectly clear by every Party in the House. Our case against the Minister is that, realising the job which requires to be done and the spirit of the House in facing it, he is queering the pitch for the work being done properly more than anything else.

I want to address my remarks only to the Estimate before us and to the Minister's responsibility for the way in which things are being done at the moment. There may be plenty of opportunities to discuss the details of any changes that want to be made. But nothing can be done except there is a different approach to understanding what the problem is and the part that the medical profession must undoubtedly play in any work that requires to be done. The Minister has provision in this Estimate for the continuance of the National Health Council. The National Health Council has been in existence for the past 12 months, but as far as I know, the Ministermade no use of it in any review of either the health situation that exists or the proposals which are being put before us for the purpose of improving it.

The National Health Council is a body selected by the Minister himself, brought together for the purpose of giving him advice whenever he wanted it, and must be regarded as a very important contact between the Minister and the medical profession for keeping up harmonious relations with them, keeping up machinery for discussion with them, and enabling the Minister to get all the advice that the organised medical profession can give him. I understand that they were not used at all in connection with the discussion of the provisions of the Bill until some time in the early part of this month. We would require to get from the Minister an account of what steps he took to consult the National Health Council in relation to the Bill and, if he neglected to do it up to the time of the framing of the Bill and asking the House to give it a Second Reading, what is the reason for it. If he has seen the National Health Council since the Second Reading of the Bill, it would be a help if the Minister would tell us what matters were discussed with the council and what kind of advice they had to give.

The representatives of the medical profession have made public a declaration that they are unable to co-operate with the Minister in helping to develop the health services along the lines he considers they should be developed. If that is the position, then the Minister is very seriously at fault in his administration, or at any rate we ought to be given such an account of what took place between himself and the National Health Council as will enable us to judge. The position is serious for all those who take an interest in the situation, and I think every single person in this House would repudiate the suggestion, as far as any matter connected with the development of the health services is concerned, that they were interested in a purely Party way or wanted to make any Party capital out of it.

At any rate, the disclosure has beenmade that one-third of the people are in such a condition that they are entitled to make full use of our medical services. The disclosure of that, on the one hand, and the disclosure of the work which requires to be done to meet that situation, if it is to be effectively met, even without meeting the position with regard to the middle classes, is enough to make anybody who is in any way interested in the country generally halt to give the best possible thought to it.

There is a tendency to charge people in this House with wanting to become disruptive in their discussions. We get examples of that from time to time. I do not want to refer to recent examples. I want to emphasise that we want to get an opportunity to look at the facts as they are at present and to see that the Minister will get the co-operation of the medical profession, or at any rate put the situation openly before the House so that we can understand what it is. The House wants to see what is being done to establish an understanding and to get a scheme going which will not be so contrary to the judgment and experience of the medical profession that they will not work it.

One of the things discussed here is the very bad conditions in the dispensaries to which the people have to go. At the same time there has been an attack on the voluntary hospitals. Some people attacked them for a purpose. When Deputy Cowan gets up and talks about the misery of the people who have to go to the outdoor dispensaries in the voluntary hospitals in the City of Dublin, I would ask why do they go there. They go there because they are attracted by the excellence of the services provided and by reason of the fact that the conditions in the dispensaries in the City of Dublin are such that they are driven away from them. If people go to the voluntary hospitals in the city they are doing that because in the voluntary hospitals they get better services than they would get in the dispensaries.

The position with regard to the medical fraternity generally has been very unhappy. While we are talking about the urgency of things whichrequire to be done, our minds hark back to the position six years ago when we were discussing the first Health Bill. The first Health Bill was introduced here in a very dictatorial spirit. There were clauses, proposals, principles involved in it which had to be dropped. The Fine Gael Party at that time fought that Bill very hard. We got no advice or assistance from the organised medical profession. One of the things that stamp the organised medical profession is that they rather hang back and appear to be determined not to put themselves in the position, in relation to any Government, that they can be said to be courting the political support of any Opposition Party. Taking a special interest in the Health Bill of 1945, I felt aggrieved at the lack of support and assistance given by the medical profession. Four individual doctors stood out as people who advised very strongly in certain ways. After 15 days of Committee, during which only two-thirds of the 800 amendments were got through, the editor of the organ of the Irish Medical Association indicated that he thought that the medical profession were in favour of the Bill.

The position then was that while, from our point of view, the medical profession in 1945 were being trampled on, the organisation of the Irish medical profession at that time, in so far as it was organised, seemed to be supporting the Government of the time with regard to the greater portion of the measure. The reason that occurs to me now is that the medical profession are not in any way organised. They are individual men devoted to their work. So devoted are they to their work that there is no desire or intention on their part to organise in any particular way. It seems to me that there is a likelihood that the medical profession are being distracted from their ordinary avocations in order to protect themselves—not, as has been said here, to protect their pockets, but to protect their principles, their professional ideas of right and justice and their conception of their functions and responsibility to the people.

It seems to me that the formation of the Department of Health has beenrather a disaster to the interests of general health in the country, and to the proper functioning of the medical profession in relation to the services and functions that they have to fulfil in the nation's life. When the medical service was being developed here shortly after this State was set up, county hospitals were first established and then the county medical officer system was developed. The county medical officer of health was the servant of the local body. There was a very close consideration of local problems. The health service was being developed in relation to local needs. With the coming of the managerial system and the Department of Health —which had nothing to do but to look after health—there began to develop a dictatorial group and a kind of bureaucratic approach to what ought to be the position in relation to the medical fraternity and the life of the people.

Now, six years after the first great revolutionary Health Bill, we are still discussing what ought to be done. We are discussing what ought to be done in circumstances in which, we are told, one-third of the population are entitled to the full range of our medical services at dispensaries, 50 per cent. of which are condemned, and at institutions which are described in various ways as utterly inadequate. In all these circumstances, the Minister, during the past 12 months, has been conducting that part of his ministerial office which deals with the medical profession in such a way that they are now declaring, in respect of a Bill which got its Second Reading from this House, that they are not going to work it. I think that that is a situation which the Minister cannot allow to develop.

The Minister knows that, in very many ways, the Party of which he is a member—a Party which has provided a Government for 16 years up to 1947, and for the past two years—have, from time to time, run bolt up against large sections of our people. They brought about a position in which we had a teachers' strike in Dublin in 1946.

A situation is developing at the moment in which there are very seriousdifferences between the Government and the whole Civil Service. Now, they have the doctors repudiating the principles upon which the Bill is established. In my opinion, there is no reason why any two sections of the people of this country or why any section of the people should be so ranged up against a Parliament, let me say, or why they should be so ranged up against the proposals of even any Party in government. The interests and understanding of our people are too closely knit. The desire of our people to work with one another is too great to have that accepted as any kind of a normal situation.

I can only suggest that it is brought about by some part of the stubbornness of the 1945 Bill remaining as a kind of anthrax in the ministerial direction of the Department of Health. I think the Minister cannot allow the discussion on this Estimate to pass without giving the House an account of his dealings with the Council of Health on the one hand and the doctors on the other hand, which have brought about the present unfortunate impasse.

The Minister gave a certain amount of attention to the matter of the Hospitals' Trust Fund and the position of voluntary hospitals in that connection. Deputy Cowan wants the voluntary hospitals nationalised. The former Minister for Health, Deputy Dr. Browne, made a different statement in which he showed that, in so far as he could, he deliberately spent the assets of the Hospitals' Trust Fund so that the moneys necessary for paying the deficits of the voluntary hospitals would not be there and that these deficits would have to be paid by the State and, being paid by the State, that the State would have to call the tune. I think it is desirable—now that, for the first time, the Dáil is asked to vote upwards of £4,000,000 for the purpose of keeping the Hospitals' Trust Fund in funds and providing, among others, funds for the voluntary hospitals—that the Minister should let us know whether any conditions are attaching to the granting of these funds that would give the State control over these voluntary hospitalsor over any of them in their management, direction or general policy.

It is imperative that we should have information from the Minister on that point. It is desirable, too, that he would endeavour to put the period in which he expects the State to pay £15,000,000 towards the financing of the Hospitals' Trust Fund into perspective not only with the present period but with what is likely to happen afterwards, because I suggest to the Minister that with any kind of normal development in the next five, seven or ten years the necessity that has arisen for the State to provide capital for the Hospitals' Trust Fund will pass. It has arisen because of an exceptional amount of expenditure here and because of the fall off to some extent of the income to the Hospitals' Trust Fund during the war. It is desirable that the Minister would let us have some picture as to where that £15,000,000 would stand in the general report of the state of the Hospitals' Trust Fund.

The Minister has failed very badly in another way in which I do not think it is necessary for the Department of Health to fail. Anybody who has seen the various annual reports of the Department of Health will know how competently they are able to assemble information and how clearly they are able to display it. Nevertheless, in dealing with this House in his proposals for the extension of the health services, the House is left absolutely blind with regard to information, in a statistical or in a diagrammatic way, as to how the Bill would be expected to operate in the provision of additional services throughout the country, as to the types of people and cases with which it would deal, and the costs in a detailed way either to the State or the local authority.

I submit to the Minister that it is unrealistic to present a Bill that is intended to carry out some kind of radical change in the organisation of institutions and in the organisation of personnel that are involved in these institutions and in these services, and to give simply a lump sum as to the cost of it. I submit to the Minister that that should be broken down in a simple way by giving a sample countyshowing how much of these costs were intended to be to the support of capital expenditure for building, to the support of capital expenditure for equipment, to the provision of the services of doctors and nurses or any other part of the personnel that will be required. The failure to do that is a serious charge against the Minister that, with a difficult problem, he is trying to rush the House and rush the judgment of this House. Every Party here is anxious to contribute in every possible way in order to improve the services and, in difficult circumstances, he is using political pressure to put it across. That will not get the Minister anywhere, and I think the unfortunate history of Health Acts from 1945 along should be sufficient earnest to him of that.

Therefore, I consider that the Estimate should be referred back until the Minister is able to agree to tell us openly of his position with regard to the doctors and how it has arrived at the present state. He should tell us clearly of the control, if any, he is proposing to exert over the voluntary hospitals by reason of the fact that the State has to intervene to provide capital for a particular period. He should give us a fairly detailed statistical background as to what the results of his proposed Bill are intended to be. In connection with that the Minister should provide, as is very often provided for purposes of illustrating to Deputies the geographical distribution of services, on a four-mile-to-the-inch map in the Library a diagram of the main additions to institutions that are likely to take place or that are intended under the Health Bill and give some indication by way of staff diagram what the staff organisations in any particular county would be likely to be. These are matters which are elementary if we are to understand that the Minister is dealing with this House in a responsible manner and that he is dealing with the big problem that is there in an effective way.

I would like to congratulate the Minister, his Department and officials in the matter of the health of our people over the lastdecade. I also wish to thank the public in general for their co-operation in that respect. Our best thanks are also due to the medical profession for the part they have played in the improvement of the health of the community. A good standard of health has been maintained and this has been assisted by the measures taken for the prevention of disease. In the case of smallpox, this disease has been practically eradicated. Diphtheria is now a rare disease. It is a pity that the parents of children under school-going age would not bring their children to be inoculated at an early age. We realise, of course, that visits have been paid to schools at frequent periods and this is helpful in the prevention of such diseases.

A couple of Deputies have stated we have in the country a large number of mental defectives. There are about 8,000, I think, of different grades in the country and it would require a number of hospitals to treat them. Parents of the present day have a great deal to do in their homes to take charge of one child alone. It is a difficult job and I would ask the Minister to make every endeavour to provide more institutions for the treatment of those children. I believe that a quota should be given to each county in order that each county would get its share of hospital treatment for such cases. There are about 700 district mental officers in this country responsible for the treatment of mental defectives. On the whole, these medical men have done excellent work under, in some cases, very adverse circumstances. I think the time has come when their remuneration should be greatly increased as well as that of the district nurses.

We all realise that more and more people are nowadays coming to the dispensaries for treatment. Years ago it was only the very poor who did so, but nowadays the position is quite different. You have big numbers of people coming there for treatment without red tickets or any other sort of ticket. I think the Minister was wrong in stating that the number ofcases attended by dispensary doctors and nurses had not increased. I suggest that it has because, as I have said, you have people coming to the dispensaries for treatment without any ticket. I should like Deputies to understand that the returns which the dispensary doctor furnishes to the Department relate only to ticket cases, while thousands, as I say, come there nowadays without tickets for treatment. Therefore, I think the Minister is wrong in stating that the duties performed by medical men and district nurses have not increased.

I also think that medical men and district nurses should get travelling allowances. As far as I know, they are the only officials in the State who do not get a travelling allowance. The Minister and his Department are well aware of what it costs to run a car at the present time. The dispensary doctors and the district nurses are on duty for 24 hours a day and on seven days of the week. Apart from their annual holidays they get very few days off. When they do take a day off they have to pay their substitute. They have to be ready for duty at all times and so must provide themselves with a reliable means of conveyance. It need not be a big car, but if it is a small car it must be a good one. They are liable to be called at any time of the day or night.

I think it is about time that the Minister realised that these officials should get travelling allowance. He will be able to get full information from his officials in the Custom House as to what it costs to run a car at the present time. I would put the figure at £200 a year. The Minister, however, has certified returns in his Department from engineers and other officials who must travel the country a good deal in the performance of their duties as to what the actual cost is. His officials know to the last penny what the cost is. In my opinion those dispensary men and district nurses should have an adequate travelling allowance to enable them to perform their responsible and onerous duties.

In 1949, the then Minister for Health made a request to the Carlow County Council for the use of Tullow Hospitalfor beds for the treatment of tubercular patients. It was expected that the hospital would be required for that purpose for a few years only and as a very temporary measure. The council granted the request on the understanding that the hospital would be given back to them when required. In view, however, of the delay which has taken place in handing back the hospital, the county is now deprived of the use of one third of its entire hospital accommodation. I think the Minister will realise, I am sure, what a great hardship that is on the county—that it should now have only two-thirds of the beds which were available to it in the past.

There has been a big increase in the number of people seeking hospital accommodation. The Minister did not give very favourable consideration to the request of the Carlow County Council to have the hospital handed back. He put them off by stating that, of course, it was necessary to have an increased number of beds available, but that at some future date he would consider the matter again. I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in the very near future and to return Tullow hospital as a medical and surgical hospital for the use especially of people in the eastern portion of County Carlow. At present, when a person is ordered hospital treatment, the relatives do not know whether the patient will have to go to Carlow, Kilkenny or Kildare.

I understand that in some of the large county hospitals the resident surgeon is not allowed to engage in consultations outside the hospital. I think that is very regrettable. Suppose for example, that the Minister or any other person—I may say that I do not wish any harm to anyone in saying this —had an accident outside the gate of a county hospital and that the services of the very competent resident surgeon in that hospital were required. Under the present regulations he could not leave the hospital to attend the injured persons. I do not think the Minister, or any of us, would like to see that happen. I think that, when such accidents occur in an area, the county surgeon should be allowed to leave thehospital and attend to the injured. I would ask the Minister to have that position rectified.

The Health Bill is not before the House and I am not going to speak on it. All that I desire to say is that, in my opinion, the members of the medical profession have done more than might be expected from them, free and gratis, in the matter of the treatment of the sick poor of this country.

It was rather amusing to hear Deputy Mulcahy attack the present Minister on the delay or, as he put it, the hold-up in providing health services for the country. Was there ever a Government placed in a happier or in a better position to do what the Deputy complained of than the last Government was with the Marshall Aid it received, and the borrowed money? It is still a mystery to me what became of all that cash. We hear now a condemnation from the other side of the House of the condition of the dispensaries. Why did the people opposite not remedy their condition during the three and a quarter years when they were the Government? Can they name even one dispensary which was repaired or renovated during their time, or that got even a decent coat of paint out of the Marshall Aid money? When they are able to tell us that, then we will know where we stand.

The next point is that we are threatened by the medical profession with what they are going to do. I recollect that, when a Health Bill, with far wider implications than the Bill introduced by this Government, was introduced in England, the members of the medical profession there threatened a revolution—to march on London. They made a solemn declaration something on the lines that Carson made in his time, to the effect that when that Bill became an Act in England they would not work it, or work under it, but, strange to relate, when it was passed into law they fell over one another looking for jobs under it.

This is a rather severe Estimate, involving over £10,000,000. Four millionpounds odd of that is for the Hospitals' Trust Fund and will, I take it, go into capital expenditure. I remember the 1947 Health Act going through this House and the opposition that there was to it. The ratepayers were relieved under that Act last year to the extent of £5,760,000. One wonders where the ratepayers would be if the people opposite had had their way at that time and if the State, under the present Minister for Health, had not relieved the ratepayers of the full 100 per cent. of their increased obligations since 1947. Most of us, unfortunately, have reached the point now where we are beyond the 50-50 basis for the future but there is a lot to be said for relieving the ratepayers to the extent of £6,000,000. That was given freely by the present Minister under the previous Act.

I have certain complaints about the manner in which the Act is administered by the Department. There are officials of ours, 95 per cent. of whose time is occupied in health service work and we get no refund because the other 5 per cent. of their time is occupied in home assistance work.

I am very anxious to know the position as regards the regional hospital and the regional maternity hospital in Cork. We first heard of these hospitals in 1934, 19 long years ago. They were then supposed to cost about £400,000. The only people that I can see who have got anything out of them as yet are the architects, some of whom, as far back as 1936, drew £5,000 or £6,000 and have continued to draw fees at periods ever since, until, up to the present, they have drawn over £19,000. There has not been a sod cut. I put an inquiry to the Minister some months ago as to the amount that would be paid in fees to the architects, consultants and engineers in respect of those two hospitals and I was amazed when he informed me that the amount that would have to be paid would be over £200,000.

I went to the trouble this evening of looking up what the Minister is paying his architects. I find that the chief architectural adviser has £1,700 odd.I suggest as an economy in this matter that it would be a wise thing for the Department to have quite a few of those architects at a yearly salary who could prepare the plans and specifications for the regional hospitals and the other hospitals throughout the country. In that way the delay involved in sending plans from architects in Cork to architects in Dublin and being returned with the comment that a particular window should have a northern aspect instead of a southern one would be avoided.

Such a system would relieve those who have to pay the piper and would prevent the biggest bunch of racketeers that ever existed in any country from bleeding this nation. The drawing of the plans and specifications for two hospitals on one site will cost, between engineers and architects, nearly £250,000. That is something that in other days we would string up a fellow for and would not have too much hesitation in doing it.

The Deputy should not refer to public servants as racketeers.

I am giving the facts. I do not know what anybody would call the architect that draws the plans and specifications of a hospital and charges £250,000 for doing it.

A smart boy if he gets away with it.

A smart boy, and apparently they are getting away with it.

The Deputy cannot get away with that remark.

I am suggesting to the Minister that, instead of the present set-up in that respect, he should employ, if necessary, a couple of extra architects, and I will not kick up about their being extra civil servants, and he should send them down to prepare plans and specifications of the hospitals. That would save this country at least £1,000,000 a year.

My main trouble in regard to those two hospitals is that the first architect's fees were drawn in 1935; theyhave been drawing them ever since, and the hospital has not gone beyond paper. I was informed by some of those gentlemen that any plans and specifications of a hospital that have been three years prepared are out of date and that new plans and specifications must be prepared if the hospital is to include up-to-date developments. Therefore, the only people who can benefit by the regional hospital and the regional maternity hospital in Cork are the architects who will draw the plans, a new plan every three years, and a new fee.

The first estimate was £420,000. I remember being up with Deputy Dr. Browne when he was Minister for Health and discussing this matter with him. I think the estimate then was around £1,500,000, plus another £500,000 or so for equipment. We, as representatives of the ratepayers, had a guarantee of the Department of Health that they would pay the full bill for the two hospitals and the equipment—thanks to the generosity of Deputy Dr. Browne; I will never forget it for him.

However, what would have cost this nation £420,000 if carried out and put through when the first plans and specifications were prepared for it—mind you, it is not the local authority that is responsible for any delay; it is the officials of the Department of Health— will now cost in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000. I do not think I am far out in saying that. Since it is over three years now since I was with Deputy Dr. Browne on it, I suppose that a new set of plans will have to be prepared now for the Department for the next round, and by the time they will have finished passing the plans from Cork to Dublin and consulting both in Cork and Dublin about it, in three years after that there will be another set of plans and the architects will be fattening on the job while no one else seems to benefit. At any rate, the patients who should occupy those two hospitals have no hope of benefiting, as they will never see the hospitals built.

I would like to know from the Minister the reasons for the delay and if he can get from his Department andthe officials in his Department a move on in that respect. I know that Deputy Dr. Browne was very anxious for a move on when I was with him and I was promised every assistance in speeding up the job. Unfortunately, the officials of the Department of Health proved too strong for both the Minister and myself.

The Minister is responsible for the Estimate and the officials are not.

I suggest that if you abuse a fellow properly he will pass on some of the abuse, and I am suggesting that a bit of the abuse should now be passed on. Two hospitals were planned; the site was purchased for them 19 years ago and, apparently, it is a happy hunting-ground for architects and officials ever since. I hope to hear something definite from the Minister on my suggestion that architects in his Department should prepare all these plans and specifications. It would end this game of passing the buck from one to the other.

I also suggest that the time has come to scrap midwives. We are paying a pretty considerable sum in South Cork area for midwives. I have examined the number of cases that they do per year and I have found that 50 per cent. of them—and my friend Deputy Kyne is looking for higher salaries for them—have not more than an average of three cases per year. The largest number of cases in the South Cork area was 12 for 12 months by any midwife, that is, one case a month. I would invite the Minister to investigate the whole position as regards South Cork area in respect of midwives. The majority of the people there, particularly the poor, are taking advantage now of the maternity hospital treatment that we are able to afford them. Unfortunately, under some legislation here, we are compelled to continue to employ these midwives.

This is a very serious Estimate and, in conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister on behalf of the ratepayers of the country at large for the Health Act of 1947, and I wish, now when we are coming to the 50-50 stage, he would extend his generosity a bitfurther, as I cannot see in the present set up how the ratepayers of the country are going to meet the bill.

I feel that the Minister and the Government deserve the highest congratulations in relation to this particular Estimate and particularly on the decision concerning the hospital building programme. Listening to Government speakers, it is quite obvious that money is very tight with the Government. It has not been unknown in this House amongst our political Parties that when money was tight on occasions it has been found at the expense of the social services. Consequently, it has been a courageous decision of the Government to guarantee the moneys required to finish what is known as the short-term building programme throughout the country.

The figures produced by the Minister in relation to health statistics and infant mortality rates are, as he said, rather discouraging or not completely satisfying. The infant mortality figures here are still very high in relation to other countries. That is true also in relation to cancer, where it is quite obvious that there is a tremendous amount of work yet to be done. The Minister has the work necessary well in hand, in the provision of the cancer hospital in Dublin and cancer services in other centres. The people are being provided with first-class treatment and I have no doubt that these institutions will do an excellent job.

I should like to join issue with Deputy Corry by pointing out a fact which is not very frequently acknowledged, and that is the tremendous help and assistance which I had during my term of office from the provisions of the Minister's 1947 Health Act. It was under that Act that the excellent financial provision to which Deputy Corry has been referring was inaugurated. It put a tremendous burden on the Central Fund and encouraged local authorities to provide health services by a 100 per cent. grant in the early days. The health services could go ahead very rapidly with or without the assistance of the Ministerin charge of the Department. The money was provided from the Exchequer by virtue of that 1947 Act. The extremely gratifying expansion of our health services is due to that, because it facilitated the whole drive forward.

The building programme, of course, is an absolute necessity. As the Minister pointed out, it is not the end, but the means to an end. The requirements of our hospitals, to which many Deputies referred without a clear idea of what they were referring to, are financial and have to be provided, and will have to be provided, by any Government in office which is serious about improving our health services.

Again, as the Minister emphasised, a most important matter will be the technicians who are to operate those services. With the technicians, the nurses, the radiologists, the different experts, the administrative services, the kitchen staff, and the whole very complicated mechanism of modern health services, the doctor has become, whether he likes it or not, only a very tiny part of the whole. The development of the health service, certainly the hospital end, the purely individualist and the specialist end of it, has gone so far that the medical man is now merely one part, an important part admittedly, of the complicated mosaic which is the modern health institution, no matter what kind it may be.

With the Minister, I should like to pay tribute to a few of the organisations which are at last beginning to get well into their stride and play a tremendous part in our health service. As a doctor, rather than a politician, what I have come to appreciate most is the blood transfusion service which, from what I have seen of it, must be one of the best in Europe. Great credit is due to the director and his staff for running an extremely competent and efficient service. I think most doctors will agree that that service has reached a high level of competency and reliability. The mass-radiography service to which the Minister referred is beginning to move out slowly and with great strength and has gained the confidence of the people by extending itself throughout the country. In relationto both these services, the board of directors who are responsible for the laying down and the carrying out of policy deserve great credit for the work they are doing and for the success they are having.

There are a couple of matters in relation to the nursing service to which I should like to refer. An Bord Banaltrais has been set up and the Minister would have the sympathy of everybody in the House if he tried to review favourably the conditions of service of the nursing personnel of our public health services and our hospitals generally. Very few of us will find that at some time or other we will not be deeply beholden to these nurses for their kindness and their tolerance of our ways and our shortcomings. The Minister would have the support and sympathy of everybody if he would review favourably the salaries and conditions of the probationers, the nurses and the matrons. I know that that is a claim which is lightly made by most Deputies because it is a popular one. I believe, however, that it is one which is worthy of consideration. I am sure it is very close to the heart of the Minister and that he will do everything in his power to improve the present condition of the nurses.

There is a point in relation to the training staff in the tuberculosis institutions. Most of the girls who went into the tuberculosis hospitals to take their tuberculosis association certificate were under the impression that when they finished their training in these institutions they would be able to do further training in local authority hospitals or in the voluntary hospitals and secure their S.R.N. That scheme has not worked out very well and many of these girls are unable when they reach the end of the training period to carry on and qualify for the S.R.N. certificate. They are, therefore, in the position of holding only a very limited qualification which will only allow them a limited degree of promotion in our sanatoria or in health services generally. I do not know what the Minister can do. It is a big problem. Possibly I may have some suggestions to make later on as to encouraging the voluntary hospitals totake more of these girls into their service. I think at this stage the Minister should make it clear to them that the chances of their becoming State registered nurses on leaving the tuberculosis institutions are rather slim in Ireland at any rate.

In relation to the tuberculosis certificate I think the Minister should appeal to An Bord Banaltrais to enter into negotiations with the General Nursing Council in Great Britain with a view to establishing some reciprocity as between tuberculosis training in Great Britain and here. I understand that at the moment a girl can work in England and get her S.R.N. in two years instead of three if she holds a tuberculosis association certificate. If, however, she returns here with that qualification she is not recognised because she has not the three years' general training demanded by the Nursing Council here. A number of girls coming back from England, a development we are all anxious to foster, find themselves unqualified as either State registered nurses or as tuberculosis nurses on their return. Consequently they are obviously at a great disadvantage in seeking posts in the public health services or in our hospitals.

The Minister quoted very satisfactory figures showing the drop in the death rate from tuberculosis. I am sure he finds that very gratifying. We are much indebted to the 1947 Health Act because it was under that Act that it was made possible to give allowances to dependents of those suffering from tuberculosis. It seems incredible now that there could have been a time when dependents did not get allowances and when the father of a family was compelled to curtail his treatment in order to earn a living at a time when he was quite unfitted to do so. That situation has happily been rectified under the Infectious Diseases Regulations under the 1947 Act. That was a social advance of some significance. There is no doubt about that.

To those who swallowed any of the puerile nonsense and propaganda generated by the Medical Association in relation to the free, no means test, health schemes, it is I am sure a consolationto them now to know that there has been this spectacular drop in mortality from 91 to 54 per 100,000 under a free, no means test scheme—a scheme that we were informed by the Medical Association would prove disastrous if extended to our health services generally.

I suggest that in so far as tuber-colosis treatment is concerned the dispensary service has not kept step with developments in relation to hospital and thoracic surgery services. Those latter services are very satisfactory. We had a doctor from Copenhagen where they have a magnificent scheme in operation and one that has proved very successful and effective there. He examined the Dublin scheme with the idea that he would try to establish or advise us on the establishment of a scheme suitable to our needs to act as a pilot scheme for the rest of the country. The idea was that the medical officers would see that scheme in operation and, in turn, establish similar schemes in their own counties.

On the whole, our diagnostic service is not a very good one. The record system is bad. The calling up for X-ray and the follow-up in some counties is good but generally speaking it is not all that one would desire it to be. I think it would be advisable to have this matter attended to in a vigorous way. A considerable sum of money is being expended on these health services and a definite advantage has been gained because of the number of people getting treatment earlier and getting better quicker. Consequently they are less of a drain on public resources.

Our county homes leave much to be desired. Much remains to be done in order that we may be quite happy in our own minds that we are treating the aged as they should be treated. An excellent White Paper was produced recently in which the present situation was reviewed. It was not a political document and the cold facts portrayed in it quite clearly show that a tremendous amount still remains to be done in our county homes in simple matters like the liberalisation of the rules andpermission to the aged to come and go. I cannot understand why it is considered necessary that these old people, who must have a sense of responsibility, who can be trusted and who are definitely reliable, are treated like the inmates of a home for delinquent children. They must clock in, clock out, ask for permission here and get notes there. That seems to me to be a terribly humiliating way of treating people who should get the best we can possibly give them. I wonder if the Minister can do anything further to encourage those in charge of these homes to adopt a different attitude towards the old people? Then there is the further point of the provision of wireless sets, of entertainment such as the cinema, of gardening facilities and of all the different comforts which most of us, I suppose, will expect and need in our old age.

The biggest problem of all is that of the physical requirements of our aged. Our county homes, our workhouses are sorry things indeed. There are some, where there has been an energetic local authority and an energetic county manager, which are fair and reasonably good. Generally speaking, however, anybody who has been around these places and seen the different amenities in these buildings— the bathrooms, the bedrooms, the wards, the dormitories, the dining-rooms, the sitting-rooms and so forth— will agree that they fall far short of being what they should. The provision of proper amenities would not cost a tremendous amount of money. I wonder if any real progress is being made in this regard. The Minister gave a figure, but I could not work out whether he was completely satisfied with the rate of progress or whether we are likely to see any substantial progress in the provision of proper facilities. Has the Minister any particular ideas in regard to the matter? Geriatrics is a terribly difficult problem. Has the Minister any guiding principles for the local authorities as to whether these old people should live in colonies, in separate houses or as to where they can best be looked after and, at the same time, be reasonably independent?

The most outstanding example of the correct way of treating the aged is what I saw in Sweden. The standard of comfort and the care which Sweden metes out to her aged is unbelievable. Most of those whom I saw there live, without any exaggeration whatsoever, in what are equivalent to first-class hotels. Take the best hotel you can find in Dublin. Go into it and look around you. The standard of comfort there is equivalent to the standard of comfort which I saw provided for the aged in Sweden. If you compare that with our workhouses you will have some idea of how far we lag behind in this very important matter.

Deputy D. Costello referred to dispensaries and said he feels that the system is bad. I completely agree with him. He castigated the Minister for not doing something about them. I have already given the House my views on the dispensary system, and I repeat now that I think that the dispensary system is so bad that it is irreparable. It would be a waste of money to try to repair the dispensaries and to continue the dispensary system. I think that the dispensary system must, in time, be abolished. Deputy D. Costello may not appreciate the inference of his suggestion that we should try to do something about the dispensaries. To maintain the dispensary system is to maintain two-tier medicine.

I think there is no need for dispensaries if you accept the principle that all our people should receive the same treatment. The ideal arrangement would be that all patients would go to the doctor's surgery and receive the same treatment there. You can provide the surgery or pay for the inconvenience that may result to the doctor's home. I think that that system would be preferable to a system under which a patient might, on the one hand, be described as a pauper patient while, on the other hand, the wealthy patient can wait in the doctor's parlour or waiting-room which is amply supplied with journals and papers which the wealthy patient can read while waiting for the doctor. There should be no discrimination in our health services, asis the case at present. I was surprised at the attitude which was adopted when I made such a proposition to the Medical Association. I pointed out that we would try to provide that doctors would be compensated for any inconvenience if they would consider treating the public assistance patient with the ordinary patient in their own homes.

I said that I would try to compensate them for any ill-effects on their household. The Medical Association turned down the proposition that the doctor should treat the poor patient and the rich patient in the same room. No case was made to me: the suggestion was just rejected. To me, at that time, it seemed very much as if the derelict and abandoned dispensaries were not really such a bad idea if you were anxious to see that there would be as few non-paying patients as possible and that people would, by force of circumstances, be directed away from the dirty, derelict, unheated, unlighted, dispensary buildings into the doctor's private house where they would then have to pay.

The Minister has made a significant move forward in his attempt to give us what I think he wants to give us, and which some others of us want also, namely, an egalitarian medical service which I consider to be the right of every citizen in a modern community.

There is a Vote for a mother and child welfare service, but we shall have an opportunity later of dealing with the proposed mother and child scheme. All I want to say, in passing, is that I welcome the development of a more factual, hard-headed and reasonable argument on the part of the Medical Association. Frankly, they are now a trade union fighting for good wages for their workers. As such, they will, naturally, have to receive consideration from this House and from the Minister in relation to the remuneration, pay, wages and salaries they will get from us when the Bill becomes law. It is quite unthinkable that a sectional group of this kind, comprising 2,000 men, should think they can stand in the way of the decision of this Assembly. Just as the milk strikers were treated firmly bythe Government, so, in this case, the Government, I am quite sure, will deal with the present threat by a sectional group to impose their will on our people.

The Deputy cannot discuss the Health Bill on this Estimate.

I was not intending to, but it is related in this way, that one of the great improvements which has taken place in the last two years has been the development of the mother and infant scheme to which the Minister referred in his speech. The curious paradox, of course, is that this scheme was introduced and is doing simply magnificent work in the City of Dublin. It is a neo-natal service for the children born into the three major maternity hospitals and for the children born on their districts. The underlying principles of that mother and infant scheme are identical with those of the Minister in relation to the new health scheme. That service is completely free and there is no means test. It has been in operation in the city for nearly two years.

If I remember rightly, there was a period in which negotiations went on with the Medical Association and with the medical men who are now operating the service and getting very good salaries for so operating it, and in which many of these same pediatricians were agitating and decided against the establishment of a mother and child scheme being operated— exactly the same principle, exactly the same propositions, unacceptable to them in the country but acceptable to them in the three maternity hospitals and in the city. I do not think that anybody at this stage has any illusions about the absolute hypocrisy of the arguments put forward by these people. Their salaries are threatened, their incomes are threatened, and consequently they are fighting as hard as they can and as they know how.

The main interest I take in this Estimate concerns the voluntary hospitals and our attitude towards them in the future. Deputy D. Costello, as DeputyPeadar Cowan remarked, has, at any rate, been very fair to this extent, that he has agreed that the matter can, at any rate, be discussed as to where or to what extent we permit the voluntary hospitals to maintain the degree of autonomy which they enjoy at present. As he said, no case had been made to the contrary up to the present and consequently he was continuing to carry on with his views. That is a perfectly fair and perfectly sane reflection.

I doubt very much if what I have to say is likely to cause a mass conversion to my views but for what they are worth I would like to put a few considerations before the House on the desirability of our insisting on obtaining a greater degree of public control over our voluntary hospitals. There will be plenty of people, I am quite sure, to speak about the magnificent work of our voluntary hospitals. It has become, like a "burden on the rates", "high rates of taxation" and other things like that, one of the political clichés of our time. I do not think anyone goes into it very deeply. It is a nice-sounding phrase and you get plenty of pats on the back for saying it.

I leave that and examine the case for the suggestion that the time has come now for us to tell these people who control these hospitals that we feel we are providing a lot of money from central funds for hospitalisation. Consequently we must have, in the ordinary course of the administration of public finance, in the ordinary accepted usages of democratic policies, more control or more supervision over the day to day expenditure of this money and its general utilisation. On the whole, I think the work done by the voluntary hospitals has been as satisfactory as one could expect. The voluntary hospitals have had a tremendous influence; in fact, they have had a major influence on the formation of the pattern of medicine in Ireland. Therefore, they can take whatever praise they feel due to them, but I think they must also be apportioned with the blame which I think is also theirs for the existing state of medicine in Ireland.

First of all, there is the particular set-up of the voluntary hospitals. With two or three exceptions none of the members of the boards of these hospitals are public representatives elected by public franchise to local authorities or to the Oireachtas. They are composed mostly of different types nominated by one another and elected by one another without going through any real form of open election with other candidates. Generally it is felt that the people controlling these hospitals are, with few exceptions, completely unrepresentative of the people generally and particularly of the majority who use these hospitals.

I suggested in the debate on the Meath Hospital Bill some years ago— I think I was largely instrumental in insisting on it—the inclusion, on the board of that hospital, of a majority of local authority nominees. I think it is completely unrealistic to continue to have a heterogeneous group of people on these boards who will be responsible for deciding policy, and administering the finances of these voluntary hospitals, and for controlling the general day to day work of the hospital. Mostly, those who serve on the boards of these hospitals would appear to be men who have given good service in other spheres. They may have been engaged in industry or business or may have been industrialists, but now, due to age, they have retired and have little else to do except to serve on these boards. I have no doubt that they do so with the best intentions in the world and are anxious to do good work. The point, however, is that they are nominated to serve on these boards by methods not clearly known to anybody.

A number of very important functions fall to be discharged by the boards of these voluntary hospitals. I believe that, if public money is to be handed over to them, very obvious precautions should be taken to ensure that it is properly spent, particularly in relation to the placing of tenders, the making of contracts, the provision of equipment, insurance and the provision of food and supplies generally. I believe that all these duties on thewhole are probably very ably and very fairly administered at the present time. But since the State, the community, is now going to provide the greater part of the money for the provision of these various items in the case of these hospitals, I think that certain precautions, such as public advertising, the acceptance of the lowest tender and that kind of thing, should be insisted on by this House if the boards of these hospitals are to be empowered to spend this money.

Deputy Cowan referred to the position of nurses discharged from a hospital without any right of appeal to a higher authority. I think that the practice that is observed in local authority hospitals should be insisted on in the case of these voluntary hospitals. As regards the former, there is the right of appeal to the Minister to hear both sides and then give his decision.

Again, I think it is only fair that the Minister should have the right of inspection of these hospitals. At the moment, he is in a completely invidious position. No matter what happens in these hospitals, he has no right of entry so far as I know. He has no right of entry to see whether the conditions laid down for the spending of the money which we are now being asked to vote are observed. If I may give an example of a voluntary hospital operating a tuberculosis scheme. A tuberculosis scheme is intended to be free and yet the doctor attending the patient can, and I know has, charged 40, 50 and 60 guineas to a patient in a public bed in one of these hospitals. I understand that, under the present dispensation, the doctor is completely within his rights in doing so, and that the Minister can do nothing at all about it.

Again, if there is any question of incompetence or negligence in an ordinary county hospital or infirmary, the patient can put his case before the local authority. It can ultimately go to the Minister, and the Minister, if he wishes, can direct the holding of a sworn inquiry to find out the merits on each side. At present, in the case of a voluntary hospital, the patient has no such rights as far as I know except at common law, andof course, everybody knows that it is practically impossible to prove a case against the hospital at common law.

The plea that I am making is that if the House does not insist on obtaining some right of access, such as I have suggested, then it is proposing to give away a lot of money, not only this year, but indefinitely, so far as I can see, for the maintenance and running of these institutions, while at the same time they will not give this House any facilities in return. You are getting no guarantee at all in regard to the patients going into these hospitals under the new service. You may promise them that they will get free treatment in any part of these hospitals, but, as far as I can see, there is nothing to stop any doctor who wishes to do so charging any fee that he wishes. As far as I can see, the Minister has no redress because we are not giving him the necessary power.

The other development from the voluntary hospital system is the pauper bed—the poor law bed. There, again, you have the division and the class distinction which has been perpetuated in our hospitals over the last 50 years. Originally, it was designed and directed against our people by a nation which was hostile to us. It has been perpetuated by our own medical men, our own staffs generally and the boards of the voluntary hospitals. There is a division between the pauper and the paying patient, between "Murphy" in one bed and "Mr. Murphy" in the other, "O'Brien" in one bed and "Mr. O'Brien" in the other. It is a small thing, but I consider it significant— the distinction between the two levels of people.

I suggest that there is not only a difference in that level; there is also a difference in the level of medicine because, of course, one of the evil results of the voluntary hospital system is that the most willing voluntary hospital doctor, surgeon, physician, whatever he may be, has to work on a fee per service basis. The more operations he does for money, the more money he makes. Consequently,he has to see as many of the wealthy patients as he possibly can; he has to operate on as many paying patients as he possibly can. The result is that his standard of service for the non-paying patients is not as good as it is for the paying patient.

We must face that fact if we are to lean as heavily as we intend to lean, apparently, on the voluntary hospital services in future. You can accept it that there are two levels of service in these hospitals and, if you accept that for our people, it is particularly unfair.

I do not think it is possible, under the type of medicine evolved in our voluntary hospital, for even the most conscientious voluntary hospital surgeon or physician to give as good a service as he probably wants to give to the average patient, no matter whether he has money or not. He is on the treadmill. He has to grind out as much paid work as he can, whether he likes it or not. There are many conscientious, very hard-working men in the medical profession, anxious to do a good job but, by the system of medicine, they are precluded from doing it. Consequently, I believe that the tendency towards the payment of the doctor by the State, no matter whom he looks after, whom he cares for, will in the end benefit. Of course, above all, it will benefit the development of medicine generally in the country.

There is no doubt at all, I think everybody will agree, that the standard of specialist medicine in Ireland is on a very low, pedestrian level, a very indifferent level. The suggestion has been made that we should start a general practitioners' university, and so on. We do not need it because we have no other kind. We have no pure specialists. We may have three or four or five but there is no pure specialist in Ireland. The average work is on a very indifferent, pedestrian level. Most of the international visitors who have seen the best we can produce in recent years, whatever they may say in public, would very politely agree that it is on a very indifferent level. Curiously enough, one of the most unexpected supporters for such a view is Mr. O'Connell, of one of our voluntary hospitals, who said, asreported in the Irish Independentof 28th October, 1952:—

"In the progress of surgery they in Ireland were merely imitators of what was done abroad.

Out of £24,000,000 a meagre sum was set aside yearly for medical research. They must remain imitators unless something was done.

They could have ideas that they might even eventually have to try them out on human beings, but that was fundamentally wrong."

Generally, the feeling amongst reasonable objectively-minded people is that we have paid for the fact that medicine has become the art of the general specialist rather than the pure specialist. In most European countries there is a pure specialist with his team of workers in every branch—laboratory, diagnostic, treatment, science— the whole team built up of which he is simply a member.

There is no doubt at all that, whatever else the voluntary hospital has done, it has produced a very considerable stigma on what is called the pauper bed or the poor law bed. In fact, it is so widely accepted that incarceration in one of these beds would be a penalty that it was used by the Medical Association recently in their propaganda that the extension of the Minister's scheme would mean that mothers would have to have their infants in a public bed. That seems to me to be an amazing admission on their part—that one of the fruits of private enterprise medicine over the 30 or 40 years that they have been manipulating it has been that they can say that the greater percentage of the patients of the voluntary hospitals are sick in these hospitals in a standard of comfort, a standard of food, equipment or service which they would not wish for their rich, for their wealthy or their paying patients. That is a thing about which they could have maintained a discreet silence instead of using it as one of the planks in their platform to try to destroy the introduction of the new health scheme.

Probably the most serious consideration is in relation to the making ofappointments to the voluntary hospitals and in the country generally. Many years ago it was decided that in the making of appointments to local authority positions, the best way to do it, to avoid nepotism, corruption, manipulation of one kind or another, was to establish the Local Appointments Commission. That, in my experience, has been one of the really great benefits established by any Government in that particular regard. It appears to me to have always acted with extreme fairness and absolute integrity.

The contrast between that and the voluntary hospitals is very striking indeed. First of all, in the latter case the appointment is rarely advertised. As far as I can see—Deputy Larkin referred to this in his speech on the Health Bill—one of the magnificent results of the establishment of the Local Appointments Commission is the very high level of medical service throughout the country. We have got the best men for the jobs. If we are to devote the money in this Estimate to these hospitals, we must insist that certain minimum requirements are established in relation to the making of appointments to these hospitals.

The best possible standard is that adopted by the Local Appointments Commission. At present it is common knowledge that the various hospitals are divided unevenly between the influences of the Freemasons, the Knights of Columbanus, the Friendly Brothers and other bodies. Having got past these barriers, the applicant goes to the board of the hospital, which is composed of different kinds of people, very few, if any, with any knowledge of the qualifications of the individual involved. In some cases there may be a medical board to advise the laymen. The medical board, unless it is super-humanly disinterested, is not unlikely to be rather concerned that the person appointed shall not be of a higher category, at any rate, than they are themselves.

One of the most ludicrous examples of this system of appointment, this obviously completely unfair assessment of the character or qualities of theindividual, is the case where the appointee is asked two questions by the board of the hospital, by the members of a board to whom he has to humiliate himself in obeisance—first of all, what is his religion and, secondly, in which of the Forces did he serve during the war. You have that on one side of things, where a very highly qualified senior medical man is going for a very high senior qualification. On the other side, the man who goes away to get one kind of speciality comes back and is told he must practise another, by a lady who is not even a nurse.

All these factors militate against us and from now on we are paying the piper. We want a particular service, but these factors make it impossible for us to get the standard of service which the people expect us to get for them. These are all considerations which it is not very pleasant to have to bring forward, but someone has to do it, someone has to try to improve the standard of service to our people, whether it is in the voluntary hospitals or in the county hospitals. If we are to take our responsibilities seriously here in the careful expenditure of money, we must take all these factors into consideration.

I know well that many attacks will come as a result of these reflections of mine on health welfare and on voluntary hospitals particularly. They have been sacrosanct as political material for many years, especially on the religious aspect. I will be accused again, as I was before, of being hostile to the religious orders, by the Hierarchy of the time. That is completely untrue. I do not think anyone has a greater respect or greater regard than I have for the work carried out so selflessly and so devotedly by the religious in many of our hospitals, institutions and county homes throughout the country. They have done great work. I do not see, however, why it should interfere one iota with the suggestion of greater control by local authorities or by the people sitting in those benches. Why should the people sitting in these benches who are members of county councils not have accessto these institutions? Why should they not have a greater right than the people who festoon our board rooms in institutions in Dublin, Cork, Galway and elsewhere?

This is a democracy and this is public money that is being spent. Why cannot we have access to these board rooms and have some say in the disposal of this money? Surely we are not going to impose irksome restrictions on members of religious orders? If we are allowed loose in one of these board rooms, surely we will not go mad in the expenditure of the money? Why should we entrust it to people who are not even elected representatives, who are nominated by the Friendly Brothers, the Knights of Columbanus or someone like that? It is an absurd system. If we believe in elections here, surely we believe in an election in relation to the spending of money, no matter where? Imagine our accepting legislation for the expenditure of money by C.I.E. or Aer Lingus and deciding that the heads and other directors of those companies would be replaced by their sons or their friends, who would take over control as soon as those directors die or move out otherwise? It is utterly unthinkable, and it would be thrown out, quite rightly, as a proposal, that we should allow this money to be spent in any other way than under the strictest supervision of nominees of the Minister or nominees of the local authorities.

This is a perfectly rational proposition and there is nothing revolutionary about it. There is nothing in this that could not be considered sanely. We have made certain standard conditions for the spending of money by local authorities. Every Deputy who is a member of a local authority knows that he is bound by certain statutory conditions in the spending of money, directly or indirectly, in relation to tenders, contracts, supplies of food, equipment of different kinds, insurance and all those other things involved in the day-to-day running of the vast machine that is a modern hospital. Why should you expect this strict organisation and have these restrictions—one may consider themirksome, but they are perfectly logical —and yet allow these other people, who have no responsibilities to us at all and who have very little in common with us, to say we shall not have anything to do with these moneys?

Again, it is laid down that there are certain statutory regulations for the appointment of men to posts in our hospitals and in the public service generally. That is not done in any anxiety to create rules and regulations just for the fun of it. It is done for a very good purpose, in order that the service may get the best possible men available for the jobs to be filled. The facts of the matter are that the only really high level, medical service in this country at the moment is the State service—the orthopaedic service referred to by Deputy Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Health, the thoracic surgery service, and the other services which the State provides. There is hardly any other worthy of the name of European standard; the rest is pedestrian glorified general practitioners. The only difference is between the general practitioner who charges a small fee and the general practitioner in Fitzwilliam Square who charges a big fee. The quality of the knowledge is unknown.

On this question, I am quite sure I will be accused again of an attempt to drive religious orders out of our hospitals. I would just like to say that that is not our intention. I still believe that our nurses are as good as there are in the world. I do not see why these girls should have to go away to England in order to move to the highest post in a hospital or institution. I still adhere to my old view that the staffing of a hospital should be either by a religious order or by a lay staff. That would give our girls an opportunity to go to the top. Many of them are excellent girls and deserve it, and I do not see why they should be deprived of it.

As I said in the beginning, I do not hope to convert the majority of Deputies to my view, but I think if the question is considered at all, if we are anxious, and I think most of us are anxious, to give as good health services as we can to our people, then wewill find that gradually we will have to impose these limitations on our voluntary hospitals. I understand that the present position is—certainly it was so in my time—that these people will accept no conditions from us—it is not just the Minister because he is our nominee—in the taking of money for the building of the hospitals or even in regard to the paying of the debt; that they will treat whom they like and treat them how they like. I do not think that is good. I think that the Minister's nominee or the local authority's nominee should have the right to examine into the general position and the treatment given to the people for which we are paying.

Deputy Costello attacked the Minister for the deadlock which has developed between the Medical Association and the Minister. My attitude is that I wish the deadlock had come quicker. I think the Minister has been extremely patient and that he has done everything any reasonable man could be expected to do. I think that any honest consideration of this problem would have led the Deputy to suggest that there is some wrong on the other side. If you go back through the history of these negotiations in relation to the health services, the Minister, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and myself put before our profession our responsibility to the public. It would be much easier for the three of us to give in to them. There would be no deadlock I am sure if there was agreement on their terms. It would be very much more pleasant for a doctor to agree with his colleagues, but we were not elected by the Medical Association. We were elected by the people to protect the people against the Medical Association or any similar interest which tried to impose its way on the House. If they have a political policy let them put it to the people.

A much more reprehensible course was taken by Deputy J.A. Costello, the ex-Taoiseach, in his time as Minister for Health when the Medical Association was allowed to walk in and take over the Custom House and to draw up a medical programme that would suit them. Would Deputy Costello agree that Deputy Larkin andDeputy Dunne should be given the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture, respectively, as representing the rural workers and the big trade unions in order to decide what our agricultural policy and our industrial policy should be because the people they represent want a particular policy? I do not believe he would have as much enthusiasm for that proposition as for the protection of the class in which he is particularly interested. As far as I can see the deadlock is at an end. The Minister is going ahead and is to be congratulated on his determination to go ahead in spite of the opposition placed in his way by people who for five, six, seven or eight years have frustrated the extension of proper health services. However, I will deal with that aspect on a later occasion.

There is one major consideration and that is the future of our health services and the expenditure which must be undertaken. That must be a cause of worry for any responsible Deputy. At the same time, we should keep a sense of proportion in relation to it. As I said the other night, it is easy to talk at the cross-roads about bringing down the rates and bringing down taxation. You will get votes in that way, and it will make you popular with the unthinking. But those who favour that idea, if they are honest, should pursue it to its logical conclusion and tell the people that if there is a reduction in the rates or in taxation there will be a reduction in our health services, in old age pensions, in widows' and orphans' pensions and all the other social services and amenities such as they are.

As the Minister said in his opening statement, expenditure on health services is a good investment as has been already shown. Even though the State did not work very hard at providing proper health services up to recent years owing to the amalgamation of Departments, infectious diseases have been reduced to negligible proportions. That was largely a health authority function. To a certain extent, that is due to inoculation and so on, but at the same time a spectacularreduction has taken place in these diseases which has not taken place in regard to the cases controlled entirely by the voluntary hospitals, particularly the maternity hospitals. Our infant mortality is still very high, much too high, in spite of the magnificent mechanism provided. They have not succeeded in producing results and that is my main criterion in the consideration of these problems. I am only interested in getting results.

They pursued a particular line for the best part of 50 years and we are now in a veritable bedlam in relation to health services. It is only fair that the community should be given a chance to organise its own affairs in its own interests rather than have the Medical Association organising the health services in their own interests. Let them fight. They are welcome to do that. Any trade union has the right to do that. But they must not be permitted to dictate the terms upon which we will make our services available to the community generally.

It is quite obvious that unless a very radical change takes place in our services they will only increase in their costs to the community. The attitude adopted in relation to infectious diseases was the perfect one, the prevention of disease, its early diagnosis and cure. The tuberculosis figures alone prove that and disprove the Medical Association's point that one cannot have a good State service. A State service is the best service there is. Consider the fever hospital service and the neo-natal services in the maternity hospitals. It is absolute nonsense to say that these services upset the doctor-patient relationship. That is just another cliché. The truth is such a service will interfere with their income. That is the real issue. Let us get that out of the way and get on with the job.

It must be our policy to prevent or eliminate ill-health. I have no doubt an actuary could work out how much has been saved in the last two or three years on public health services because of the improvements made. The longterm proposition is the provision of hospitals, early diagnosis, ready access to such diagnosis and early treatmentin addition to allowances for the bread-winner when he is unable to provide for himself and his family. These are the main problems that have to be faced.

A proper health service has been delayed for many years. We must now make up the leeway. If we ignore the problem there can be no advance. The consequences of our past defects in that regard are largely responsible for the very high rate of expenditure envisaged in the present Book of Estimates, and expenditure that we must anticipate for many years to come until we reach the stage already reached in other countries where radical changes have been made in health services. I instanced New Zealand, Sweden and Great Britain, where expenditure has been reduced because of improved health services.

The fundamental principle is that the services must be readily available without a means test ultimately. I am quite certain that that will evolve in course of time, and there will be no means test. The services will be completely egalitarian. In that way we will reduce the high mortality rate amongst the lower income groups, particularly in relation to infants, and to a certain extent the still rather high infectious diseases rate and tuberculosis rate as compared with other countries.

I congratulate the Minister and the Government on their decision to continue with the short-term hospital building programme. That is a very courageous decision to take in present circumstances. I do not think it can ever be said that Fianna Fáil has ever cut down social services in order to provide money for other possibly less necessary services.

This Estimate does not really raise very many new matters. The only important changes that occur, with the exception of two or three small items, are automatic changes. There is an increase in the grant to local authorities resultant upon the increased rate of expenditure by local authorities and an increase in the Grant-in-Aid to the Hospitals' Trust Fund of £4,500,000.

There are one or two small variations in the Estimate and, lest I forget, I want to deal with one of them now. The grant to the National Blood Transfusion Service, which Deputy Dr. Browne very properly raised a moment ago, has been cut by half. It has been reduced from £6,000 to £3,000. Was it necessary to cheesepare on that service to that extent? I would ask the Minister to consider reinstituting the whole of that grant to the Blood Transfusion Service which has done such admirable work. It is a useful service. It has received a lot of praise and I think it would be a pity at this stage if its activities were curtailed to any substantial extent. A saving of £3,000 on an Estimate of over £10,000,000 does not seem quite proportionate. The saving seems trifling in comparison with the overall Estimate. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this particular cut.

In connection with the increase of £4,500,000 for the building programme of the hospitals, I naturally welcome the fact that this money is being provided from State funds for the building of hospitals. While I do so. I think it is an indictment of the folly of which we have been guilty in the past of not making adequate provision for our hospitals and health services. I cannot help wondering how much we could have saved had we built ten years ago instead of waiting until now to try and catch up. It is probable that the buildings which this £4,500,000 will now provide would have cost only in the region £1,000,000 or possibly £2,000,000 had they been built earlier. Therefore, to a certain extent, this very high Estimate is the result of our own folly of being too parsimonious at the expense of our medical services over a long period of time. It is a lesson which I think we should remember in this House in future in dealing with health services.

In my view, the all-important step in regard to health services in the country lies (1) in the sphere of providing adequate physical facilities. I fear that we have very often allowed theoretical schemes to overshadow the plain reality that no scheme is worth the paper it is written on unless anduntil we have adequate hospitals, adequate dispensaries and adequate clinics to implement it. To that extent, the more rapidly we can provide new hospitals, an adequate number of beds for general hospitals and an adequate number of beds for maternity hospitals, public clinics and public dispensaries, the more rapidly we can envisage proper health services. When it comes to the utilisation of any of these facilities it seems that the only principle involved is to ensure that the best medical services available are not denied to anybody by reason of lack of or adequacy of means. (2) I always felt that that was the sole criterion or the sole principle involved in the provision of medical services. One can indulge in an awful lot of theorising and speculation on the merits of one scheme as against another scheme. I think that all that is somewhat fruitless. In the final analysis, the only two things that will matter will be the adequacy of the physical facilities that are provided and ensuring that nobody will be deprived of any kind of medical treatment by reason of lack or inadequacy of means. If we accepted these two tests I think we could probably avoid an awful lot of somewhat fruitless controversy which we have been having with regard to health services. Let me say in passing that while spectacular controversy concerning health services may occasionally be a good political card, may occasionally be a vote catching card, it does not in the long run in any way help the actual provision of medical services. I think it would probably render a service to the Department of Health and improve health services generally if this whole question of health schemes could be removed from the rather acrimonious political field in which it has been for the past couple of years.

I have raised this matter before but I should like to emphasise again the importance of providing proper dispensaries and clinics for the country. Deputy Dr. Browne said that the dispensary system was beyond remedy. Again I fear that Deputy Dr. Browne is confusing the functional approach with the theoretical approach. Nomatter what kind of medical service we have, one of the first essentials will be proper physical facilities, proper dispensaries, proper clinics throughout the country. Whether these are operated under a State scheme or whether they are availed of by dispensary doctors, as they are at the moment, or by private practitioners, the existing dispensaries are deplorably inadequate. If we are to have a proper medical service, the first essential is to provide the actual clinics and dispensaries that are needed for it. I do not think that that question need be delayed or subordinated to any wider question as to the nature of the scheme to be operated.

I should also like to urge on the Minister the necessity for making more facilities available for research purposes. I feel that that aspect has not received the attention which it merits and that we should try to make available financial assistance to the universities or to any hospital or institution which is prepared to concentrate on a certain specialised type of research.

Before passing to other matters I should like to mention the following matter. I do not know whether it affects the Minister in his capacity as Minister for Health or in his capacity as Minister for Social Welfare, but possibly in so far as it relates to health services, I may be permitted to mention it at this stage. There have been a great many complaints recently about very protracted delays in the payment of health benefits. I am sure that the Minister himself does not wish for such delays but it shows that some attention is needed to ensure that these payments are speeded up. Likewise, there is the cognate question of the deadlock between the dentists and the Department of Health.

It does seem an amazing position that every insured person pays weekly contributions on the understanding that he is to be provided with dental services but that when he comes to seek the services for which he has paid he is told: "Sorry, you cannot have them. You must pay for them." I know that the position from the Minister'spoint of view is difficult, but I do think it is a matter that should not be allowed to drift any longer. Matters of this kind tend to bring State services into disrepute, and there is a great number of complaints in regard to this particular question. Therefore, I hope the Minister will be able to bring about some solution in the near future.

Deputy Dr. Browne has quite properly referred to the position of the county homes and said they still leave a lot to be desired. That is probably nearly an understatement of the position. I think our county homes are, in a great many cases, a disgrace. The only question that worries me in regard to any large expenditure on existing county homes is that in a great many instances they are not suitable as such. I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of setting up old people's flats or housing schemes. Such schemes have been instituted in some big English cities, in London, in particular. I visited a number of these myself and they include specially designed blocks of small flats containing centralised services to cater for the old people. In other areas they consist of small, two-roomed dwellings in a central building containing a canteen, nursing services and a staff generally trained and qualified to deal with old people.

This would be a much better approach to the problem of old people than the county home or the workhouse system to which we have been accustomed. It would get over the pauper attitude or pauper complex that still seems to pervade many of these institutions. I appreciate fully that these blocks of flats or these old people's estates are suitable only for old people who are in a reasonable state of health and who can look after themselves to a certain degree, and that they would not be suitable to old people who are bedridden or suffering from ailments. We should try to think in terms of providing old people's dwellings with some form of central services attached to them by way of canteen and nursing facilities, rather than to think in terms of county homes,particularly if we are contemplating spending fairly considerable sums on the renovation of the existing county homes.

A great many of them are completely unsuitable for their purpose and it would be much better to scrap the concept of the county home and to concentrate on the gradual provision as an alternative of old people's dwellings, be they by way of independent, small two-roomed houses with central services and fairly spacious gardens or be they in the nature of old people's flats. If the Minister had an opportunity the next time he is in London, I think he would be interested in seeing the work which the London County Council has done in that connection. Many of these units are constituted on the Lansbury Estate and are well worth inspection.

Deputy Dr. Browne raised again the question of voluntary hospitals and, in effect, suggested that they should be taken over or nationalised, because gradually the effect of any form of modified control tends towards absolute control. Undoubtedly many of the things Deputy Dr. Browne has said are correct. I do not know whether he is correct in saying that medical appointments are controlled by the Freemasons or by the Knights of Columbanus. If they are, undoubtedly that is highly undesirable. I do not know whether State control of hospitals or of any other institutions would prevent the human tendency that seems to exist, unfortunately, in most people of allowing their sympathies to sway their judgment. I do not know whether we would remove many of the vices which may exist at the moment. On the other hand, it is very easy to exaggerate the advantages of State control, of nationalisation, in some respects. Before embarking on any step in that direction we should consider very carefully what we are doing.

Deputy Dr. Browne indicated one reason for insisting on a greater degree of State control in regard to voluntary hospitals. He pointed out that a patient had only the common law remedy in the courts against the voluntary hospital should he be mistreated and not receive proper treatment. I wonder what remedy thepatient would have against the State hospital? My experience is that whenever the State undertakes to carry out a business itself, be it in the commercial field or elsewhere, it immediately protects itself to the hilt to ensure that nobody will be able to sue the State or, if a right of action is left to an individual against a State institution, it is so circumscribed and limited as to be nearly valueless.

I merely mention that as one instance of the error that can be made in thinking that everything can be solved by nationalisation. On the whole, I think that probably medicine and hospitals are less suited to nationalisation than many commercial enterprises because they depend so much on the personal element, on the vocational instinct of a people who actually engage in nursing.

I must say that I would any day prefer to be at the mercy of people who had chosen nursing as their vocation than to be at the mercy of civil servants if I were a patient in a hospital. Perhaps that may not be a fair argument, but I think we should be very careful before embarking on any scheme of nationalisation of the voluntary hospitals. I have no doubt that you could get many instances of mismanagement possibly in the case of some voluntary hospitals, but I do not think that we should allow those instances to blind us to the evils which may result from the nationalisation of the voluntary hospitals, nor do I think we should allow such instances to blind us to the marvellous work which most of our voluntary hospitals have done. It is easy to decry the voluntary hospitals in general terms, but let us face realities. We do know that these voluntary hospitals have done marvellous work, and that were it not for them our medical services would have been non-existent until recent years.

I do not think, however, that this is a matter which we should discuss in such a vague and general way on the Estimate. I just thought that I should refer to it, as it had been more or less the centrepiece of the speech made by Deputy Dr. Browne. I do not know whether much better results would beobtained if the controlling authorities of the voluntary hospitals were to be elected by popular vote or even nominated from this House. Deputy Dr. Browne pointed out that, for the most part, the boards of these hospitals consisted of retired businessmen, retired professional people—of retired people who had little else to do. That, in itself, should surely not be a criticism. I think that, possibly, a retired businessman, or persons without very much to do, are probably ideally suited for giving voluntary service of this kind, so that I do not think that in itself is a valid criticism. Undoubtedly, persons who abuse the positions they hold as members on the board of a hospital by securing jobs or contracts, should be dealt with mercilessly. At the same time, I think we should not eliminate the voluntary services which many people are able to give in helping to run voluntary hospitals or that we should make the running of voluntary hospitals the monopoly of politicians.

I must say that I have not got a tremendous amount of confidence in politicians on local bodies, or even in the Dáil as administrators. I do not think that we are a particularly efficient body here for that particular purpose. I think that our function is probably to discuss various things here, to talk and make speeches, but I do not think that we are good administrators. I do not think that public bodies are particularly good administrators either. It is possible that some public bodies have on them a sufficient proportion of men who have devoted themselves to local affairs for a long time, and who have in that way developed a certain amount of experience through their knowledge of local affairs.

Do you think that politicians should be allowed to run the country?

I think it probably would be much better—that you would have reached the ideal position—if the actual administration of affairs by Government Departments was carried out by persons other than politicians.

Civil servants?

No. I think there is quite a lot to be said for the system of Government where you have a political head who nominates his Government usually from people completely outside politics. I think you would get better administration in that way. Likewise you would ensure, if the hospitals were administered by people——

The $1,500,000 for medical association lobbying in America?

Supposing in America, the administration of health services were left to the Congressmen, the $1,500,000 for the medical profession lobbying in America would be much more effective than it is. The administration of health service there is left to persons who are not politicians in the ordinary sense,; they do not sit in Congress or in Parliament. I would not be wildly enthusiastic for any proposal that there should be any interference with the voluntary hospitals. I think that, undoubtedly, if there are abuses, then these abuses should be pointed out. The Minister should only contemplate introducing legislation, or interfering in any way, with the voluntary hospitals if he is satisfied that there is no other way of dealing with the position, and even then it should be done with the utmost caution.

While the total sum in the Estimate sounds very high, I think it is essential that the public should clearly realise that practically half of it is for the provision of buildings—physical facilities that are absolutely essential, and that indeed should have been provided a long time ago. It would, I think, be unfortunate if the impression got abroad that the Estimate was raised by such a large amount this year because of improved services. I think it is very necessary to make it quite clear that the Estimate has reached this huge proportion because £4,500,000 has to be provided for the building programme.

This Estimate shows a considerable increase over the Estimate of previous years. It includes a sum of £4,500,000 for something that I would consider to be in the natureof a capital expenditure. The impression in the country generally is that we are to have increased health services. I would like the Minister to give us some idea of how this sum, which we on this side of the House maintain is a capital sum, will be expended. What particular type of medical building is to be produced from it? Is it for hospital expenditure, for tuberculosis, for sanatoria? Is it for county hospitals? Is it for general hospitals or is it for the very much needed improvement of dispensaries?

At first sight it appears that the present Government are to give us greatly improved services if we judge by the figures but nearly one half of this is capital expenditure. As I read the Estimate, the taxpayer will be asked to provide in one year by direct taxation this particular sum of money. It strikes me, having regard to ministerial statements that the limit of taxation has been reached, as rather bad luck on the taxpayer that he will be asked to produce this huge sum of money in one year. Is it considered that the nation is in such a happy position that we can produce huge sums like this for capital expenditure?

An ex-Minister for Health, Deputy Dr. Browne, has been talking about improved health services and about the efforts and struggles of three health Ministers to produce these services. It does not seem to me to be greatly to their credit that the Minister has to turn around and in one year take £4,500,000 from the people to make up the arrears in services extending over the period of these particular health Ministers, in fact since health Ministers came into existence in this country.

The provision of health services must be faced from a practical point of view. It has been stated that the medical profession are responsible for holding up the health services. I do not know. That may be true. But, surely the medical profession are entitled to demand health services that are practical to work. Is it not reasonable to assume that the doctors of Ireland or the representatives of the doctors of Ireland must know what they are talking about? The position is not as has been suggested here thata body of Dublin specialists or Dublin practitioners are sitting in a group and condemning hocus-pocus everything that is put before them. They are not. They are the elected representatives of the medical profession. They are taking the opinion of the entire medical profession throughout the country.

I am not here to argue the merits or demerits of the row between the Minister and the Irish Medical Association. I want to stress that whatever opinion they are offering is the united opinion of that association. This is a democratic country. Dáil Eireann is a democratic institution. As elected representatives we voice the opinion of the people. Is it not reasonable to assume that the doctors of Ireland have representatives to voice their opinions?

If we have not had proper health services in this country and if we are not going to have proper health services now commensurate with what we should be able to give to the people the blame rests just as much on the Minister and those who advise him as on the medical profession who are opposing him. We will never get a proper health service until each side of the fence is able to see the point of view of those on the other side. There is no use in adopting the attitude: "I want a health service in which I will give everybody free medical treatment." That is all very fine. It sounds grand. The proof of the fact that we are not ready for any extended health service is that the Minister has to come into Dáil Eireann and ask for £4,500,000 for the purpose of establishing the raw material to provide improved health services. That is a simple statement of fact with which I think any Deputy will agree.

The very same argument was advanced when the British Parliament sought to abolish child labour.

How very interesting. I am not dealing with child labour at the moment. If you like, we can have a discussion later on about child labour. That is a very different matter. We have to face the fact that if we want to give the people proper healthservices we will have to give them the material to work on. First of all, the dispensary service must be brought into alignment with any improvement in health services. Nobody can suggest that the dispensaries are in a fit and proper condition to provide a health service. The dispensaries cannot be transformed overnight into proper, up-to-date places. You have to begin at the bottom of the ladder. It would be better for any Minister for Health, no matter who he is, to accept that fact that, if you are to have proper health services, you must have a medium around which to work. Are you going to utilise the material already at your disposal, which embraces the dispensaries, any health clinics that exist, county hospitals, voluntary hospitals, which are the established methods of dealing with the health of the nation? You cannot scrap them overnight and then produce something else on paper.

Let us see what the British did. They were supposed to have produced health services whereby everybody would have free and up-to-date treatment whenever they wanted it. It is well known that in Britain to-day if a patient wants an operation done in a hospital for something which is not an emergency, such as hernia, perhaps better known to Deputies as rupture, there is an average waiting list of 12 months. That is what a State health service has done in Great Britain.

If there were no State service how long would it take?

Twice that length. Why should we be the same as Britain?

I am just arguing that you should not do the same. I have practised in England and Ireland. Prior to the introduction of the State medical service in England, if I wanted to transmit a patient to hospital for an operation for a hernia, that was not an emergency, I never had to wait longer than a month at the very outside, and very often I could get the patient in straightway. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share