In connection with amendments submitted to the Health Bill, I have to rule out the following which appear on the final sheet: amendments Nos. 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.
Health Bill, 1952—Committee.
Is the Bill itself being ruled out of order?
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Amendment No. 40 is an amendment to delete "may" and substitute "shall". Is that being ruled out?
Yes. Also ruled out are amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 68, 81 and 87.
Amendment No. 81 is an amendment to substitute certain words and is not in terms of a direct negative.
That is the effect of it.
Would it be possible to say whether there is any general principle or any special reason for which these amendments have been ruled out?
In the main, because they impose a charge on public funds. That may be considered the main reason, but there may be others. I am giving that as the reason for the ruling out of the main body of the amendments.
With regard to the ruling in respect of amendments Nos. 40 and 43, may I suggest that these two amendments do not, in effect, impose a charge on public funds? They are amendments to Section 23, which makes provision for the supply of milk to children by local authorities. Both the amendments could not have the effect of imposing a charge. The first amendment merely makes mandatory what is permissive in the Bill and that cannot impose an additional charge.
It has the potentiality of imposing a charge.
No more than the section itself, which contains a permissive provision.
But it is the Minister who is introducing the section.
It does not alter the potential charge introduced into the section by the Minister.
The Minister has power to introduce a provision imposing a charge, but the Deputy is proposing to introduce an amendment which, in effect, will impose a charge.
The amendment seeks to make mandatory what is permissive in the section.
When you speak, Sir, about imposing a charge on public funds, could we have a definition of "public funds"? Are they funds from the national Exchequer or do they include local authority funds?
No, the national Exchequer.
The Financial Resolution which was passed covers the possibility of all the local authorities operating the section and I take it that the Minister will hardly put forward a case that he put in the section in the hope that they all would not operate the section. Therefore, I suggest that, in ruling out the substitution of the word "may" by the word "shall" by a Deputy, there is the implication that the Minister did not intend that his section would be generally applied. Does the Minister suggest that?
On the question of State and local funds, may I point out in relation to the amendment dealing with the supply of free milk to schools that a grant is made from the Exchequer in this connection? If it is made mandatory on the local authorities to supply free milk, it is not necessarily mandatory on the Exchequer to supply the grant. There is no direct charge on State funds.
That is the principle on which these amendments have always been considered in this House.
Further, in relation to amendment No. 15, dealing with the inclusion of secondary and vocational schools so far as school medical examinations are concerned, my understanding is that that would not impose any charge on the Exchequer.
The commonsense view of it is that it would impose such a charge.
Not if the charge is borne by local funds.
If the provisions of the Bill are to be extended to other schools, they are not included in the Bill and, therefore, it is natural to assume that the extension will impose a charge on public funds——
On local funds.
How could the Bill be administered otherwise?
Public funds are confined to funds in the Exchequer.
That is right.
The school medical examination is carried out by the local authorities.
Is there not a portion which comes from the Exchequer, from the Central Fund?
That is purely a discretionary matter, so far as the Minister is concerned.
No, by law.
The Minister says it is a legal matter and it has to come from the Central Fund.
Is there any explanation of the discrepancy as between the amendment on the paper now circulated and the amendment on the earlier paper? I draw your attention, Sir, to amendment No. 30 on the final paper which is apparently a substitute for amendment No. 24 on the earlier paper. That amendment has undergone a change and I have always understood that, if an amendment is tabled a second time, it is reproduced in the form in which it first appeared and that, if there is to be any amendment of it, it should appear as an amendment.
Anybody introducing an amendment can withdraw it.
Generally, notice is given of that. As the amendment previously appeared—they are both amendments to insert sections before Section 18—it referred to pupils attending day classes in a school in a functional area which provides elementary, secondary or vocational education. The later amendment leaves out secondary and vocational education. Has the first amendment been withdrawn and is this a substitute for it?
Yes, it is a substitute amendment for the first.
No notice was given to the members of the House that the amendment referring to secondary and vocational schools had been withdrawn and that the new proposals referred only to schools that give elementary education. That appears to be the new situation.
The amendment as tabled was submitted by the Minister in substitution for the other amendment.
It is a common feature on a sheet of amendments to find two amendments and to have a notification that the later one is in substitution for the former one, but here the former one has been stealthily withdrawn. I do not know whether it is deliberate but no notice has been given of the change.
This is the final form of the amendment, as submitted by the Minister.
I understood the ordinary rule was that amendments should be notified as being in substitution for ones that already appeared. The amendment to which I have called attention has now been substituted for another without any statement that it is intended as a substitute for the former one.
I am not aware that there is any such rule or practice as that to which the Deputy refers.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister say what particular division he has in his mind in this Bill, the various provisions of which, if it goes through, will be brought in on different days? Can he give any reason why there should be different days for the different sections of the Bill?
I think it must be quite obvious to Deputies that all the provisions of this Bill, when enacted, would not come in immediately or on the one day. It is almost certain that some provisions will come in much sooner than others. I cannot say at the moment what provisions will come in first.
Does the Minister say that as far as this Bill is concerned he has no picture formed bythis time that would indicate what are the particular groups of proposals in it that would have priority in the sequence in which the different sections of the Act will operate? Can the Minister give us no idea from his particular point of view as to the structure of the Bill that would result in different sections of it being brought in on different occasions, or whether there is a particular natural sequence in the Bill so that he could give an indication as to the time factor in the introduction of the provisions?
That will depend on the opinion of the local authority in these cases as to what parts of the Bill they are ready to operate and what parts they are not ready to operate for some time to come.
Is the local authority simply the county manager?
The local authority is the local authority.
For the purposes of this Bill and this section and of advising the Minister on this section, is the local authority the county manager?
I do not see why it should be the county manager. I think the county council will take a great interest in this matter.
I am speaking from the statutory point of view.
From the statutory point of view the local authority means the local authority but the county manager is part of it.
In a lot of cases the local authority means the county manager.
He has certain powers.
Following such discussions as went on between the reinforced Health Council and the Minister, we have seen that the representative association of the medical body is still fundamentally opposed to the general principles upon which this Bill is framed and the foundational approach to the organisation of thehealth services referred to in this Bill. The Minister will recall that we asked that this Bill would be referred to a Special Committee of the Dáil and Seanad with powers to send for persons, papers and documents so that, in view of the conflict that had arisen in so many different spheres with regard to the provisions of this Bill, the actual details of the Bill might be examined in the light of experienced opinion by those who are interested in the matter from various points of view and by those who would have to carry it out. The Minister has declined to meet the wishes of that section of the House that wanted such a body set up. Since the Minister declined that he has had a statement of the attitude of the medical profession in the matter and the result of his subsequent discussions with the reinforced Health Council has been simply a reiteration by the medical body that it is so averse to the general lines of these proposals that it is not prepared to work them.
Surely in an atmosphere of that particular kind and when the Minister is insisting on going through with the discussion here on the Committee Stage, he should at least do his best to help us in the matter. It is hardly propitious that on the second section of this Bill he would not tell us frankly that in his mind the county manager is the local authority for the purpose of letting him know on what particular date or in what particular order the proposals in this Bill will be put into force. I submit that the House is entitled to hear from the Minister, first and foremost, an outline of his view of the structure of this Bill which would dictate that it would come into force in a certain sequence and that if the Minister is going to have consultation with the local authorities on that point, he would let us know what form that consultation is going to take.
I take it the Deputy does not expect an answer to that.
I do expect an answer and it is treating the House very badly if the House does not getan answer. The Minister is forcing the Bill through this House in a very extraordinary way and his opening note on the matter is that although he asks us to accept a section of this Bill that empowers him to take provisions of this Bill and put them into operation on different dates, he still declines to give any picture to the House as to what he has in mind with regard to the build-up of this Bill that would suggest that it would be normal to introduce it by degrees. We do require that picture and when the Minister speaks of his association with the local authority, we do require information as to whether it is going to be discussed with the elected representatives of the local authorities or whether, when he speaks of the local authority in connection with Section 2, he is only speaking of the county manager.
Was the Deputy not present at the Second Reading of this Bill?
None of them was present.
You should have shown a little more interest, or asked some of your colleagues.
If we could, by law, prevent the germs of influenza knocking around the country, then I might be able to give an undertaking such as that. Why did the Deputy not open his mouth on the Second Reading? I think it comes very poorly from any Deputy in this House to challenge any other Deputy, who at least gives a fair attendance here and does not shirk his responsibilities or shirk expressing his opinion here, when he was lying down with a few virulent germs of influenza during the Second Reading of this Bill. Deputy Browne was here and he did not open his mouth.
Have you not been speaking to your colleagues?
Deputy Browne should address the Chair.
I am sorry, Sir.
If Deputy Browne is a little more interested now in thisBill than he was on the Second Reading, is he in a position to step into the breach and tell us something about this Bill that the Minister refuses to tell us? Has Deputy Dr. Browne any particular information that the local authority, under Section 2, is the county manager? Can he answer that? Has he sufficient interest in this Bill which he asks me to debate, to answer that question? Is the local authority under Section 2 the county manager? Is Deputy Dr. Browne dumb?
Wait, Deputy.
Is this a new démarcheon the part of Fine Gael—that the local authority under the Bill is the county manager? This is a new stunt, that the county manager is the authority, not the county council. It is very hard to be prepared for all these stunts on the part of Deputies. I thought they would not be here at all to-day because their attitude on Second Reading was that the Bill was unamendable, it was so bad. Let us have the whole stunt now.
We have the same attitude to-day.
Why come here so?
This is the Committee Stage——
You have no business over there because you said it was unamendable. You have no business except to obstruct as you are starting already.
We are entitled to discuss the Bill in Committee.
You said already that the Bill was unamendable. Reference has been made to the fact that Deputy Dr. Browne did not speak on the Bill on Second Reading. The fact that Deputy Dr. Browne did not speak on Second Reading had a very soothing effect on Deputies opposite on that stage.
I am sure it had and it would have a still more soothing effect if he kept his mouth shut to-day.
There is no doubt it had a very soothing effect because they were looking to Deputy Dr. Browneto speak first before they would intervene. The result was that we got through our business very quickly. Now the Deputy comes in here to-day with another of these obstructive questions: is the county manager or the county council the authority?
Could that be answered?
I do not know whether it could be answered or not. The county councils are the controlling authorities so far as this Bill is concerned but they can, as they sometimes do, authorise the county managers to act for them. The county councils are the bodies who will exercise authority under the Bill. Every single county council that met under this Bill has shown that they understand that. The Deputy need not try to get away with this suggestion that it is the county managers. As a matter of fact, the Deputy himself was the first person to introduce this business of the county manager.
No.
Yes.
I introduced the city manager in Dublin and Cork against the most spiteful opposition of the Deputy's Party.
That may be so. That is typical of Fine Gael mentality, to try to make a difference between the city manager and the county manager. Fine Gael tries always to thrive on that sort of difference.
Inasmuch as the local authority will have to provide the money—that is the elected representatives will have to provide the money—I assume that the county council will be the local authority for the purpose of saying when the Bill or portions of the Bill will come into operation.
That is right.
But the county manager will have the power of administering it.
The county manager will have the power of administering it to a certain extent but the county council will decide what provisions of the Bill will come into operation on a given date because they will have to provide the money and, therefore, the county councils will be the principal body concerned.
It seems to me that the whole Bill hinges on this section. The section says that certain portions of the Bill are to come into operation on a date to be decided. The final arbiter in deciding that question must be the Minister. The Minister is not going to decide that question on his own. He is going to be advised by somebody and the question is by whom? I think it is perfectly reasonable on the part of Deputy Mulcahy to inquire who is actually going to advise the Minister. The Minister has replied to a certain extent but I am still at a loss to know whether it is the county council or the county manager. Is each particular local authority to be in a position to decide when they will operate a particular section of the Act or is it to be a uniform business to be dished up to the Minister by all the local authorities? I think the Minister should make a statement on this section because the whole Bill hinges on it. So far, he has given us no information whatever. It is a simple matter. The Minister should give us a short statement as to how he proposes to work the Bill because the whole Bill hinges on Section 2 so far as I read it.
The Deputy has not as much experience as some of his colleagues but if he will go back over Acts that have been passed for the last 25 or 30 years he will find a similar clause in them.
With all respect to the Minister surely this is the time for the Minister to make a statement.
I said that I would have to consult the county authorities about it. What more could I have said at that time? If I said I would not consult them I am sure Fine Gael would have objected to that.
In the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the measure, I believe the Minister did state his intentions in relation to the Bill and as to when the various parts of the Bill would be brought into operation. He said so far as my recollection serves me—I think accurately— that while it was not his intention to force any local authority or any health authority to operate the measure he would encourage them to do so.
That is right.
I took that at the time as a statement of the Minister's policy in regard to the measure. I took it as a statement of policy having regard to what we had known had already taken place shortly before the Second Reading of the Bill, that local authorities said they would not operate the Bill because it was too costly. I drew the deduction from the Minister's statement that local authorities which took the view: "We will not operate the Bill because of the expense entailed on the ratepayers," would not be forced to bring the measure into operation. There were so many local authorities who took that stand that I came to the conclusion that this Bill was never going to come into operation.
I should not like to agree that that is a correct interpretation of what exactly the local authorities said. I said that the majority of delegates present said that it was a good Bill but nevertheless they did not like to have to pay for it. They did not say that they would not operate it.
It reminds me of a statement of a character in George A. Bermingham's General John Regan:“You may say what you like but we won't pay.” This Bill will never come into operation so far as the local authorities are concerned. Most local authorities have said that they will not bring the Bill into operation as long as the rates are called upon to pay the greater portion of the expense or even half the expense, so that this Bill will never come into operation so far as they are concerned.
Are we not getting a good deal of unnecessary sparring across the House in regard to this matter? It seems to me that the Bill is quite clear. After the Bill has been passed certain statutory obligations will be imposed upon the Minister. He is given power under this section to make Orders as to when particular sections of the Bill will come into operation. Quite clearly he will consult the local authorities in regard to that matter. There will be varying expressions of opinion on the part of local authorities in regard to bringing certain parts of the Bill into operation and the raising of the necessary finances to defray the cost. At the same time the Minister must make a decision and it is the Minister, not the local authority, who will make that decision. If any particular local authority is not prepared to operate that part of the Bill, then the Minister has power to compel the local authority to do so. If the Minister reads through the provisions of the Bill he will find many sections which show clearly that once the Minister makes an Order, the health authority will have to comply with it, or we will have another health authority and the local council will be abolished.
I would like to make two comments on what Deputy Larkin has just said. He is quite right from the point of view of what is in this Bill: once the Bill or portions of it are brought into operation the local authority is then bound to give effect to such provisions but the Minister is under no statutory obligation to implement the Bill and therefore, to my great satisfaction, this Bill will never become the law.
I am fortunate to be in the position of being able to quote exactly what I said on this matter. It will be found at column 1914 of the Official Report of February 26th of this year:—
"Some time must elapse before all the necessary facilities are available and all the necessary arrangements made, but there will be no deliberate holding back on my part. Neither do I intend to push local authoritiesunduly to implement the Bill. I intend within reason to allow the maximum discretion to local authorities."
That is exactly what I said the Minister said.
Possibly I am misunderstanding the purpose of Section 2 altogether, but I understood Section 2 to be just the ordinary type of section enabling the Minister to bring different parts of the Act into operation on different dates.
It is the ordinary section.
Reading it closely it appears to be quite different from the usual section which merely provides for the bringing into operation universally of an Act or portion of an Act. Am I to take it from what the Minister has said that he construes the section as enabling him to bring a portion of it into operation in regard to one particular county but not in regard to another county? I am merely seeking information at the moment. From something the Minister said in the course of this discussion I now have the impression that the Minister visualises utilising that section in order to enable him to bring into operation the Act, in whole or in part, and to apply it in regard to one particular local authority but not in regard to another particular local authority. I put it this way: the Minister might decide to bring in Part I—I am just taking Part I at random—and apply it to the City of Dublin but not apply it to the City of Cork. I am not now trying to raise difficulties. I am merely trying to elucidate the position. The section is phrased differently from the usual sections.
As the Deputy knows, health regulations are passed which, I am sure, operate on much the same legal formula. Let us assume that a dental scheme is brought into operation for the whole country; one county may not adopt that scheme as promptly as another. The sameposition may obtain here. Within reason, that will be permitted but if one county lags behind too long force will have to be used to make that particular county adopt the scheme.
Then I can take it that the Minister construes the section as enabling him to exempt.
No, not exempt.
Not to bring the Act into operation in relation to particular local authorities, for whatever reason he may have. It may be a good reason or it may be a bad reason, but the Minister visualises he has that power under that section.
No. If a regulation is made enabling local authorities to bring a certain service into operation, some local authorities will probably adopt that regulation promptly; others will not. Enforcing the regulation, however, may not come for some time after the regulation is made.
That is not an answer to the question asked. May I put the question as simply as I can: is it the Minister's view that this Section 2 will enable him to bring into operation some part of the Act in relation to Cork, for instance, but not in relation to Carlow, because, if he thinks that is in the section, I want to tell him that it is certainly not specifically in it?
That is so. It is not.
Therefore the Minister does not claim that he can bring legislation in for one part of the country and not for the other parts.
No
I understood that was Deputy MacBride's point.
That was the point I wanted clarified.
There is a certain amount of confusion in relation to Section 2. I read it as saying that it can be brought in with different datesfixed, either generally or with reference to a particular purpose or provision. I certainly do not see any discrimination given as between localities. The Minister seems to think there is power to discriminate as between localities.
I do not think so. I said the regulation would be made. That has always been the practice. Why should we depart from the practice now? A regulation is made authorising local authorities to bring in a certain service. Some counties may adopt that regulation immediately. Others may not adopt it for a few years.
Do I understand now that the Minister contemplates regulations which will be permissive for adoption by local authorities until a certain date?
Making an Order means making a regulation.
I want to get behind the regulation now in order to find out what the Minister's purpose is. The Minister gave as an example dental services, and he said that certain local authorities might not adopt those services immediately. Does that mean that the Act will be brought in by ministerial Order as from a particular date but the adoption of that Order will be left to the local authorities almost without any time limit at all? Is that what is contemplated?
The Order will be to enable the local authority to do something.
At no time will the Orders be made compulsory on the local authorities?
They will. Eventually they will be made compulsory.
Can the regulation, then, allow different dates for the compulsion to be operated on different local authorities?
I would not think so, no.
I thought not, too,but apparently the Minister is wavering on the point.
I do not think so. I have already stated three times that an Order will be made enabling the local authority to bring in a certain service. Certain local authorities will adopt that immediately. Others may lag behind. It is then that the compulsory Order will bring in the ones that have so far failed to come in.
I am not trying to create difficulties. Deputy Larkin has pointed out that there are many mandatory provisions in the Bill. Such provisions are not permissive. In relation to these particular mandatory sections, unless the Minister takes powers to exclude the local authority in a given area he has no discretion whatsoever in the matter. Once that particular part of the Act comes into operation it will be mandatory on all local authorities to provide the services proposed. I merely raise this matter so that the Minister will have an opportunity of considering whether or not that is what he wants to do. I can visualise certain difficulties. Quite apart from the question as to whether or not a local authority is in favour of the Bill or has the necessary funds to implement the cost of the regulation, I can visualise circumstances in which it might be undesirable to force a local authority to provide a particular service at a particular time. For instance, in connection with maternity services, many local authorities would not have the necessary beds available, and so on. I do not think the Minister has considered that.
As we go along we will come across some of the points raised by the Deputy with regard to compulsory provisions.
Is not the position set out clearly in Section 21?
Section 21 would appear to make it clear what services will be introduced under Sections 13 to 20.
And that will be done by regulations? Must these regulations come before the House?
The regulations must.
But not the Orders.
No.
This piece of legislation is divided into five parts. We can neglect the first part which is preliminary and general. The other four parts are substantial. We have had different types of legislation brought into the Dáil in which there appeared something like Section 2. On those occasions, the Minister in charge was always able to give at least a general indication that some time would be required to bring in part of the legislation, and that that would mean a delay. He was also able to tell us what could be brought in almost immediately. Surely, the Minister could distinguish between the four parts of this Bill, and tell us what are the ones that will require the great deal of time, the ones that will require some time, but not too much, and the ones that can be brought in with some speed.
I do not know whether one can generalise with regard to the parts of the Bill. It would appear to me that Part II would come in automatically.
Would that apply to Part IV also?
Part V will have to be analysed. Part III deals with the new services to be introduced under the Act. I think they are covered generally by the regulations to be made under Section 21.
Except that this only refers to this particular thing, to Sections 13 to 20. Section 30, for example, deals with the health examination of children at school. I imagine that is one which will require a good deal of time.
I would not say so. I think that can be brought in very quickly. The provision for school medical examination is there at the moment, apart from an improvement in the facilities that are necessary.
There is a good deal of chopping and changing. We are getting no further.
Deputy McGilligan has been getting back to the first question that was asked. The Minister has thought fit to charge me, particularly, with obstruction. I am opposed to this Bill because of the general foundations of it and, generally, because of the spirit in which it has been brought in. The medical profession are not in agreement with the Minister on the matter. I admit quite frankly that I am opposed to this measure. My purpose here is to try and help the House to see what is happening. I am trying to do that in the clearest and most effective way possible. I originally asked the Minister, in relation to this section, if he could give us the picture that he has in his mind of this Bill and of its general structure so as to indicate to us the sequences that he has in his mind as to when the different sections of it will require to be put into operation. I do not think that was an obstructive question. I asked him, for example, if the local authority mentioned by him is to be the county manager. I do not think that was a particularly obstructive question, except that the Minister wants to hide the confusion he speaks of by calling proper and orderly parliamentary inquiries in committee an obstructive process.
I think that if the Minister had addressed himself to answering the questions which I put to him in a reasonable way we might not have got into the confusion that he afterwards complained of. We might, perhaps, have been deprived of the rather interesting insight into the situation which we have got and which no doubt we will come across again. The Minister has got no nearer to answering my general question. Are we to take it from what the Minister has said that Section 2 means that when he brings the Bill into operation on a particular date he will bring it into operation in respect of the whole State? Will he indicate that when he brings part of the Bill into operation there will be arrangements made sothat local authorities may use their own discretion and come to their own conclusions as to whether they will bring that part into operation or not, or will the position be that if a sufficient number of them bring that part of the Bill into operation and take action in regard to it the Minister intends to make that section of the Bill compulsory in respect of those local authorities which have been hanging back? What does the Minister mean when he says that he will not push local authorities unduly? If a sufficient number of them come into line, does that mean that the others will be brought in compulsorily, or does the word "unduly" refer merely to time?
When the Deputy asked me what intentions I had with regard to bringing this into operation I said that I would have to consult the local authorities. I think that any reasonable Deputy would have accepted that answer. Instead of it being accepted we have had this long discussion. I do not see why I should be accused of not being reasonable in my reply. I think I gave a good and reasonable reply, namely, that I would have to consult the local authorities before I would know what services I would bring in, and when. I do not intend to operate the Bill without consulting the local authorities. I think that if a Minister on another Bill gave an answer such as I gave it would be accepted. Why, then, should the Deputy find fault with my answer and accuse me of not giving sufficient information? I do not know what the opinions of the local authorities may be on the different provisions of this Bill—on what should be brought in immediately and what should be delayed. I intend, as I have said, to consult the local authorities.
Is that the only point on which there will be consultation, whether they want a provision now or later?
Yes.
They are not going to be told to say: "Not at all"?
If the Oireachtas makes a law, naturally they must bring it in.
Then there will be a time limit?
This appears to me to be a harmless sort of section; it has been in every Bill I know of for the last 30 years. I did not think any discussion would arise on it, but now I am asked to parse every word and I think that is unreasonable.
The Minister is being unreasonable and unfair. He has moved a motion which implies that certain parts of this Bill—some as a matter of necessity, others as a matter of convenience—will come into operation on particular dates. He is asked to indicate the dates on which various groups of provisions could be put into operation, whether there is any natural sequence or not, yet he can give no information.
When he speaks of consulting local authorities, it is not unreasonable for us to ask what that consultation means. Is it consultation between himself or his Department and the county manager or is it the reference of a matter formally to the county council, that is, the body of elected representatives, for discussion at a meeting of the county council, in order to get a formal expression of opinion from the elected representatives? The Minister has not given any information on that point. It is quite unreasonable for him not to answer as to the form in which the consultation will take place and I think it is the Minister who is being provocative rather than anyone else.
It is obvious to everybody that Fine Gael has decided on a calculated filibuster on this Bill, as it did on the Financial Motions, having changed the tactics from those of the Second Reading, when Fine Gael voted unanimously for it.
We did not.
It is a magnificent achievement to get something progressive once in a while from them. This is not the first Health Bill that has been before the House. The 1947Health Act was passed with Section 3 as the counterpart of Section 2 in this Bill. Much the same provisions were in it. The health services have been carried on, to the knowledge of many members of Fine Gael who are members of local authorities, I suppose, with concurrence and agreement. These are exactly the same provisions, I imagine, unless the Minister has some intention of changing these general provisions since the 1947 Act was passed. It is a bit late in the day for Deputy Mulcahy, with his hysterical concern for the rights of democratic government and of local authorities, to go into all sorts of play-acting, as he is doing on such a very serious matter as the Health Bill.
The Minister states that the position more or less is that he does not know actually when he will be able to implement these different provisions as he has not had consultations with the local authorities. Had the Minister not a general consultation with the medical officers of health in the different counties? Has he not already had consultation with the county managers? Surely he must have some bird's-eye view of the position and must know when the different provisions can be introduced or when it would be possible for local authorities to implement them? He ought to be able to give a general impression as to what sections it will be possible to introduce at the early stages.
The whole Bill hinges on this section. All we want to know is when approximately this Bill will be brought into effect by the different local authorities; what sections will be taken first; if certain counties are able to bring it in and others are not, what period will be allowed to them to put their house in order; and, as has already been asked, if it is compulsory on them? The Minister has said that if it passes the Dáil it is compulsory. At the present moment it is the Minister's intention to bring this in compulsorily. In the event of the Bill being passed by the Oireachtas, what period will be allowed to local authorities to set their house in order and be ready to deal with the different provisions in theBill? These are reasonable things to ask and as far as I know the Minister has not answered them yet.
Deputy Browne is quite correct when he says that the same section was in the 1947 Act, but he knows fairly well that there were several sections in that Act that were never brought into operation, though they were passed here with such vigour.
Why were they not brought into operation? Who was the Government from 1948 onwards?
Deputy Cowan can answer that question himself. There are sections of the 1947 Act which were not brought into operation, so it is only reasonable that we would ask now what sections the Minister proposes to leave out and will not press unduly. Surely that is a reasonable question. He says he does not know. Maybe Deputy Dr. Browne or Deputy Cowan knows. Apparently they do; they know what the Minister does not know himself. We would be glad if they could enlighten us. The 1947 Act was passed with such vehemence as we are to have, apparently, in this one being pushed through the House. It had Sections 55, 67, 73 and 101 in it, that are fairly hairy, that even Deputy Dr. Browne or Deputy Cowan in their wildest dreams would not think of enforcing. Discretion is to be used there. This is the third time an attempt has been made to put a Health Bill through the House and we want the Government to let us know what we are doing this time, so that the mistakes of the past may be avoided.
Do Deputies want to ask the question again? Does Fine Gael intend to ask it every time I answer it? I have answered four times already that I intend to consult local authorities to see when they will be ready. Every section will be enforced, but some not as soon as others. Is that clear?
No, it is not. Add this: Will you wait until the last of them is ready?
Not necessarily.
That is better.
The Minister has not answered my question—has he not already had consultations with the county managers and with each medical officer of health?
Yes, and with the county councils.
Does the Minister not know when these authorities will be ready? He has given no indication to us.
I have had consultations with county councils, county managers and county medical officers of health about the Bill but not as to when it should come into operation.
I want to keep away from personalities and avoid being involved in quibbling. Is it not possible for the Opposition to put their views clearly and for us all to do the same, so that we may get somewhere? My sympathy is with the Minister. When he says he may delay in implementing part of the Bill, for a very good reason, he is accused of neglecting to enforce the Bill altogether. When it is suggested that he will proceed to see that certain parts will be implemented as quickly as possible, in the interests of the people, he is told that he is pushing the Bill down the necks of the local authorities.
What is wrong with that? The Minister has said that the consultations he envisages before this Bill or portion of the Bill is brought into operation are consultations to ascertain when local authorities will be ready to operate the Bill. I would like to know from the Minister if that includes when they will be ready to foot the cost of the proposals in the Bill and what his attitude will be if they persist in their attitude: "We will not agree to operate this Bill unless the general taxpayer pays as distinct from the ratepayer"?
I am quite sure they have that in mind. I have not the slightest doubt that local authorities will adopt this Bill. The Deputy will be sorely disappointed.
I did not hear the Minister.
I have not the slightest doubt that the local authorities will adopt this Bill when it goes through.
Under the existing arrangement as to costs?
Yes.
Paying half the costs?
Yes and the Fine Gael Party will be sorely disappointed.
That remains to be seen.
If the local authorities are recalcitrant like the Fine Gael majority and refuse to put this Bill into operation, surely the Minister may take the same powers as Deputy Mulcahy took once upon a time as Minister for Local Government when he insisted upon the medical officer of health provision being carried out by the local authorities?
Several times. Are we to understand from the Minister that Deputy Dr. Browne is expressing the Minister's mind on the matter, that is, Deputy Dr. Browne suggests that if the local authorities are recalcitrant and will not operate this Bill the Minister will deal with them in the way that I, as Minister for Local Government, had to deal with them, by removing certain local authorities from office because they did not fulfil their statutory duties?
I will not necessarily follow the methods of the Deputy—I hope not in every way.
I sincerely hope that nobody will follow Deputy Mulcahy's methods as Minister for Local Government because if there was ever a barren period in Irish history——
Deputy Mulcahy's administration as Minister for Local Government does not arise on this section.
I agree.
Why discuss it?
If there was ever a barren period it was during that period, when nothing was done.
We are discussing Section 2.
Of course, Deputy Mulcahy will be jumping up to know am I speaking the Minister's mind.
I have a question for the Minister when you are finished.
This is a new line of Deputy Mulcahy's—is Deputy Dr. Browne expressing the Minister's mind; am I expressing the Minister's mind? The Minister is expressing his own mind. What we are endeavouring to do in this House, I hope, is to bring in a Health Bill that will work. I think we are all genuinely concerned in bringing in that type of Bill. There are sections in this Bill on which there may be grounds for differences of opinion but, ofter 30 years of experience of this House, where, in every Act of consequence that has been passed, there has been a provision whereby sections of that Act will be brought in from time to time on ministerial Order and where we are following a precedent that has been mapped out over a period of 30 years, it does seem to me that the line adopted by Fine Gael on this Bill and on this particular section is to say: "We are going to cause all the trouble we can. We are going to waste as much time as we can"—on this, one of the most innocent and harmless sections in the Bill. Because, if the Bill is to be brought into operation, it has to be brought into operation not the day it is passed but by Orders made by the Minister. The Minister says "I am going to adopt the sensible line. I am going to consult all local authorities and, having consulted with them, I will bring in the different sections of the Bill or the different parts of the Bill as we are able to bring them in."
In this particular discussion, I see one very important matter. It is assumed, and it is a good thing tohave that assumption, by Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy MacEoin, Deputy Dr. Esmonde and the other Deputies there, that there is no doubt at all about it that this Bill will be brought into operation part by part by the Minister in the next six months or the next year or two years or three years. That is what they are assuming now— in other words, that the Minister is going to bring it in.
You are taking consolation in the fact that you may be here for that period yourself?
I look forward to being here when all these sections are brought in by the Minister. The Bill says that these will be brought in from time to time by the Minister for Health. Fine Gael, who are shouting about elections and change of Government and everything, can see nothing only the present Minister remaining in power until this Bill is brought finally into operation.
The section does not say the present Minister.
I know the section does not say it, but the whole fear in the speeches is that the present Minister will be there during the period that this Bill will be brought into operation. Deputy Dr. Browne has called this a filibuster. It is. It is ridiculous on this particular section. However, I am sure the plan has been worked out by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy MacEoin and Deputy McGilligan. They have worked out the plan to ask all these questions of the Minister, when he is going to bring in this section or that section or the other section. Personally, I am delighted to see that confidence in the position of the Minister, that he will be there for the period of time that will be necessary to bring this Bill finally into operation. That is the most important thing that results from the present discussion. I think Deputy Mulcahy might face that issue.
I want to assure all concerned that I am facing the discussion of this measure for the purpose of bringing out the greatest possibleinformation about it. In order to bring out the greatest possible information about this measure, it is necessary to carry on the discussions on the Committee Stage and further stages, on the Committee Stage at any rate, on the understanding that the person who will be operating this measure will be Deputy Dr. Ryan, the present Minister for Health, and that the spirit in which he would be operating is the spirit in which it is conceived, going back to the 1947 Bill and the 1945 Bill.
The safety of our people, in the first instance, requires that approach. The creation of the greatest possible clarity of outlook on the situation demands that also. Deputy Cowan expressed that what he is looking for is a Health Bill that will work. Again, I am assuming in the discussion of this measure that it is a Health Bill that is going to be worked. It is imperative not to distract ourselves from facing up to facts by ifs and ifs and ifs and it is for purposes of simple clarity that I ask for a picture of the structure of this Bill that causes the Minister to put in this section. It is this Bill we are talking about, not the 1947 Bill. The Minister has side-stepped all around the place on that. Perhaps the situation will disclose itself as we go along. There is a question that I would put again most clearly. The Minister has indicated that consultation with the local authorities is a matter that he regards as important, whatever he would do afterwards. I ask again, what is the process, what is the procedure, for the consultation that he speaks about? Will matters be referred to the full elected county council to be discussed and to be decided by them and to have recommendations or suggestions or opinions or answers passed on by them? Is that the consultation that the Minister speaks about in connection with this section?
I would be out of order to repeat myself, naturally, a Cheann Comhairle.
At the end of this time I would like to find out, possibly by recapitulation, where we are in this. The Minister did say earlier that he thought this section gave power to fixdifferent dates for different local authorities. That, I understand, is gone; he is not accepting that?
I do not remember saying that.
Very good. That is no longer in the discussion. That was put. With regard to the section itself, he has not yet adverted to the limiting words on which a distinction may be made, a distinction of date — that is to say, for a particular purpose or provision. These are the only two things, I take it, with reference to which different dates may be established through the country generally. The Minister says that thereafter he is to consult the local authorities. But he also said, arising out of that reference to consultation with local authorities, that he contemplated regulations which would be enabling regulations. I take it that that is his view still. There will be Orders which will enable the local authorities to bring the Act into operation in their districts. That is an important matter. It was on that I asked was he going to wait until the most laggard of them was ready or is there some point at which he will determine that, notwithstanding a number of laggard health authorities, he will bring the legislation with regard to certain sections in for the country generally?
He was also asked how he will deal with local authorities in another connection and his answer was that the local authorities would accept the legislation, including the cost. He was also asked to wave the big stick, so to say, if they did not accept it and have them dismissed and have a special commissioner put in instead. I should like to know if he can give us any further information on the general views with regard to the section. I do not think that what we have been told brings us very much more forward. I appeal to him to deal with this as Ministers deal with other legislation and tell us what are the parts which can be brought in without delay, what parts will require some delay and what parts will require most delay. Does he propose to adopt the view expressedthat he should operate portions of it by overruling a local authority and putting in a special commissioner?
Might I ask the Minister how this section will operate in relation to Section 63? It seems to me that under Section 63 a local authority may refuse to operate it and the Minister then has no power.
We will deal with that on Section 63. There are amendments to Section 63.
I have to take what is in the Bill. I am talking about two sections, not about amendments.
I do not see anything arising out of Section 63 in connection with this which says: "Nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall operate to enable the Minister to direct the giving of any service or benefit to any individual person." It directs the local authorities to give any service to any person, but it prohibits the Minister from directing the giving of any service to any individual person.
If the Minister under Section 2 makes an Order, a local authority or local authorities under Section 63 can completely ignore the Order made by the Minister and not operate it.
They will not. No local authorities will refuse to operate this.
So far as they have been vocal at all, it has been in the other direction.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
What about the amendment?
The amendment is not necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:—
To add the following sub-section:—
(2) Any person who avails himself of any service provided under this Act shall not be under any obligation to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to a health examination or treatment which is contrary to the teaching of his religion.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear beyond any shadow of doubt——
It is very hard to hear at the moment.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that no person can be obliged to submit himself for medical examination or treatment which is contrary to his religious beliefs.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to one particular consideration which may have escaped his notice. The amendment provides in effect that no person shall be obliged to submit himself to examination or to a service which is contrary to the teaching of his religion. Who is to establish that? If a person comes up and says to the county manager, "I will not submit myself to this examination," and the manager says, "Why?" and he says, "It is contrary to the teaching of my religion," and the manager says, "I do not believe you," who is to prove it?
I do not see why he could not accept the statement. Section 4 as it stands says: "Nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service provided under this Act or to submit himself... to health examination or treatment." So that if the manager were to say, "I do not believe you," it would be contrary to Section 63.
I do not think the Minister has taken the point. Theamendment reads (amendment read). It does not even say: "which he believes is contrary to the teaching of his religion." It says in clear, definite and distinct language, "which is contrary to the teaching of his religion." This is a point of substance. I bring my mind back to certain controversies which took place in this country some years ago when it was asserted that certain directions that had been given by moral authorities did not, in fact, prove or state what they purported to prove or state. If a person goes into whoever is responsible for the administration in a county of particular parts of this Bill and says: "It is contrary to the teaching of my religion" and the official says: "I do not believe it," and the person says: "I will prove it" and brings in theologians A or B, the official may say: "I do not believe either of them; you will have to go to court." There must be affirmative proof of that and not merely a statement. There is no indication as to how he is to make the case that it is contrary to the teaching of his religion. You may have the point of view of the theologians and the authorities may say: "We do not accept this as authoritative proof that it is contrary to the teaching of his religion." Certain people in this country have asserted that statements made by episcopal authorities did not mean what they said and were not in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church or the moral law.
I have some difficulty with regard to the section itself. Its purpose is not to impose an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service or to submit himself to any examination or treatment. To what extent can that be reconciled with the provisions of the 1947 Act, particularly with regard to infectious diseases? Does the Minister still retain the powers given to him under that Act and the powers given to the local authorities? While in theory it may be that the parent is not bound to submit his child to examination in the school, in practice it will be very difficult and it will require a very strong willed person to insist that his childshall be exempted from a general examination in the school. I take it that that is also the viewpoint of the Bill. On the other hand, I take the view that not merely are those examinations carried on for the benefit of the parents but also for the benefit and protection of the children. In many cases it is important from the point of view of the child itself that it should undergo these examinations and the treatment shown to be necessary because of examination. Parents, above all, should be required to secure proper medical examination for their children. I am not commenting on the amendment which seems to me to be largely superfluous. The wording is largely put in for dressing.
Finally, there is a section later in the Bill which deals with the question of vaccination of persons working in air ports and sea ports. The section, as it stands in the Bill, provides to remove from the 1947 Act the personal right of individuals who opt out of vaccination. If we are going to put in a general omnibus clause relieving every citizen of the obligation to submit himself for vaccination, why then should we go to great pains later in the Bill to deprive individual workers in particular parts of the country from the relief granted them in the 1947 Act in so far as the clause in that Act was concerned in relation to vaccination?
I would like to say a few words in support of what Deputy Larkin has said in regard to this particular section. The same point arises, to some extent, in regard to diseases or illnesses of the brain, compulsory examination if you are insane and matters of that kind. The section as it stands was obviously intended in its drafting to meet certain objections that were made against the other Health Bill. I think the Minister in the drafting of that particular section went further than he might have gone in a realistic approach to the difficulties that have been mentioned especially by Deputy Larkin. I think the amendment adds nothing whatsoever to the section, nothing in the world. Everything that is in the amendment is, in fact, in the section.
Apparently we have got to state things twice or three times in the Bill to remove grounds of objection. Section 4 as it stands went, in my view, too far in view of the practical difficulties that exist. What might have been done in the section was to provide exceptions — a series of exceptions to which we might have agreed. It is clear why the Minister brought in the amendment but it adds nothing to what is, in fact, in the section. For people who cannot read the section clearly it makes it easier for them to understand the section. It will create difficulties and it would have been much better if in this "general saver", as it is called, a series of exceptions were clearly set out. I think that would have got over the difficulties to which Deputy Larkin referred.
I do not take the same view as Deputy Costello in regard to the amendment. The question of religion is a matter for the individual himself. If an individual says: "I refuse to submit myself to this examination or to this treatment because it is contrary to my religion", I think that is the end of the matter. There is no court to be set up to try the issue. The individual man or woman is, in fact, the guardian and protector of that particular right and it is sufficient for the person to say: "I object to this examination or to this treatment because it is contrary to the teaching of my religion". That is the end of that. There is no court to say whether in fact it is or it is not. The court is a person's own conscience and if he says it is contrary to the teaching of his religion that must be accepted by everyone. It can, of course, create considerable difficulties but that is the interpretation as I see it.
I think Deputy Larkin raised a rather good point in this section with regard to vaccination. I believe vaccination is compulsory in this country. As a result, smallpox is practically unknown here. In England vaccination is not compulsory and smallpox is comparatively often met with there. From time to time, particularly in the North of England, therehave been quite serious epidemics of smallpox which is a disfiguring disease. Immunisation as introduced in our schools generally has been responsible for a considerable curtailment of the spreading of diphtheria epidemics and has resulted in a great saving of life and in the prevention of certain after effects, such as heart affections. I think the point raised by Deputy Costello on this amendment in connection with person who submit themselves for examination which happens to be contrary to their religious teaching is a good one. The Minister would want to clarify that point. Who is going to make a claim on behalf of the people who are to be examined? Is a child going to be examined by a health authority or receive some from of treatment in school such as school children receive? If a parent objects on the grounds of religion that means that the health authority will not be able to carry on as heretofore. The matter calls for a clarifying statement from the Minister. Are doctors and nurses — because when this Bill goes through they will be State employees — protected if they are called upon to carry out certain forms of medical treatment which they believe contrary to moral teaching?
The Deputy knows very well that nobody will be obliged to do that.
I disagree with Deputy Cowan's interpretation of the amendment. Deputy Cowan suggests that the amendment does not seriously interfere with the section. I think it alters it very seriously and significantly. To me the section seems to say that nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service provided under this Act or to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to health examination or treatment. That is an utterly unqualified statement that under no circumstances shall a man be compelled to submit to health examination. The amendment says: "Any person who avails himself of any service provided under this Act shall not be under any obligation to submit himself or any person forwhom he is responsible to a health examination or treatment which is contrary to the teaching of his religion." Taking the section and the amendment together, I take it that, except on the grounds of religion, a man must submit to examination. There is no qualification whatever in the section. Under the amendment he can claim exemption only on the grounds of his religion. That is my interpretation, taking the amendment and the section together. I wonder if it is correct?
It seems to me that we are dealing with two entirely different matters in Section 4 and in the proposed new sub-section to the section. Section 4 makes it perfectly clear, as Deputy Keyes said, that no person need submit himself either to examination or inspection or to avail himself of any service under the Act. The amendment says that any person who avails himself of any service provided under this Act shall not be under any obligation to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to inspection if it is contrary to the teaching of his religion. I think the section is a completely different matter from the amendment. The section says that no person is under any obligation but in my opinion the amendment is an entirely different matter. It deals with a person who elects to avail of one or more of the services provided by this Act but who refuses to have any inspection because it may be contrary to his religion.
Unlike some of the other Deputies here, I am groping, as an ordinary layman. It seems to me under this amendment that a person can demand to receive a service — because it talks about "a person who avails himself of any service"— and, while insisting on getting the service, he can refuse to have any examination of any description carried out on his person. Apparently some of the professional people here do not agree with that but it is the layman's view.
I can see Deputy Keyes' difficulty in agreeing with the point I make. To me the section is asclear as a pikestaff — that nothing in this Act shall impose an obligation on any person to submit himself or any other person for whom he is responsible to a health examination or treatment. If the amendment were never there, nobody under the section can be obliged to submit himself for health examination or treatment.
On religious or any other grounds.
On religious or any other grounds. Any citizen can get up and say: "If the section is passed I will not submit myself to this health examination or treatment." That is what the section says. The amendment is not an amendment of the section but is an addition to the section. The section is left there and the amendment is added. We all know the difficulties that are there, the reasons why certain words are added——
What are they?
I do not know.
I thought you said we all know.
I am excluded from the circle. This amendment was inserted to add this other sub-section to the effect that you can refuse to have a health examination or you can refuse treatment if you think it is contrary to your religion. If you can refuse it whether or not it is contrary to your religion, what is the advantage in refusing it because it is contrary to your religion?
You can avail of any service and refuse to have any examination.
You can do that under the section.
No. Under the section, you can avail of any service provided under this Act but you cannot refuse examination.
Under the section, you can refuse examination without giving any reason, but the amendmentsays that you can refuse it if it is contrary to the teaching of your religion. That is the greatest tripe and cod that was ever put into a Bill. Let no one say that the amendment improves the Bill in any way. It does not alter the Bill one bit, but perhaps it can salve certain consciences in regard to it. Let it do it if it likes. To put it in the Bill means nothing. I have no objection to putting it in the Bill, but the section was even stronger without it because under the section any citizen can say: "I will not submit to treatment" or "I will not submit to examination and I need not give the grounds of objection as religion."
The Minister brought in this amendment because, obviously, somebody said that the position was not clear. It was as clear as a pikestaff that if anyone said it was contrary to his religion he need not submit to examination or to treatment. The Minister says: "Very well, if you think that, then I will bring in the amendment." Obviously, that is the line of conciliation on the part of the Minister. Let nobody say that this amendment adds anything to what is in the section. It adds nothing to the section but it does not do the section any harm.
I am not going to vie with the lay theologians from the law library in deciding as to the propriety of the section as already there: I do not think I would be competent. However, I want to say this in relation to the section as it is. So long as the new amendment does not limit in any way a person's right to refuse to take part in the service or treatment, I am quite content — so long as religion is not the only objection which can be raised against taking part in treatment or in any part of the medical services.
Deputy Larkin raised a point which I should like the Minister to clarify and that is that nothing in the 1952 Bill will alter those provisions of the 1947 Act which state that the medical officer of health has powers to insist on compulsory examination in relation to certain cases of infectious diseases, venereal diseases and so forth. I think it is quite important to keep certainpowers in that regard and I do not think they are changed here. I should like to know from the Minister whether or not they are changed.
I am advised that legally this section applies only to this Act and therefore does not apply to the provisions in relation to infectious diseases under the 1947 Act. Again, with regard to the point made by Deputy Larkin about aircraft workers under Section 31 having to submit themselves to vaccination, that is not a service and, therefore, this sub-section (4) does not apply to that particular obligation on these workers. Deputy Larkin said that, in theory, a parent could forbid his child submitting himself to medical examination, but said that it would be a rather courageous parent who would do so. I do not think so. It is done fairly often by parents in regard to school medical examinations at the moment and there is no reason why it should not be done in the future. If they withdraw their children from these medical examinations, they are quite entitled to do so.
With regard to the amendment, I think I can say that the great majority of legal opinion is on the side of Deputy Cowan, that the sub-section is not necessary. On the other hand, we had certain people who were, if you like, nervous about the Bill from the religious point of view and as they were satisfied that this particular addendum would improve the sub-section, I saw no objection to adopting it.
We are very delicate in our statements. "Certain people were anxious"— that means the Bishops had objected. The Hierarchy in a letter——
Has the Deputy read the Hierarchy's letter?
I have, and I can produce a copy, if the Deputy wants it.
Quote the section of it.
The Minister was warned by that letter that certainparts of this legislation were contrary to Catholic social teaching. Is that not so? That is not going to be denied.
What is the position of the House with regard to this letter?
Is that going to be denied?
We are dealing with the amendment.
And I am talking about the amendment.
May I inquire what is the position with regard to this letter?
Mr. A. Byrne
It should be read out. We should all know, because we are looking for guidance in this matter.
I know that letter and I can quote it if necessary. I say here now that the letter contained a warning that certain parts of this legislation were contrary to Catholic social teaching and one of the things aimed at——
On a point of order, is Deputy McGilligan entitled to quote a document which no member of the House except himself has seen? Does the Deputy say that he has been directed by the Hierarchy as to what he will say here? Is the document referred to on the records of the House? If it is mentioned here, I submit that it ought to be placed on the records. If Deputy McGilligan is to quote from it, let it be placed on the records of the House.
You talked about it for five minutes without mentioning it.
I never saw it.
You did not mention it, but you talked about it.
I suggest there should be no reference to it, unless it be placed on the records.
That ruling applies only to official documents,but the Chair cannot understand how Deputy McGilligan can deal with a document that is not before the House.
I am quoting, Sir — referring to it.
In what capacity did the Deputy get the document — as a private citizen or as a member of Fine Gael?
As a private citizen. The letter is known and what I say is true about the letter is known. This amendment was brought in because the Minister said certain people were anxious about religious matters. If the Minister could tell us who these people are and how they expressed their anxiety, it might clarify the issue but it was demanded, and I suggest that the Minister could not go on with this legislation without this amendment.
Then it was not very much to demand, when it is an unnecessary amendment.
That point of view may, in the end, turn out to be a criticism of the Deputy's mentality rather than a criticism of those who wrote the letter and established a standard. I am saying here now, as I am entitled to say in the course of free debate, that this legislation could not be proceeded with unless that amendment were there. I think the amendment is of value and incidentally it is produced now, not at the behest of any lay theologians from anywhere, but of theologians. The amendment rules this House——
This House is getting into disrepute altogether.
——and I am glad it is accepted as ruling this House — that viewpoint. Let us be clear that the position is as I say. Leaving aside the phrase——
Will the Deputy quote the section of the Bishop's letter this is in?
I will not.
I say it is not in the letter.
As the Deputy says he has never seen it, it is very hard for him to say what is in it.
I take an even chance of saying it is not in it.
The Minister has seen it and, if he put up a denial such as the Deputy has, it would be worth more, but he has sat silent under my repeated requests.
His Taoiseach did not run away and leave him, saying that he had brought in a scheme against the wishes of the Catholic Church. That is the difference.
The difference is that his Taoiseach allowed a man who brought about a controversy with the Bishops to remain on, whereas we fired the man who did so.
You used the Bishops as an excuse.
The House is dealing with amendment No. 1, but in amendment No. 1 there is completely and entirely an addition. Under the section, what was set out was that it was to be free — there was the general saver that nothing in the Act or any instrument under it shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service provided under this Act or to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to health examination or treatment. What that meant was clear, but the position had to be met of the person who wanted to avail himself of the service and who, when asked to submit to an examination, said: "No; it is contrary to my religious belief" and who was told that he could not get the service. There is the position to be met of the person who wants to get the service but does not want to submit to anything in the way of treatment or examination which is contrary to his conscience, and that is a very valuable addition, an addition which is not to be put down to nervousness on the part of certain people with regard toreligion. It is a substantial improvement and a very definite addition.
The Bill can be improved still further in this regard. Deputy Costello drew attention to what is now precluded, the compulsion of a person to submit to a health examination or treatment which is contrary to the teaching of his religion and asked who is to be the judge of that. That seems to be utterly objective — that somebody would say that what was being imposed on certain people is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and in relation to a person who professes that religion is contrary to the teaching of his religion; but when we refer to the Constitution — not in relation to this matter but to another matter — where religious points come in, the phrase used is a subjective one. In connection with education, Section 3 of Article 42 says:—
"The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference, to send their children to schools established by the State or to any particular type of school designated by the State."
In the English text, the phrase is "in violation of their conscience and lawful preference" while, in the Irish text, it is "in violation of their conscience or lawful preference". I had always understood that conscience was a term used to indicate a person's own beliefs as he understood these to be, whereas, when you got to such a thing as the teaching of religion, it was something that had to be submitted to a more subjective test, and I say to the Minister, since he has been prevailed upon — I use the word "prevail" with inverted commas — to bring in an amendment of this sort, he should make it complete by accepting what Deputy Costello has suggested and make it "contrary to or in violation of his conscience". That leaves the individual as the person who makes the choice. If the Minister looks at the two phrases, the phrase taken from the Constitution "in violation of conscience" and "contrary to the teaching of his religion", he will agree that there is at least a possibility — I think a great probability — of a differencebetween the two tests and the test should be the test of the individual himself, of his conscience. He is not, in other words, to be put on each occasion to the trouble of doing any more than saying: "So far as I understand the beliefs of the religion I have, that is contrary to them and I will not submit to it."
The other improvement I suggest should be made is in regard to the position of the doctor on which Deputy Esmonde touched. There are so many amendments down to this Bill that it has been described as a somewhat bedraggled piece of legislation, and so it is. One does not know what is the intention in the mind of the Government with regard to this health legislation and how far contrary to religious scruples it will be pressed, but it seems to me to be clear from certain sections that the doctor, the professional man, may be required to give certain treatment and surely the doctor's conscience ought to be allowed at least a say. I submit to the Minister that, if he is here making an exception in relation to the person who wants to avail himself of the service and yet objects to certain treatment, there is a similar obligation on him to safeguard the position of the doctor who may contend or hold that certain operational treatment is contrary to his conscience and that he should not be asked to do it, without necessarily leaving the service under the health legislation.
The last thing of all is, to my mind, the most serious point. Answering Deputy Larkin, the Minister now tells us that the Bill itself and the amendment are limited by the phrase: "Nothing in this Act", and that as vaccination and other things are carried on under other legislation, there is not the same prohibition or compulsion against conscience that there will be in the provisions under this. That, then, opens up a very, very serious prospect. Do I understand the Minister now to take the line that even though a person protests — and indicates his objection in a very vehement way and by his resolution to suffer anything in the way of penalties put upon him — against legislation which he regardsas contrary to his conscience, nevertheless the particular treatment will be forced on him? I was going to suggest to the Minister that he should amend it by saying: "Nothing in this Act or any other Act." I personally thought that amendment was necessary because this Act would be tied together with the earlier Act. The principal Act is the Act of 1947. Section 1, sub-section (2) says: "The principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Health Act, 1947, and 1953." Sub-section (2) of Section 3 says: "The principal Act and this Act shall be construed together as one Act." Not merely does this Act import the phrase in the 1947 Act but the matter works in reverse and a prohibition in this Act automatically implies a prohibition in the 1947 Act. If that is not the position a very serious gap has been revealed and must be filled. Otherwise we will find certain people anxious about it from a religious viewpoint.
I made certain observations at the outset of the debate on this amendment. I confined my remarks entirely to the amendment — I did not speak of the effect of the section itself — and I had hoped the Minister would have dealt with the point I raised on this sub-section. I felt and still feel that it is a point of very important substance. He ignored the point I made; he is entitled to do so if he wishes. I have always understood that when a Minister of the Government in an important Bill of this kind brings in an official or ministerial amendment, he does so with a sense of responsibility and for a particular purpose. This amendment which is brought in to make it absolutely clear that no person shall be obliged to avail himself of services under the Bill or to submit himself to any examination which he believes to be contrary to his religion has been described as "the greatest cod and tripe". Is the Minister going to stand over that? Is he going to allow that to pass in connection with an amendment which has been brought in by the Government, the description that it is "the greatest cod and tripe"? Is he going to allow it to pass when we all know it wasbrought in, at whosesoever request it was brought in, for the purpose of calming the fears of responsible people whoever they may be, because what is required to be met here in this amendment was not clear to them in the section? Is the Minister going to allow that description of the fears of those people and the responsible people themselves to be described as "cod and tripe" by a Deputy supporting the Government? I think we are entitled to know what is the Minister's view of that description of a ministerial amendment brought in in the circumstances I have related.
In connection with this amendment I would direct the Minister's attention to the point I have raised — perhaps he might take some person's advice other than mine — that there is nothing in this amendment, if it is put into the section, to make it clear that the person's own view, however informed it may be, on what is and what is not contrary to his religion, is to prevail to safeguard his rights. Deputy Cowan who has described this amendment as "tripe" has asserted here that this amendment, if it is put in, will leave it free to the individual concerned to have only the forum of his own conscience in deciding. This amendment does nothing of the sort. Supposing a person puts forward the view that certain services are or certain suggested treatment is contrary to his religion, and is told by persons in authority that is not so, that does not end the matter. He is then brought before a district justice — apparently Deputy Cowan has forgotten this. He is brought in prosecution before a district justice; he is not allowed then under the section merely to stand up and say: "this is contrary to my religion." The district justice says: "Prove it, I cannot accept your statement." The section says you will not get immunity from treatment or indemnity against your refusal to avail of services or to submit to examination unless you prove that it is contrary to the teaching of your religion. The sub-section says not that he believes it is contrary to his religion, nor that it is in violation of his conscience nor that he has reasonto believe that it is contrary to his religion but that it is as an affirmative fact contrary to the teaching of religion. In a prosecution against him he has to prove that it is contrary to the teaching of his religion and he has to bring theological evidence in the District Court to obtain that immunity. That is my suggested interpretation of that amendment. The Minister did not deal with the point when I raised it first. Perhaps he would give it his attention now or submit it to some other legal authority that exists in this House.
I have been speaking entirely on the amendment, but there are certain obvious objections to the section as it originally stood and as it still stands with this amendment if it is passed. Deputy McGilligan has already directed attention to the serious consequences which will flow from the Minister's interpretation if it be the correct one. The section says: "Nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service provided under this Act or to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to health examination or treatment." Whether the Minister is right in his interpretation or whether there is another interpretation open, it is quite clear that "nothing in this Act" is the only operative safeguard. Perhaps "safeguard" is not the word. Even assuming that this phrase was sufficient to bring in the principal Act, the Act of 1947, even assuming it does include any of the other Acts that may be outside these Health Acts, and that the phrase is capable of meaning that nothing in the Health Act or any other Act is to be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to submit himself for examination or avail of services, there is still outside very considerable compulsion that may be put upon a person to avail himself of the services or to submit himself to examination. The only defence a person has is his refusal to avail of the services or to submit to examination — that is to say, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent his refusing but there are many things outside the Bill that will bring him in.
If this section had any real significance it would mean that there would be a positive assertion in it rather than what is stated here. There would have been a positive assertion that no person shall be obliged, or be put under any compulsion, to submit himself to examination. It may be that there is nothing in the Bill or nothing in any public Act or any Act on the roll of the Oireachtas that imposes this obligation but there are things outside it.
I think it fair to say that there has been considerable controversy about the provisions of this Bill. There has been considerable division along political lines about this Bill. Fine Gael has stood squarely against the Bill and certain other political Parties have stood for it. Those who will be operating this Bill may have their own political views, their own theories about State medicine, and all the rest of it. Although it may be that one will not be obliged under the Bill to submit to examination, there are many other forms of compulsion to which I need not refer. Take school inspection, to mention only one instance, and think of the particular political complexion of the school teacher and the compulsion that can be applied outside the Bill to compel a child to submit to examination. I say there are very great dangers in the phraseology used in the section—"Nothing in this Act", etc. There should be a positive statement that no person shall be obliged to submit himself to examination or to avail of any services by himself or by any person directly or indirectly. The section as it stands at the moment means very little.
I had intended to raise the point but as I said I kept myself entirely to the one point first, that I think that what has been already stated has been stated correctly with reference to the omission from this section of any provision protecting doctors, nurses and officials from being obliged to take part in the administration of services, treatment or examinations which they believe are contrary to their religion. The section merely says that"nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person" ...The section should go on to say that no doctor, nurse or any person should be obliged to take part in the administration of services or examinations which are contrary to their religious beliefs.
Another hole, if I might put it that way, in this section is the fact that it merely deals with individuals or classes who may possibly be said to be of a responsible age. Nothing in the section imposes an obligation, we are told, on any person to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to health examination or treatment. A parent objects, let us say, to having a medical examination for his or her child. That parent cannot be subjected to any penalty for endeavouring to prevent that child from being submitted to an examination but the school teacher or the medical doctor can operate upon that child in the school in spite of the parent's objection. It can be said that the child agreed to submit himself to the treatment. The parent may say that he will not allow the child to be submitted for examination but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the school teacher from submitting the child to examination. The section is largely illusory in my opinion. It is full of holes, even though it may be the desire of the Government to provide proper safeguards. Even with these "cod" amendments, as they have been described, the section is full of loopholes and full of defects. A very much more radical approach to what is intended to be effected here should have been brought to bear on this section.
I think Deputy Costello always suffers here from the serious defect of grossly exaggerating his point. To make the point which he has just made, that a child at school can be forcibly examined against the parents' will and can be sent for operation without the parents' will on the direction of the school teacher, is the grossest exaggeration I have heard from Deputy Costello in this House. There is a case, a reasonablygood case, that Deputy Costello could make, if he would not spoil it by this exaggeration. This is a very difficult section and I think the House would have welcomed a suggested amendment on the lines Deputy Costello has mentioned. This House could have welcomed an amendment by Deputy Costello, Deputy Mulcahy and the whole Front Bench of Fine Gael, even with Deputy McGilligan thrown in. They could have prepared an amendment that would have helped this House in discussing this Bill but no, they would not bother about an amendment. Now they suggest that the section or even the Minister's amendment is not adequate.
What is the use of throwing stones into a bog?
I do not know whether the Deputy compares himself to the stones or to the bog.
Oh no, no, obstruction is all they want.
We want to know——
You want to know what?
Deputy Mulcahy is getting peeved——
We do not want this Bill.
What are you doing here at all?
The majority of the House want the Bill. Fine Gael may not want it.
A Deputy
Three to one.
Of course they do not want it. Fine Gael never wanted anything that was progressive. The experience of the last 30 years is a record, as far as Fine Gael is concerned, of doing nothing.
Oh, now.
Perhaps I should not have put it as bluntly as all that. In matters of social legislation what have they done? They opposed everything.
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.
Unfortunately we helped in bringing the Deputy in here.
Let me put this to Deputy Costello. In the Army we have what is known as a compulsory weekly medical examination of soldiers. That was introduced in the Army for a very practical or sensible purpose. It is done every week. Certain people at these examinations are found to be suffering from particular diseases and they are sent for treatment. Does Deputy Costello say they should not be examined? Does he say that they have the right to refuse to be examined if they are discovered to be suffering from syphilis or gonorrhoea? Does Deputy Costello say they should not be treated? That is a practical proposition for Deputy Costello.
That is hardly the purpose of the weekly inspection.
I did not say that is the purpose of it.
I thought it was lice.
I do not want to go back over the period when we had this thing out as to whether we should have this compulsory examination or this compulsory treatment. It is something over 25 years ago since this matter was argued between the medical authorities in the Army and other authorities who are responsible for the morals of the troops. There was provided in the Army then and there is in every barracks in the country to-day a place known as an E.T. hut at which a soldier who has exposed himself to the risk of a particular infection is obliged by order to attend. Does Deputy Costello say that should not be done? Does he say that it is wrong to do that? That regulation has been in existence for the last 25 years. It is there to the knowledge of every moral authority in the State. It is a compulsory provision in order that an individual may safeguard himself against the risk of infection. Added to that, we have the weekly inspectionsto ensure that if an individual has become infected immediate steps will be taken to treat him. Is that not in the interests of the community as a whole? Let us be realistic about these things. There are problems that must be dealt with by compulsory methods. There are other matters that arise in relation to individual freedom and individual liberties within this section. If we had a genuine effort on the part of all to cover the two points in this Bill, and particularly in this section, we would get somewhere.
It is not so very long ago since we in this city were exposed to the danger of typhoid carriers. Many legal actions arose because of those typhoid carriers. Many people were stricken and their health very seriously impaired because of those carriers. Are typhoid carriers to be allowed to refuse treatment? Are they to be allowed to go around endangering the public? I do not believe they should be. I think there are matters in which the community can say, and say with justice, that there should be compulsory examination, compulsory treatment and that, until these particular people submit to treatment and are cured, they should not be allowed to go around infecting the public generally.
The amendment the Minister has introduced does not add in the least to what is in the section already and apparently, according to the Minister, my view in that respect is supported by the legal advisers of the Minister. Every safeguard that is now in the amendment was already in the section. It was in order to clarify certain doubts that the Minister put in the amendment. There is no objection to the amendment but objection is being raised to the section because it does not give absolute liberty and complete freedom to a person to refuse to be examined or refuse to be treated, particularly when he is suffering from a social or anti-social disease which may infect other people in the community. It is regrettable that where we have a Bill of this kind and where we have fundamental sections, such as the section now under discussion, we cannot have the help and co-operation of every Deputy. We have a sectionof the House led by Deputy Costello, supported by Deputy Mulcahy, leader in another sphere of Fine Gael, saying that it is opposed to this section and because it is opposed to it, it will not permit it to come into operation. I do not think that is a proper attitude for Fine Gael to adopt. The majority of Deputies want the Bill. The great majority want the very best type of Bill this House can pass. We want the co-operation and help of every Deputy in overcoming the tremendous difficulties that exist in relation to the needs, the protection and the defence of the community and, at the same time, the protection of individual rights and individual liberties.
I think it was most unreasonable on the part of Deputy Cowan to try to twist a normal Army inspection held weekly for the purpose of cleanliness into something completely different. I think that reflects little credit on one who served for a considerable period in the Army——
Is not a soldier a citizen?
——and it does not reflect well on the personnel at present serving. That particular disease, referred to so bluntly by Deputy Cowan, has been a rather vexed problem as has the theory and principle of prophylactic treatment generally, a theory and a principle treated by religious of all denominations on the basis of a highly infectious type of disease. Deputy Costello's argument might have been more realistically approached on the basis that he was dealing with normal types of highly infectious or contagious diseases. One must face reality. Deputy Cowan when he wants to evade, elude or circumvent a particular point can become very bland and grandiose in his use of certain expressions—cod, codology. He then reverts to his typical diatribe against the Fine Gael Party.
In coming to stern grips with the basic problem involved we pride ourselves in this country as being in the forefront of the nations of the world in our tolerance. It is no good trying to gainsay the fact that certain peopleare conscientiously convinced of certain things and convinced to such an extent that the impact of this Bill would be tantamount to a penal imposition on their religious beliefs. The Minister in a more reasonable frame of mind and a less pugilistic mood might examine the fact that there are sections of the community whose religious beliefs will be offended because of the particular design and construction of this section.
I want to press a particular point: we are seeking to introduce into this type of health legislation a compulsion that is really foreign to the very nature of the people we purport to represent. There are circumstances in which we all must inevitably accept that compulsion may be necessary in the public interest, but the whole design of this Bill is founded on a mixed philosophy so that one does not know whether it is a forward, socialistic step in medicine, as conceived by Deputy Dr. Browne and possibly by his colleague, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll, whether it is based on the ideology conceived by Deputy Cowan, or whether it is, in fact, an abortive conception of a rather torn Fianna Fáil Party in relation to the ultimate effect of the Act.
While we believe that the Bill is to a large extent a "cod" Bill, to use Deputy Cowan's expression, it would be a good thing if the Minister realised that by his mulish obstinacy and his refusal to grasp the significance of even the most reasonable request made for the improvement of legislation that is both ill-conceived and ill-designed, he is not helping in any way to ameliorate the lot of those people that this Bill purports to help. In the final analysis I say that this Bill will be unworkable. Had the Government conceived a practical system of effectively developing and improving the already existing health services that would have been of infinitely greater social benefit to the people.
To come back to the amendment. After the last Deputy's speech, I am going to be a bit careful about what I say because I see a determinedattempt on the part of the Opposition to try and catch me up and place me amongst the anti-religious people as opposed to the upholders of religion opposite. All I will say about that is that it is a contemptible attitude. Deputy Costello talked about the man who finds himself prosecuted in the District Court. Under what law could a man be found in the District Court, or under what section of this Bill?
For failure to carry out its provisions.
The Deputy knows much more about law than I do. If a person goes into a hospital and says, "I will not accept treatment," will the Deputy tell me under what clause or Act can that person be prosecuted in the District Court? I am quite sure that the Deputy will not be able to tell me. All that goes to show that what Deputy Cowan has said is correct, that Deputy Costello is not very particular about what he says in this House—as regards exaggeration or anything else. There is no clause under which that person could be brought into the District Court.
Again, the Deputy said that we should apply the same clause to doctors and nurses. Will the Deputy tell me under what clause a doctor can be compelled to give any particular treatment? Can the Deputy point out any clause under which it can be done? If he cannot, then why does he make the point that we should bring in some clause to cover doctors? One might excuse an ignorant man sitting on the benches opposite if he made a point like that. But the Deputy cannot be excused because he knows the law. Therefore, he knows that he is making points which really have no substance in them. He is trying to confuse the members of this House and the public in general by saying that a patient can be brought before the District Court, if he refuses treatment, and that a doctor can be compelled to administer treatment which, in conscience, he does not believe in, and that the same applies to nurses—all of which is untrue. I think it is very unfair for a Deputy, who is the Leader of theOpposition, to bring in things like these in order to confuse the issue.
Some other Deputy said that the fact that the 1947 Act is not covered by this particular clause means that a health authority can insist on compulsory vaccination and compulsory immunisation. In the 1947 Act, there is no such thing as compulsory vaccination or compulsory immunisation. There are certain compulsory powers in the 1947 Act dealing with infectious diseases, for instance, the power to have a person who is a source of infection, or a potential source of infection to others, removed to an institution. There is the power to get him there. That power remains, and that person, under this clause, cannot object to that. The reason is that he is a danger to others. It is a very different matter when we are dealing with a person who is a danger to others compared to the person who is not a danger to others and is accepting that treatment or examination for his own benefit. We can afford to allow that person to accept treatment or examination as he thinks fit if it is only his own health that is concerned; but we cannot afford to allow a person to refuse examination or treatment if he is going to be a source of infection to others. Therefore, the compulsory powers covering infectious diseases must remain.
Deputy Costello also said that if a parent, for instance, sends a note to the school that he does not want his child examined, the teacher can insist on the child being examined. If the teacher does that, he is acting illegally. I know a person can do a thing illegally, but all we can do is to make it illegal. Then the teacher would have no legal right to make that child submit to examination and the teacher would be liable to prosecution if he did so. We cannot do any more. Deputy Costello put forward a suggested alteration to the amendment submitted to Section 4. Fine Gael, having given this Bill their blessing on Second Reading——
Why repeat a lie?
They did not object.
We did object. We had it negatived.
Did not Deputy McGilligan say he was not against the Bill? Is not that on record?
Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Mulcahy made it plain they were not against it.
I am dead against this legislation.
Having allowed the Bill through without a division on Second Reading, that usually means in the case of a responsible Opposition that there is no objection to the Bill in principle. In fact, it always means that, as they sometimes object on a much less worthy excuse. Fine Gael allowed the Bill to go through on Second Reading and then came in and adopted quite a different attitude on the Financial Resolutions and then said that the Bill was so bad that it could not be amended—and now they come along and offer amendments. What attitude am I to adopt in a case like that?
We did not offer any amendments.
Suggested that words be put in.
We are discussing the amendments, as we are entitled to discuss them.
He makes a distinction— he did not offer an amendment but told me that an amendment could be made by using certain other words.
Showing how bad your own provisions were.
The Minister wants to shut our mouths but he will not succeed.
I want to understand Deputy Costello if I can. He did not offer an amendment but suggested certain words that might be better than the words that are there. Over here we call that an amendment but Deputy Costello calls it something else. They said the Bill was so bad it could not be amended and then they talked for almost three hours on two innocuoussections, yet they expect me to take them seriously. Deputy Costello complained that I would not answer. Why should I answer, since his only object is to obstruct and to create trouble? Surely I should not take seriously any objection by Deputy Costello or that Front Bench? We know their object; we know their motives are not very high and we know what they came here for.
We want to know what the Minister's object is.
I have never seen the Front Bench so well stocked for many months past as it is to-day—and that on a Bill that was "so bad it could not be amended". So there is no object in improving the Bill. Their only object is to obstruct the Bill and to cause all the trouble they can.
To show how bad a Bill it is.
In spite of that, Deputy Costello feels aggrieved because I do not answer his point. In the name of goodness, why should I answer?
Is it not a great pity the Minister cannot stop us from talking also?
What I want Fine Gael to do is to go away and leave us to improve it.
We have a responsibility here.
You have irresponsibility, to obstruct this Bill, and if the Deputies opposite have any suggestion to make I am not taking them seriously. That is all.
The Minister stated that there were no compulsory powers in this country in regard to vaccination. Is it not the case that parents are prosecuted from time to time in Ireland for not having their children vaccinated?
Not since 1947.
Vaccination is no longer compulsory?
It is not.
The Deputy is behind the times—just a little bit.
We amended that. We do not like these compulsory provisions.
I wonder what Section 31 of the 1947 Act means?
The Minister stated it is not necessary to protect doctors. Surely the Minister must agree that conditions may arise in respect of certain treatment, which it is not necessary for me to mention, which may be against social principles or the person's conscience.
That is not in the section.
You do not happen to be Minister.
I am suggesting to the Minister that there is nothing in the section about that.
The power behind the throne.
The section is dealing with citizens—whether they will——
This is a disorderly interruption.
We are dealing with amendment No. 1.
There is nothing in the amendment——
This is a disorderly interruption.
I do not like being interrupted unnecessarily by Deputy Cowan.
I am submitting or pointing out that there is nothing in the amendment about it. I ask the Chair to read the amendment.
The Chair has already read the amendment.
Does the Chair think it is relevant?
Would the Chair kindly indicate if I am in possession?
If the Chair says it is relevant, then I accept that.
The Deputy should allow me to listen to Deputy Esmonde.
Am I in possession?
He is out of date on vaccination.
It is a scandal.
Am I in possession or is the Deputy? The Minister stated that doctors would not require any protection. As I was endeavouring to state, before I was interrupted by Acting—Minister Cowan, certain occasions may arise where a doctor might find it against his social principles or against his conscience to carry out certain treatment. In the introduction of State medical services, such as the extension of medical benefits, if in the future one can foresee that doctors may become whole-time employees, surely they should be protected if they feel it is against their conscience to carry out certain treatment? I take it that if they do not carry out that treatment, I do not say the present Government but some future Government may——
Deputy Esmonde's, of course.
I do not think the Deputy is relating his remarks to the amendment.
I am putting a point to the Minister, who himself said in my hearing a few minutes ago that the occasion did not arise for the protection of doctors. I am trying to make the case where it would be necessary to protect doctors. Will he accept?
An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
Perhaps the Minister will look into that point and see if he considers that doctors ought to be protected.
There is nothing in this amendment to deal with doctors at all.
It seems to me that the Minister has taken an extraordinary line here. Apparently the new conception of democracy in this House is that if you are in with the Government you can say what you like and do what you like.
That is an aspersion on the Chair. On a point of order, I do not want to hear the Chair being insulted.
The Deputy has gone to indecent lengths to get publicity and notoriety and the Chair would not allow me to make the sort of aspersions on the Deputy's conduct that seem to be called for.
Leave the Chair out. I do not mind what you say about myself.
The Deputy brought the Chair in himself. We are now told that we should leave the House. We are now told that it is obstruction to point out——
Of course it is.
——to the House and through this House to the country how bad this Bill really is. The Minister said we had taken up the last three hours. We have not. Deputy Cowan alone has taken up more than an hour and a half by his series of so called speeches and interruptions.
That is a gross exaggeration.
If there is any performance in the House that can truthfully be described as obstruction, it is Deputy Cowan's performance. The Minister cannot afford to reprove Deputy Cowan.
The Deputy is stroke-hauling now.
It is a pity a strokehaul cannot occasionally be used in political life; but there is a strokehaul, or rather a net, waiting for the Deputy. He is evading it as long as he can and adopting his present line in order to evade that net.
Deputy Morrissey should come to the amendment.
With respect to you, I am entitled to deal not merely with the amendment and with the section but with what has been said by the Minister or by Deputy Cowan in the debate.
The Chair will decide that.
I am submitting, with respect, to the Chair what I am entitled to do. The Minister made a threat to throttle us, but I am quite certain the Chair will not stand for that.
The Deputy is entitled to discuss the amendment.
Am I to take it that your ruling is that I am not entitled to examine or comment on the statements made by the Minister or other Deputies on the amendment to the section?
So long as they are relevant.
This is deliberate obstruction again.
Deputy Morrissey is long enough in this House to know the regulations.
I am afraid sometimes I do not know them and I am asking a simple question. Am I to take it that I am precluded from making any comment on what was said by the Minister or other Deputies or from examining what they have said, in so far as I am competent to examine them?
I would point out to the Deputy that amendmentNo. 1 is before the House and he should address his remarks to amendment No. 1.
I am prepared to abide by the rules if everybody else will do so. I always have been—but if somebody is allowed to poach here and there——
Off again.
The fact of the matter is that there is nothing inconsistent, there is nothing new, in our approach to health legislation——
Hear, hear! I thoroughly agree.
——such as has been introduced by Fianna Fáil since 1945. We have taken the same line and propose to take that time.
Always opposition.
The same line as the Medical Association.
The interruptions must cease. Deputy Morrissey, on amendment No. 1.
Certain people who interrupt in this House want us to count at least five.
To count ten would be accurate.
Perhaps if the Deputy had followed that principle, we might have had less trouble and better health legislation than the Bill before us now.
The Deputy is being pompous, silly and empty.
I may be pompous, silly and empty——
You are all three.
Deputy Morrissey on the amendment. He should be allowed to make his statement without interruption.
I do not know why I should always be interrupted. I resent being described as such by Deputy Browne.
I cannot help that.
Of course you cannot. I have not the advantage of a Trinity education.
Hear, hear! This is good stuff for the public.
It is good sob stuff.
Deputy Morrissey must be allowed to make his statement without interruption.
Why should he be introducing——
Every Deputy has the same privilege, of making a speech without interruption.
Why should he——
Deputy Cowan should not interrupt the Chair.
I am sorry, Sir.
He will do it again in two minutes.
Will Deputy Morrissey move to report progress?
It is contemptible.
So long as it does not meet with the Deputy's approval, I am quite happy.
It is contemptible.
That is only the beginning of it. You will have to learn to take it as well as hand it out.
Deputy Morrissey will report progress, please.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.