Before the amendment is put, I should like to say that I really do not understand it. This proposed new section under (c) says that "institutional services shall be given in the institution to a specified class of persons" and in (d) that "institutional services shall not be given in the institution to persons of a specified class". If it said that services shall be given to persons suffering from a special type of disease I could understand it, but I do not understand what is meant by a specified class of people. Does it mean people belonging to what is called the middle class or the working class or people who are often referred to as of independent means? Does it mean "class" in that sense? Frankly, I do not understand what it means. If it means what it appears to mean, then it seems to me that we should be even still more reluctant to give the power to a central authority to decide that a specified class of persons should not receive treatment in a particular institution in a particular area. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to clarify that.
Committee on Finance. - Health Bill, 1952—Committee (Resumed).
It could be classified in two ways: (1) according to the ailment or treatment required, for instance cases of maternity, and (2) in respect of persons like children, but not classes in the ordinary sense.
I am really concerned about this. As it is phrased, I do not think it could be held to apply to what the Minister stated he has in mind. It could be and must be held to apply in the sense that the Minister says he does not want it to apply or it is not intended to apply. The new section says that "institutional services shall not be given in the institution to persons of a specified class." I am not questioning the Minister's intention,but it would be open to the interpretation that people of a certain class, let us say the middle class or working class, were not to get treatment in a particular institution. The Minister has stated that the intention is to deal with people who require a particular type of treatment or with children as opposed to adults or people suffering from specified diseases. But the Minister, I think, will agree that that certainly is not set out here. Any ordinary layman or member of a local authority reading it would have to come to the conclusion that it meant classes as distinct from diseases or children as opposed to adults. It appears to me that, in order to secure that the Minister's intentions will be fully met and carried out and that it will go no further than is intended by the Minister, this proposed new section would have to be amended.
It is the legal way of dealing with what we have in mind, certain ailments or certain classes such as children. The same words are used in the section of the 1947 Act. It is always interpreted in that way.
I am not questioning the Minister's bona fides.We are not, however, legislating for this year or next year or three years hence. It is possible that in some years to come somebody in a central authority may read this as referring to a class rather than to a particular category such as children or maternity cases or people suffering from specified diseases. In trying to understand the ordinary meaning of words, when you get in the proposed new section that “institutional services shall not be given in the institution to persons of a specified class”, I do not know how it can be contended that that could not be read to mean what we do not intend it to mean. I think the Minister might have another look at the section. If he is prepared to do that it will satisfy me on that point.
I want to reply to some remarks made by Deputy McGilligan on this amendment last night. He made a number of suggestions which, as I said earlier, would appear to anyperson who has any knowledge, particularly any intimate knowledge of the whole question, as Deputy McGilligan had in recent years, as quite outrageous. He referred to the scheme devised by me as Minister for Health on the authority of the Deputy himself and his colleagues in the inter-Party Government. As usual, where possible, he quoted and brought in an ecclesiastical authority described before as the ecclesiasical hatched. He described the scheme as being one in the words of Most Reverend Dr. McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin, of vague promises or something of that nature. I deprecate the introduction of this ecclesiastical figure into controversy in the Dáil. I feel it should not be done under any provocation. While I accept without question, and accepted without question, the ruling of the Hierarchy in relation to the inter-Party scheme as regards the moral law, I cannot find it possible to accept any decision as binding on me that has been made by a group or an individual where the medical content of a scheme is concerned. Where pure medicine is concerned in health legislation, I feel that our ecclesiastical authorities would be the first to admit that they have no more knowledge, generally speaking, than the average layman. I know that will be twisted and all sorts of suggestions made that I repudiate the authority of the Hierarchy. That is not so. History shows that was not so. I accepted, without question, the ruling given by them.
As to the question of no details of the scheme being prepared in accordance with the distinct and clear direction of the inter-Party Government, of course that clear direction was given by me to the Cabinet and is in the records of the Government. All documents submitted by me and considered by them in relation to the whole question of health legislation and particularly in relation to the amendments of the 1947 Act which a number of us felt were needed were put forward by me. The memorandum submitted by me included a suggestion that Section 3 should be included in the proposed amending Bill for the 1947 Act which was proposed by theinter-Party Government and with which I was in agreement. I submitted that this particular section should be included in the amending Bill if the Government wished to take powers to change the mother and child part of the scheme proposed by the inter-Party Government.
That, of course, is a most important point because the whole of the controversy and particularly the controversy in regard to this particular Bill is likely to turn as far as I am concerned at any rate on the question whether the scheme shall be free and have no means test or be on the lines of the other legislation. As I said, that section was submitted for the consideration of the inter-Party Government. It was clearly pointed out. There is no question of trickery, subterfuge or any intention to mislead on my part. I put it into the documents which are in the records on the Government files telling them if they wished to bring in a scheme with a means test they should include this particular section in their amending Bill.
Again, fortunately for me, the documents and the records will show that I was directed by the inter-Party Government, Deputy McGilligan and his colleagues, to strike out that section which would have allowed them to have the particular scheme which they now say is the only one they could conscientiously accept. The full memorandum was not only submitted to and considered by the Cabinet and by Deputy McGilligan but it was submitted to him in the ordinary course of Cabinet procedure as Minister for Finance. So, for Deputy McGilligan to suggest that this health legislation was my sole personal creation is an outrageous fabrication. As I said before, fortunately for me, all these facts are available and can be ascertained at any time if the House wishes to pursue the matter any further.
Deputy Costello at a later stage quoted from a letter in which I asked for Deputy Costello's approval after the October meeting with the Hierarchy. I am quite sure that a number of people are a little bit hazy as to all the events in relation to that meeting with the Hierarchy at that time.I will not deal at too great a length with them. I will only deal with them briefly. I was summoned to the Palace in Drumcondra and met two Bishops and an Archbishop without specifically enjoying that I could not have advice or assistance. Consequently, I am afraid I can only put forward my recollection of the matter.
Is this related to the amendment?
It is related to Deputy McGilligan's suggestion last night that there was no approval by the inter-Party Government for the proposal put forward by me. That interview took place and, as far as I am concerned, ended satisfactorily. Concessions were made by me and I understood that agreement was reached with their Lordships on these points. The important consideration is, was Deputy Costello satisfied at that time that the scheme was approved of by the Hierarchy following that meeting? Deputy Costello, who was Taoiseach at that time, went to the Archbishop of Dublin the following morning and following that——
Are we going back on what happened during the term of office of the inter-Party Government?
I am afraid that Deputy McGilligan opened this discussion last night. I do not wish to travel far over that ground. I shall be as brief as possible.
The Deputy seems to be widening the scope of the discussion. It is not what Deputy Dr. Browne will say that troubles the Chair but what others will claim to say on what Deputy Dr. Browne will give.
On a point of order. I would like to say that I raised a point of order last night while Deputy McGilligan was making his remarks. I asked the Leas-Cheann Comhairle whether it was in order to widen the scope of the Bill to the extent he did and Deputy McGilligan was allowed to carry on.
I have no doubt that the decision given was proper in the circumstances.
I will not be very much longer on this point except to say that on the following day the then Taoiseach met their Lordships and was in communication with me by telephone. I suggest that if their Lordships objected strongly at that time, and if the Taoiseach objected to the scheme which he discussed on the previous day with their Lordships, then I suppose that I would have known at that time. I would have been told in October of that year and I would not have been permitted by the inter-Party Government to carry on as I did carry on—again, fortunately, the records are there—with repeated references to this scheme by public announcements in the papers, by approximately a fortnight's speeches at various functions, by brochures for which Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Finance, provided the money; by leaflets for which Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Finance, provided the money; by half-page advertisements in the newspapers for which, again, Deputy McGilligan provided the money and also by a radio broadcast made by me, with the authority of the Government, to publicise the details of the scheme——
Which they did not contradict.
——which they made no attempt to refute or disown. This also was followed by a circular—the health scheme of which Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Morrissey say there were no details.
I am afraid I must restrict the Deputy. I am afraid he is going into what is past history.
I have no desire to go into past history, but rather a serious charge was made by Deputy McGilligan last night. I will finish in a few moments because what I have to say is very simply dealt with. I have here the 22-page document of the scheme. Finally, on the 12th December, 1950, the Irish Medical Association circulated a memorandum in which theyquoted the then Taoiseach, Deputy Costello—in December of 1950, following the October meeting with the Hierarchy at which, apparently, the scheme was condemned—as follows:—
"It was his considered opinion——"
that is, Deputy Costello's——
"that neither the Dáil nor the Seanad would approve of any amendment of the Act or regulations which would envisage the omission of a free service for all in connection with the scheme."
That, I think, should deal with the suggestions made by Deputy McGilligan. As far as I can see, he indulged himself in a magnificent effort at the technique which became known during the period of the war as "the technique of the big lie."
The Deputy may not ascribe a lie to another Deputy.
I was describing the technique of the big lie, but I will withdraw the expression.
It would not be a bad phrase to have in Dáil Éireann. It would apply to a lot of what Deputy Dr. Browne said.
Is that going to be withdrawn now?
If that phrase is allowed——
Deputy McGilligan will have an opportunity of speaking in a moment.
I am only asking if the phrase has been accepted as parliamentary currency?
The phrase has been withdrawn.
Deputy McGilligan knows well that it has not been accepted.
I think that any suggestion that Deputy McGilligan was not a party to the then mother and child scheme and that there were nodetails of that scheme can be refuted by the following facts. Deputy McGilligan, as Minister for Finance, made available a vast sum of money for that scheme. Surely he did not make that vast sum of money available on the general assumption that I was bringing in something that would be quite useless or inadequate. Surely, as a responsible Minister for Finance, he made that vast sum of money available on the consideration of detailed documents. I may say that my experience of Deputy McGilligan as Minister for Finance was that he, or whoever was responsible in his Department, was most meticulous in pursuit of facts when the question of granting money was concerned. I find it difficult to believe that Deputy McGilligan would like it to be current that, as Minister for Finance, he disbursed vast sums of money for nebulous schemes which were merely the figment of my imagination.
The trouble with Deputy Dr. Browne is that he suffers from delusions. I referred last night to the letter he wrote to the then Taoiseach on the 19th March. As late as the 19th March, he was in a position to ask the Taoiseach this question: "Am I to understand that you believe that the Bishops or the Hierarchy object to my scheme?"
On a point of order. The electorate have decided this whole issue at the last general election. They decided that Deputy Dr. Browne was right and that Deputy McGilligan was wrong. Why should we have it thrashed out again when we want to try to get a new Health Bill?
Is that a point of order?
I am trying to restrict the discussion to the amendment. I hope Deputy Cowan will help me.
I shall certainly be delighted to help you. The electorate decided it, but that is not good enough for Deputy McGilligan.
On a point of order.
We will decide what the electorate decided at another election. However, certain people——
Deputy Mulcahy. What is the point of order?
The point is that Deputy Cowan is slipping into a privileged position in this House, if I may say so. On several occasions recently he has run a regular barrage of comment and though he has been called to order several times it has apparently had no effect on him. Are we to understand that Deputy Cowan——
Is this the new Ceann Comhairle?
The Chair has never conceded any privileged position to any Deputy. The Chair has endeavoured to apply the rules of order to every Deputy here. I am sure that Deputy Mulcahy will agree that the Chair has been impartial in all these things so far as the Chair can.
I understand the difficulties of the Chair. It is very obvious to us, however, that Deputy Cowan has adopted a particular type of technique which escapes the Chair.
Give Deputy McGilligan a chance to speak.
Deputy Cowan will not get any privilege any more than any Deputy, but the same.
And I am in this privileged position. I represent the constituency in which Deputy Mulcahy was defeated.
And which sent him to Tipperary.
Deputy Cowan did not even reach the quota.
It is a constituency that has not seen Deputy Cowan for one and a half years. He has very definitely been hiding from his constituents for the past one and a half yearsand he has preferred to suppress the elections. I want to put it again to this House that Deputy Dr. Browne was suffering from delusions. On the 19th March he wrote to the then Taoiseach:—
"Am I correct in thinking from the terms of your letter of March 15th that you are under the impression that the Hierarchy are opposed to the mother and child health protection scheme?"
Is there anything to be concluded from that quotation except that Deputy Dr. Browne was under the impression that the Hierarchy were not opposed to the scheme? Towards the end of that same letter, this is what Deputy Dr. Browne had to say:—
"It will be interesting to know whether your withholding of approval of the scheme is due either to the supposed opposition of the Hierarchy or to the possible opposition of any individual member of the Hierarchy."
Again, if that means anything, surely it means that approval had been withheld and the Deputy wanted to know if the withholding of approval was due to the fact that the Taoiseach supposed that the Hierarchy were opposed to the scheme or that there was possible opposition to it by some individual member of the Hierarchy. If there is anything to be said in answer to that, I should be glad to hear it said concisely by somebody—either by Deputy Dr. Browne or by one of the people who really do not admire him but who are using him for the time being.
Deputy Dr. Browne talks of the publicity, the advertisements, the radio talk and the pamphlets which he said were paid for by me as Minister for Finance. I suppose it is not any great news to the members of this House to learn that the Minister for Finance does not examine the details of everything. He is not a censor. Money was provided for publicity but letters were written about the type of the publicity. On the 15th March, the then Taoiseach addressed a letter to Deputy Dr. Browne. In the fourth paragraph of that letter the then Taoiseach said to Deputy Dr. Browne:—
"I am afraid you do not appear to realise the serious implications of the views expressed in that letter since you have, by advertisement and otherwise—"
that covers radio and pamphlets
"—continued to publicise the scheme to which objections have been taken. Such action might well seem to be in defiance of the Hierarchy."
These are two of the points that were referred to. In addition, a special pamphlet was issued. To that, the Taoiseach at once took exception. There was a possibility of some address being delivered by Deputy Browne to the Irish Medical Association and to that, in the most direct terms——
What has this to do with the amendment?
——the Taoiseach took most definite objection. Writing on 21st March, 1951, he said:—
"Dear Dr. Browne,
Your letter addressed to-day to the Irish Medical Association has been brought to my notice by the information bureau. I have directed them not to issue it."
I wonder did Deputy Dr. Browne suffer any illusion about that—"I have directed them not to issue it"?
That is very like a Mussolini order.
It is the control of a Taoiseach over a Minister who is making a fool of himself.
The Deputy seems to be suffering from a lot more than that.
The second paragraph goes on:—
"In the course of your letter you stated that it was proposed to proceed with the introduction of your mother and child scheme as already outlined by you, describing it as Government policy.
I have already informed you in recent correspondence, and particularly in my letter to you of to-day's date, that your scheme in the form outlined by you was not acceptableto the Government unless and until the express reservations made by the Hierarchy in their letter of the 10th October last from the secretary to the Hierarchy and by the Archbishop of Dublin in his letter of the 8th March to you, are satisfactorily disposed of. Accordingly, you are not entitled to describe your scheme as Government policy and you must not so describe it hereafter unless and until you have satisfied the Hierarchy that in respect of the matters relating to faith and morals your scheme is unobjectionable."
Does the Deputy want any more than that?
In other words, Ministers did not know what Government policy was.
Deputy Cowan must restrain himself.
Very well.
Does Deputy Dr. Browne want anything more? He was told that it was not Government policy.
Nobody knew what Government policy was.
We had the same thing from Deputy Cowan yesterday from 3.30 p.m. until 10.30 p.m.
Ignorance is very hard to tolerate at times, and when it comes from a person like Deputy Cowan, it becomes almost intolerable; but we have given him the excuse of ignorance for a long time and he should surely be repressed, if debate here is to be conducted in an orderly fashion. The Deputy can speak if he wants to. He has been very deficient in making himself vocal recently.
No, I spoke last night.
I do not wish to enforce the rules of order rigorously, but, if Deputy Cowan persists, I shall be forced to do so. I am giving him that warning.
Very well. I will speak after the Deputy, if the Chair sees me.
You should have no complaint in that respect, because you get more——
Deputy McGilligan.
Deputy Dr. Browne was told not to go on with his scheme. He speaks of his advertisements, and he referred to a pamphlet which is covered by the phrase "advertisement and otherwise." Objection was taken to it. He was told that his scheme did not represent Government policy, unless certain objections made by the Hierarchy were removed, and the Deputy's only answer was to write what, in the light of the circumstances, must be regarded as this completely fatuous letter of 19th March, which opened by asking if he was correct in thinking that the then Taoiseach was under the impression that the scheme was objected to by the Hierarchy. That was a scheme which, within a month, was to bring the condemnation from the Hierarchy expressed in the letters read to the House by Deputy Dr. Browne himself and expressed in language by the Archbishop which represented a thorough-going and comprehensive condemnation of the scheme. I have told the Deputy with regard to his statement in regard to expenses that expense was, of course, carried and that there was expense which had to be met on the Vote for the Department of Health. That expense was expense with regard to reliefs under the old legislation, and it certainly had nothing to do with expenses under any new mother and child scheme proceeding from the 1947 Act. The reason for that was simple. There was no such scheme and never was, but there were a whole lot of vague generalities.
Twenty-three pages.
Yes. That is the memorandum from the Department, marked "confidential". What was in it? Was there anything in it which anybody could hand over to the draftsman and say: "Draft legislation on these lines"?
Did you read it?
I did, and I will produce it in the House for the Deputy.
What did you provide all the money for?
£600,000 had to be spent before that scheme referred to was implemented. What was it spent on? It was spent on nothing that had to do with a mother and child scheme under the 1947 Act.
Yes, it was—provided by the Department of Finance.
Were there not advertisements for the scheme, both in English and in Irish?
The English ones were bad and I suppose there was the same error, from the point of view of morals, in the Irish version as in the English version.
They were paid for by you.
They were not. If Deputies think that a Minister for Finance censors everything put out from a Department, they must realise that that is an obligation which no Minister would accept. I read last night two minutes and I hope the files are here in the Dáil to-day.
The Deputy was asked to put the documents on the Table.
I hope they will be. The official document is in the hands of the Minister. I have not got it.
I want to be clear on this. Last night, there was a direction given——
Is this a point of order?
It is. Last night, there was a direction given by the Chair that documents which Deputy McGilligan read should be placed on the Table of the House, so that I and other Deputies could see them. I presume that this has been done by Deputy McGilligan. If it has not been done, I ask you, Sir, to order that thesedocuments be placed on the Table of the House so that I will have an opportunity of dealing with them when speaking on this amendment.
On a point of order and resuming my speech——
If Deputy McGilligan or any other Deputy quotes from a document, this document should be available to other Deputies, and I should like to have a ruling on that.
Again, on a point of order, could we have a definition of "document"? I quoted rulings of the Chair that there are precedents governing the proceedings of the House last night which showed that official documents——
These are official purloined, stolen documents.
——are to be tabled, but that ordinary papers quoted, even if they are quoted by a Deputy and even if the House or any Deputy asks for them, need not be quoted in full.
Deputy Mulcahy is miles away from what we were discussing.
I am dealing with order.
The matter under discussion is the matter of official documents from which Deputy McGilligan quoted—not an alleged letter from the Bishops, but official documents which he said he deliberately took from the Department of Finance when he was leaving it. The Chair last night ruled that these documents must be placed on the Table of the House.
The Chair did not.
That ruling was given, and I insist——
I am not aware that the Chair ruled in accordance with Deputy Cowan's statement.
Last night, Deputy McGilligan quoted from two official documents, both of them having a reference beginning with the letter F. These documents are official documents and I drew the Chair's attention to the fact that the Deputy was quoting from official documents and a ruling was given that they must be placed on the Table of the House.
No such ruling was given. I made an offer, which I will repeat now.
That ruling was definitely given.
That ruling was not given.
So far as official documents are concerned, the Minister is the only person who tables them and makes them available to other Deputies.
Can any Deputy, then, steal—and I deliberately use the word "steal"—an official document and quote it in this House and is the position that he cannot, under the rules of order, be obliged to place it on the Table of the House? I want a ruling on that. I deliberately use the word "steal" in relation to an official document.
The Chair cannot answer that question.
With regard to the word "steal," the Deputy was asked to withdraw it last night. I do not ask him to withdraw it now.
I was not.
The word "purloined" was withdrawn last night.
I was not even asked to withdraw it.
I would rather have the Deputy allowed to use the coarse language peculiar to him.
I am raising a point of order which is of vital importance here. I say that Deputy McGilligan quoted last night from a document which he stated he deliberately took from the files of the Department——
I did not, Sir.
He did. The Deputy said he deliberately took it so that he could use it in his own defence——
I did not.
——deliberately took it from the files of the Department. I am asking that the document be placed on the Table, and the Chair gave a ruling last night that it be placed on the Table of the House.
May I make this matter clear? It would be quite wrong for anybody leaving a Cabinet to take with him documents——
Of course, it is, and it was wrong for the Deputy to do it.
I am not accepting in any way the Deputy's judgment because his conduct is not such as to make me admire his judgment.
We will talk about that, too.
We will. It would be quite wrong for any Deputy who had been a Minister of Government to remove files acquired by a Department. That has not been done.
I quoted here last night from a copy I had made of a minute which I had the foresight to realise would be of importance to me in connection with certain matters. I have not the official document. The official document is still in the Minister's Department. I asked him to bring it in but I made this offer, that if the Minister did not bring it in I would circulate it. I am not doing that under any order of the House because I do not believe there is any such order. I will circulate that if necessary. Of course, the proper thing to do would be either to have it admitted that it is a correct version or produce something that would refute it, and I do not know which of these is to be done. The official reporters have it at the moment but I can produce it at five minutes' notice.
On a point of order. Deputy McGilligan made the samepoint last night that he had taken a copy of an official document and that he would place it on the Table if the Minister would not place the official record there. I am asking that the documents from which the Deputy quoted extensively last night, in fact, which he read in full, must be placed on the Table of the House so that they may be consulted. I think I am within my rights in expecting that.
I have already pointed out that the Chair has no function in that matter. It is only when a Minister quotes from an official document that they are, in the public interest, placed on the Table.
Does the Chair say this is entirely a matter for the Attorney-General?
Deputy McGilligan.
I read last night a copy of a minute of 1/1/1951 with the signature of certain civil servants which I refrained from quoting. I said if there was any challenge even of the two sentences I quoted from that, or if it was thought that the two sentences taken from their context made any difference the Minister was at liberty to refute them because the files are in his colleague's possession. I had hoped to-day they might be here. If they are not here my quotation stands and my quotation was to the effect that the Department of Health officials under Deputy Dr. Browne had come to the conclusion that all this suggested expenditure was a guess.
Will Deputy McGilligan now come to amendment No. 3?
I am coming to it passing through the particular course that Deputy Dr. Browne was allowed to go through and Deputy Cowan, although he has not been vocal in any coherent way, has tried to follow in his interruptions. The difficulty in dealing with this matter is, that not merely Deputy Dr. Browne, but the Minister for Health aswell, seem to be suffering from delusions or illusions.
There are people up in Grangegorman who think that about the people outside.
I am sure some of the Grangegorman people would be justified in illusions about Deputy Cowan. When I hear the Custom House referred to as Gandon's masterpiece I begin to wonder is that a proper phrase for it. As far as I can see from the people who have gone through it—including a Deputy who is no longer in this House and to whom we need not refer; Deputy Dr. Browne who was in the Department of Health and who was excluded from it and Deputy Dr. Ryan, who appears to be making a good claim to be on the new Health Council—anybody who is unsuccessful as Minister for Health gets there—is proceeding along the same lines——
Is the Deputy entitled to refer to the Minister for Health as "Deputy Dr. Ryan"?
"The Minister for Health" is the correct title.
We do not expect much from over there.
From appearances he looks like a man who needs a tonic.
That is not very gentlemanly.
A Deputy
What is not gentlemanly?
I am speaking about personal references.
They are all right coming from over there.
I am speaking about the reference to physique made by Deputy Fanning.
If the House is not tired of me I would like to go on.
They are all suffering from delusions.
When I think of what has come out of the Custom House in the last ten years I do not think I would be correct in applying the phrase "Gandon's Masterpiece". It is a bat-haunted labyrinth in which everybody that goes into it gets this view that whatever that person does has the approval of the whole country, laity, clergy.
What about Deputy Costello?
I do not know whether the Deputy thinks his own speech was not too good, but he has had his own chance of speaking. However, may I take that example? Deputy Costello, as far as I know, never had his lodgment in the Custom House. Deputy Costello was free from illusions resulting from the Custom House influence.
He handed it over to the Medical Association.
Deputy Dr. Browne must cease interrupting.
He had not the hagridden point of view that Deputy Dr. Browne had. He had no frenzied illusions or obsessions; he did not live in the Custom House. The two here and one other did, and I think I am perfectly entitled to describe the Custom House as a bat-haunted place which when people resort to it they do suffer from illusions. Imagine a letter written on the 19th March asking: "Am I correct——"
Is it not deliberate obstruction to read a letter like that three times?
"Am I correct in thinking that you are under the impression that the Hierarchy are against my mother and child scheme?"
Is this obstruction to be allowed?
On the 5th April the complete condemnation comes——
Sit down and listen to the Chair.
I am advising the Deputy that it is not orderly to read a letter three times.
He is suffering from delusions; he does not remember reading it.
He spoke for a long time last night on this amendment; he is speaking now for quite a while and he has not come to amendment No. 3 yet.
I would ask the Deputy to come to amendment No. 3.
I wonder if what I have said has annoyed the House.
It was very amusing but I hate to see so much time wasted.
The registration of amusement takes a funny form.
Deputy Cowan should cease interrupting. Deputy McGilligan on amendment No. 3.
We should not waste time.
If they are amused they have a funny way of showing it. They would not qualify as the cinema type. The position now is the Minister is asking for power that by Order he could direct that certain things should be done. The power that he wants is to have certain institutional services carried out in certain institutions; institutional services include treatment. I put it to the Minister now that the bare and literal interpretation of that is that he asks for power to direct that certain treatment shall be carried out in certain institutions and the amendment seeks to add that the health authority shall comply with such a direction. I take that to mean that it is going to be legal for doctors to carry out certain treatment and it will be illegal for doctors to refuse.
I have asked for protection for doctors. I do not suppose that anybody wants to impose an obligation on doctors to do operations or to carry out treatment that is contrary to theirconscience but why not say so? We have already said so in regard to another matter in which the Minister was more precise. Deputy Cowan was even more precise than the Minister when he said that the amendment was not required but the amendment was put in to protect a person from being asked to undergo treatment that was contrary to that person's religion. It is easy to add the simple amendment I seek and I ask that it should be done in order to clear up this matter and to give a doctor the same conscientious freedom as a patient. Against all this is the fact that the Constitution by a particular Article guarantees freedom of conscience and guarantees that freedom of conscience subject only to two inhibitions. One is public order and the other is public morality.
The question of what are the requirements of public order or public morality that might conflict with the guarantee of freedom of conscience is a matter for the courts, not for this House. That was decided in the case where the Government of the time tried to get a ruling from the courts in regard to private property. It is a simple matter to make the amendment which I suggest and there is all the more reason to do it when I am told that the danger is remote and is not likely to occur.
I am glad that Deputy McGilligan has not pursued the line that he was pursuing last night. He thought better of it.
The retreat from Moscow.
He said last night that he never approved of the health scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne. He was careful to quote documents only from March, 1951 on, and he asserted very definitely here last night that he never at any time approved of the scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne. I had a few hours to spare to-day and I came across correspondence carried on between the two Departments and nothing could be more definite than the Minister's approval of the scheme, starting in 1949, all through 1950 and up to 1951. The Deputy, of course, isa master-hand, in this House and elsewhere, at making an assertion and running away from it. He is always prepared to make a statement if he knows that documents cannot be produced against him. I suppose he came to the conclusion that if he said the same thing to-day the documents would be produced against him, so therefore he did not say it. I would not be surprised now if he said that he did not say that at all last night because he is quite capable of doing that.
In the interests of truth, perhaps it would be no harm to give some new facts about the scheme that was put up, starting from 1949. On the 1st March of that year, the then Minister for Health put up his scheme for the City of Dublin and afterwards put it up for the counties, and the Minister for Finance wrote back approving in principle on the 16th July, 1949. He told us here last night that he never approved of the scheme.
A delusion.
Perhaps a delusion. It is the most charitable interpretation we can give to the Deputy's statement last night. This is an interesting point in his approval in principle. He told us last night that he never approved of the 1947 Act both for constitutional and moral reasons. Well, if he disapproved of the 1947 Act for moral reasons, he evidently did not understand what the moral principles were, because when he was conveying his approval on the 16th July on the scheme put up for the City of Dublin, he said there was one thing he did not approve of and that was that part-time doctors should be employed under the scheme. He advocated the employment of whole-time medical men. So the Deputy who told us last night that he could see in 1947 that the Bill was wrong both constitutionally and morally, had forgotten his morals evidently in August 1949, when he tried to induce the Minister for Health to change from a part-time, choice-of-doctor system, over to a whole-time medical practitioner system. The Minister for Health resisted that and the Minister for Finance wrote back pressing to have that point considered. Eventually hegave in to the Minister for Health and did not persist in pressing the matter further. Eventually a sum of money was put into the Estimate for 1950-51 and at a meeting of representatives of the two Departments in March, 1950, the Department of Finance representatives agreed to the proposals which had been submitted by the Department of Health.
Following that, discussions went on about the Estimate of the following year—that is the Estimate of 1951-52. Deputy McGilligan asserted very definitely here last night that there was no approval as far as he was concerned of any money in that Estimate for a new mother and child scheme. Well as I have shown, it was agreed in the previous year. In this year, 1951-52 a detailed Estimate was put up to the Department of Finance in the ordinary way. Under sub-head (h) a sum of £980,000 was put in. It was pointed out that £690,000 would be required for the new mother and child service, in other words, that if the new mother and child service did not come into operation during that financial year the Estimate could be reduced by £690,000. All the details were given of a domiciliary service and so on.
The Estimate in proof came back on the 1st February, 1951, with this £980,000 in the proof copy and sub-head H was for a mother and child service. The proof was forwarded for checking under cover of a letter from the Department of Finance, dated the 30th February, 1951. The Estimate was checked, returned to the Department of Finance and the following note accompanied the letter going back to the Department of Finance in February, 1951:—
"I am also to particularly request you to furnish a copy of the final proof of the Estimate as the Minister is desirous to see the note which is to be appended to sub-head H—Grants to Health Authorities—regarding the provision for the Mother and Child Service."
It was more than evident to me to-day, looking through these documents, that at this stage in February, 1951, the then Minister for Health had come tobe suspicious of the Minister for Finance and had asked to have the proofed copy submitted to him before it was sent to the printers and it was for that reason that letter was sent.
Now the Estimate was subsequently issued with a footnote. Deputy Dr. Browne stated here last night that a certain amount of money was cut off all the Estimates around that time. The footnote that was put in to sub-head H is as follows:—
"As many details (such as capitation rates, number of persons participating, date of commencement, etc.) affecting the probable cost of this service in the year 1951-52 cannot be finally determined at this stage, an accurate estimate of the additional outlay for that year cannot yet be given, but it is probable that it will be in the neighbourhood of £300,000. When fuller information has become available a Supplementary Estimate for the additional amount involved will be introduced."
Deputy McGilligan was then Minister for Finance. He was responsible for sanctioning these Estimates and, I presume, for any footnotes that appear. How any Deputy in that position could now say that he never approved of the mother and child scheme and at the same time be responsible for agreeing to that footnote I do not know. It is entirely inconsistent, again, if you like, due to some form of delusion.
Deputy Dr. Browne has already mentioned the fact that the Irish Medical Association circularised their members on the 29th November, 1950, and there is a reference to a meeting held on that date between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, and members of the Irish Medical Association. In this circular, referring to the Taoiseach's statement, the following appears:—
"It was his considered opinion that neither the Dáil nor Seanad would approve any amendment of the Act or regulations which would envisage the omission of a free service for all in connection with the scheme. He gave an assurancethat if this difficulty of a free for all service could be overcome by some kind of formula agreeable to both sides that other matters, such as the inclusion of general practitioners in the scheme and the preservation of professional secrecy could be settled without much difficulty."
That circular was sent out as a result of a meeting held between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and members of the Irish Medical Association. Is it possible that the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste could have argued so strongly with the members of the Medical Association for a mother and child scheme of which the Minister for Finance had not approved? In my opinion it is not possible. The approval of the Minister for Finance must have been given.
In connection with the letter to which reference has been made, the letter issued by the Hierarchy at that time, I would like Deputies to remember that the scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne reached the Taoiseach on 7th November, 1950, and he met the members of the Irish Medical Association on 29th November and told them that a free scheme would have to be agreed to and that other matters could be adjusted subsequently. We come along to 12th February, 1951, and we find Deputy Dr. O'Higgins addressing a meeting of Fine Gael South Central Dublin Executive on the 10th February. A report of that meeting appears in the Irish Timeson 12th February. Deputy Dr. O'Higgins addressing that gathering said:—
"In 1948 the Government changed but the law remained. Dr. Browne became Minister for Health and it became his legal duty to carry out the law, or to rescind or to curtail it. Even if he so desired to do the latter, he could not succeed in view of the previous support for the Bill. He faced his responsibility energetically, enthusiastically and courageously."
Would the Minister read that last sentence again?
"He faced his responsibility energetically, enthusiasticallyand courageously." The statement continues:—
"No one has ever given such intense devotion to health improvements. He drafted a scheme in compliance with the law for free treatment for all. This scheme was submitted to the doctors and rejected by a ballot vote.
A new situation then arose—the scheme complied with the law but the scheme was not in itself the law. The Minister made it clear that he was not wedded to that particular scheme but that the law required free treatment for all and, subject to the acceptance of that principle, any workable scheme would be acceptable."
Remember, that was 10th February, 1951, when Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Costello, Deputy Norton and Deputy Dr. O'Higgins were going out publicly and saying that so long as it was a free scheme they could get over the other matters. Last night Deputy McGilligan kept us for hours telling us that he had never approved of the scheme. Another ex-Minister said that there was no scheme at all. We know what to expect from these gentlemen; when people make assertions like that, so far removed from the truth, they are prepared to say anything.
Would the Minister say where he got that report?
It is a statement made by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins at a meeting of Fine Gael South Central Dublin Executive held on 10th February, 1951, and reported in the Irish Timeson 12th February, 1951. It must have been held in secret because theIrish Timesdoes not say where it was held. I do not think the picture would be complete if I did not quote Deputy Dillon. Deputy Dillon, on 12th November, 1950—Deputies will remember that at that time theSunday Independentwas giving half its space to Deputy Dillon every Sunday——
They could not help that.
That is so, but they gave it up after a time. Deputy Dillon inthis very long speech took as his theme the corporate State, but he was not in favour of the corporate State. He favoured democracy. He said—the words he spoke are in inverted commas:—
"The ardent Christians who have unsheathed their unsleeping swords profess to be especially scandalised because all applicants for the mother and child service are not to be subjected to a means test— why?"
That was Deputy Dillon, but another colleague of his, Deputy McGilligan, had never approved of any scheme from Deputy Dr. Browne because he knew from the beginning that the 1947 Act was wrong, both constitutionally and morally. Deputy Dillon went on to say:—
"If the service is freely available for all, while all are equally free to avail of it or not at their own absolute discretion, why is it necessary or desirable to require a man, who is worrying about his wife and longs to procure for her every safeguard which science can provide, either to suffer severe economic privation or prove to the relieving officer by a full disclosure of his intimate family affairs, that he is not financially able to provide this necessary care out of his own means?
If the integrity of the family is sacrosanct, the fewer occasions provided for public officials to trespass on its intimate secrets the better for society and the State."
Deputy Dillon evidently knew in November, 1950, that there was a scheme there. I think it was Deputy Morrissey who said last night there was no scheme. Deputy Morrissey did not know that there was a scheme there at the time. Deputy Dillon knew that there was a scheme, and he was horrified to think that anybody could condemn a free-for-all scheme. He talked of those "ardent Christians who have unsheathed their unsleeping swords", and so on, but Deputy McGilligan did not know or did not approve of any scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne. Why? His Taoiseach and his Tánaiste were meeting the Medical Associationand telling them: "You must take the scheme of Deputy Dr. Browne, the Minister for Health, and you must especially accept it without a means test, and if you do then any difficulties that follow can be got over."
Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, later on in his speech, said that the doctors had accepted that. I do not know whether that is true or not because I have not come across it from the doctors themselves, but Deputy Dr. O'Higgins says that the Irish Medical Association had accepted that and were prepared to meet the members of the Government to discuss the other details and let the free-for-all scheme go through. While all this was going on, all these negotiations and all these meetings between the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste and Deputy Dillon and Deputy Dr. O'Higgins—between all these Ministers— Deputy McGilligan knew nothing about it, that is, if he was telling the truth last night, because he told us here last night that he never approved of the scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne.
His Department did. Is he now going to claim that he did not know what his Department was doing? Is he going to claim that he was merely a rubber stamp—that is a good defence, if you like—and that his Department carried on during his absence, that he did not interfere with them and did not know what they were doing? That is the only kind of defence that I can see that is consistent with what he said last night, because he did say over and over again last night that he never approved of the scheme put up by Deputy Dr. Browne, even though it is in the printed Estimate that that approval had been given.
Deputy McGilligan talked a lot here last night and to-day. Would it not be well to clear up the matter and see what the truth is? It appears to me anyway that Deputy Dr. Browne was not suffering from delusions. He had a perfect right to claim that he had put up a scheme and had got approval for it. All the evidence goes to show that he did get approval. Not only did he get approval as reported in the newspapers—in the speeches made bythese various colleagues of his at the time—but even the Book of Estimates proves that he got approval for the scheme. Therefore, I think it is necessary that we should have some clarification on this matter.
Deputy Dr. Browne said here that he was anxious that this whole matter should be cleared up. As far as I can see from the documents he has nothing to fear by having the matter cleared up, and it might be as well if there was some sort of an investigation, or a publication of the documents if you like so that every man might investigate it for himself, because that might bring to an end the assertions made by ex-Ministers on the other side who are seeking, and have been seeking for some time, to give the impression to everybody that if there was a Browne scheme they knew nothing about it; that if there was a Browne scheme it was a bad scheme and that no one would approve of it, and that they knew nothing whatever about it. As I say, I think it would be as well to have the matter cleared up.
Is the Minister going to put on the Table of the House the documents from which he has quoted?
I quoted from certain documents.
As an order of the House, the Minister must put on the Table the documents from which he quoted. I am asking the Chair.
Will the Deputy give a guarantee to publish the documents from which he quoted last night?
The Minister did not purport to quote.
Is he going to hide behind that now? The Minister did not say that he did not quote from documents. Will he say if the documents will be published?
If your Party wish they will be.
I am asking, is the Minister now agreeing that the documents to which he referred will be puton the Table of the House? Is that right?
I am prepared to publish any documents.
I am asking that it should be done.
What else do you want? I am prepared to do it.
Let us get civility.
I do not want any twisting.
We are going to get the documents published?
Yes.
That is a ruling?
Unless the Minister agrees that he quoted from a document the Chair cannot ask the Minister to make it available. The Minister did not quote from the documents; he summarised them.
The ruling then is that they need not be published? I should like to know where we are.
Will you give some guarantee that you will publish the documents you quoted from last night?
I will publish one.
We have caught you out.
Can we not get this cleared up? The Chair, I understand, is not ruling that these documents be published.
This is rowdy conduct.
Am I to understand that the Chair cannot enforce publication because the Chair does not know whether the Minister was quoting or not? I understood that the Minister was not taking advantage of that point and would publish the documents. I take it, then, that when the Minister, so to speak, agrees tohave it deemed that he quoted, the Chair can rule that the documents will be published.
It is solely a matter for the Minister. Since the Chair understands that the Minister did not quote from the document, the Chair has no further responsibility.
We will see what happens.
I want to put one small point, which is an important one. Deputy McGilligan maintains there was no mother and child scheme.
That is right.
That is a straightforward proposition. The Minister maintains, and has satisfactorily proved, that there was a mother and child scheme. I do not believe that 10 per cent. of the people really think for a moment there was not a mother and child scheme. Let us suppose there was none. Then Deputy McGilligan, having asked us to accept that, proceeds to quote the Hierarchy as condemning a mother and child scheme. You cannot have it both ways. If it was not there, how can they condemn it and how can they write extensively and analyse section by section and condemn a scheme that was not there?
There is a second point. The whole dispute between Deputy Browne and other members of the inter-Party Government was over a mother and child scheme. If there was no such scheme, why did they sack him? They cannot have it both ways.
Then they did sack him.
Can I reply to that, immediately?
Of course you can, when you get your chance.
I would rather have it now.
I am trying, if I can, to bring the debate back to the section. I may have some difficulty, no matter how able I may try to be.
That is very modest.
It is definitely modest.
We know the underlying motive.
If people think I am one of those ignorant people— perhaps I am.
You are trying to be the other.
The trouble with Deputy McGilligan is that he was not able to give as much attention to the Department of Finance as he might have given during that particular period and that parts of it, like the matters quoted by the Minister, may have escaped his attention or escaped his knowledge, and if that is so we ought to make some allowances for that fact. As I see it, the Fianna Fáil Party here, the Labour Party, the Independents—and I think I can say all the Independents—want to get a satisfactory Health Bill into operation. Every Deputy concerned with progress must object to the obstruction and hold-up tactics we have had on this Bill up to now. Although what Deputy McGilligan says, what Deputy Browne says and what the Minister says is very interesting, the people decided the issue a couple of years ago. This whole matter was before the electorate in the last general election and there were four Deputies who deliberately stood for election on the basis that they supported Dr. Browne and what Dr. Browne did. Those four Deputies were elected by the electorate and we are here in this House entitled—because we were deliberately elected on that issue—to say that we want a satisfactory Health Bill put into operation as early as we can.
I was amazed to-day. We listened to Deputy McGilligan last night. He quoted from certain official documents, of which he said he took copies and brought with him, so that he could use them in his own defence at some time. These were selected documents that the Deputy chose in the hurry out of office. He had not very much time toprepare. These were just a few documents that he got his hands on and perhaps he said with his shrewdness: "This matter will come up again; I will be able to quote this against Dr. Browne". Obviously, from what the Minister has said, he did not bring with him all the documents. I do not think he had time even to go through the files, because as Deputy McGilligan knows it was only on the evening before the change of Government that it became clear to his Taoiseach and to himself that their days in office, their hours in office, were numbered.
Would the Deputy relate all this to amendment No. 3?
I am not a bit surprised at your saying that. I am trying to keep to the amendment, but having heard all the things we heard last night and to-night, even the Chair would have difficulty in knowing what the amendment is or what the section is. However, I will do my best to keep within the limits. Last night we had Deputy McGilligan quoting, or attempting to quote, extensively from a document which he was saying here was a letter issued by the Bishops. Last night he was doing that. To-day he never mentioned that letter. I referred to the Deputy's retreat in an observation to the Minister—his retreat from that letter was like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow.
Deputy Cowan advanced to Moscow.
Last night Deputy McGilligan deliberately did a thing that no decent Deputy in any Parliament in the world would do. All I know, all you know and all the House knows, Sir, is that apparently the Hierarchy issued a letter. That seems to be agreed. At least, it is not being denied.
The Deputy has changed his belief since last night.
This letter, according to Deputy McGilligan, was issued to four newspapers—the Irish Times,which says to-day it never got it.
I did not say the Irish Timesgot it.
The Irish Timeswas mentioned last night. I heard the Deputy myself.
I said the Press,theIndependent, theCatholic Heraldand theStandard.
I heard the Deputy mention the Irish Timeslast night. If the Deputy says he did not mention it, I accept that, contrary to the evidence of my own ears.
And everyone else's.
It is parliamentary, you see, to do that. He mentioned the Irish Press,theIrish Independentand theStandard—I think he called it theCatholic Standard.
No, the Irish Catholicand theStandard.
I am glad he does not call the StandardtheCatholic Standard.
It does not so call itself.
He mentioned these papers. If a letter issued by the Bishops is issued to these four newspapers, can one imagine that the editor of the Irish Independentwould hand out a copy of that letter to anyone? Would the editor of theIrish Pressdo so? I do not know the editor of theIrish Catholic:would he hand it out? Would the editor of theStandardhand it out? Would theStandardeditor bring it before his directors? And one of his directors is Deputy General MacEoin.
The cat is out of the bag.
Another is Senator Baxter. Did the editor bring that letter before them? Was this a letter which, if it were issued by the Hierarchy, the Hierarchy withdrew—that is what Deputy McGilligan said last night, that having issued the letter they withdrew it—and how did it get into circulation. If it got into circulation,did it get into circulation with the authority of the Hierarchy and, if it did not, I say it was the lowest form of low-type politics for any Deputy to use it in the way it was used last night.
The House is not discussing the conduct of editors or anyone else.
I am discussing the conduct of Deputy McGilligan, who has not hesitated to make the most vile attacks on other Deputies in the course of this debate.
The Deputy has insinuated that a director of the Standardmust have done some improper thing—making it available to someone. That is untrue.
If Deputy MacEoin says that the editor of the Standarddid not bring it before the directors or did not show him that, I accept that —because it is parliamentary to do so——
It was not submitted to the directors.
——but I do not think anyone outside in the country would accept that.
Deputy MacEoin knows what the Hierarchy wrote in 1947 and in 1948 and 1950 to two Taoiseachs.
I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is that every Deputy saw in the House last night that Deputy McGilligan's conduct disgusted his own Leader, Deputy Costello. It was clear that not one other Deputy of Fine Gael in the Front Bench mentioned this Bishop's letter or alleged letter, except Deputy McGilligan. The men sitting beside him on the Front Bench were disgusted with his conduct, and rightly so. Deputy MacEoin was disgusted with his conduct, as he went completely out of the House and would not listen to him.
Deputy General Mulcahy came in but he did not take that side. Deputy Costello sat there, fed up, obviouslyvery annoyed that a colleague, not only a colleague in his inter-Party Government, a colleague of his Front Bench in opposition and a colleague in their honourable profession, could have stooped so low as Deputy McGilligan did last night to make use of a document which was never intended for circulation, and which does not exist as far as the people of this country are concerned.
Would the Deputy like to read my hand as well as reading my mind?
I think it would be easier to read the Deputy's hand. Deputy McGilligan has failed, he has failed disgracefully, he has failed dishonourably in the role he set himself last night. Deputy McGilligan ought to be ashamed of himself, and I am sure, whether he is ashamed of himself or not, his colleagues are ashamed of him. I could not see a Deputy like Deputy Liam Cosgrave coming into that Front Bench to sit there and listen to the conduct that we had from Deputy McGilligan last night. To-day there was no reference to this Hierarchy letter. He failed last night, deliberately failed. He did damage to his own Party. He did damage to himself.
The Deputy is taking a long time to come to amendment No. 3.
All I want to say in conclusion is—this will be relevant to the amendment I hope—that on another debate in this House recently I referred, and the Minister referred to it last night but not in the same language, to these Sadleir and Keogh tactics. Deputy McGilligan is entitled to adopt this Sadleir and Keogh line, but Deputy McGilligan will be no more successful than Sadleir and Keogh were.
As I said at the beginning, the great majority of the Deputies in this House want a Health Bill. We want to get down and work. We want to get down and give of our best to provide the best Health Bill we can, but Fine Gael have made up their mind to obstructit and hold it up, and Deputy McGilligan has taken his own guerilla line in regard to it. We can, if we are allowed, make the best Health Bill we can. I do not say that this is the sort of Health Bill that I myself would be glad to father, but if it is the best Health Bill we can get in the present circumstances then it is our duty to get that. Why cannot we do that? Why cannot we get the chance of providing a good Health Bill? Why does Deputy McGilligan waste the time of the Dáil talking about amendments that should be in the Bill but he would not go to the trouble of suggesting one amendment—not one amendment?
Sure, he is not against the Health Bill.
He said he was not against it but, just as he twisted and turned against Deputy Dr. Browne when he thought it was good politics, he has twisted and turned again, and he is making the same mistake now as he made then. Deputy McGilligan has ensured by his conduct in this debate that, as far as his own Party are concerned anyway, Fine Gael, they bear the brand they always had, a brand of reaction, opposition to anything that is progressive. Let them have that. Let them have that role if they like, but that rôle will get them nowhere in Irish politics.
I would appeal to Fine Gael, if they are not interested in the health of the people, to sit quiet there on the Front Benches and let the rest of us who are interested in the health of the people make the best Bill we can under present circumstances.
Now that Deputy Cowan has thrown so much light on Fine Gael, could we get the Minister to throw some light on his amendment?
We have come back to the amendment? That is good.
The Minister has stated that he has powers already in other legislation, including the Public Assistance Act, similar to the powers he is looking for in his amendment. After all that has passed, I think itwould be no harm to read the amendment:—
"3. Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
The Minister may, by Order made in respect of a specified health institution, direct—
(a) that institutional services of a specified class shall be given in the institution,
(b) that institutional services of a specified class shall not be given in the institution,
(c) that institutional services shall be given in the institution to a specified class of persons, or
(d) that institutional services shall not be given to persons of a specified class,
and the health authority maintaining the institution shall comply with the direction."
In so far as the discussion has been anywhere near the amendment, it has related to the first part, that is, that institutional services of a specified class shall be given in an institution. We might look at (b) in order to get the Minister a little bit away from the fog that, largely of his own initiation, is created around this amendment. Reading (b) in the way in which Deputy Costello recommended that it should be read, (b) would mean that:
"The Minister may, by Order made in respect of a specified health institution, direct—
(a) that maintenance in an institution,
(b) diagnosis, advice and treatment at an institution,
(c) appliances and medicines and other preparations,
(d) the use of special apparatus at an institution,
of a specified class shall not be given in the institution."
Will the Minister say where powers of that particular kind exist already and what particular purpose he has in mind?
We have a declaration as to what "institutional services" means but where have we a definition of "a specified class"? Can the Minister give any reference to the various classes that might be specified and in respect of which he seeks statutory power to be able to require that such a class shall not be given treatment in some particular institution?
As I mentioned before, in giving services to a particular class, it might be children, it might be maternity cases, it might be unmarried mothers or, if it is a specified ailment, the example I gave already was smallpox or, possibly, say, tuberculosis. I think the "specified class" could refer to either the class of person, which is children, or the class of disease, such as smallpox.
Surely the question of disease is included in the idea of "institutional services"? "Institutional services" covers diagnosis, advice, treatment, maintenance and the use of appliances and apparatus. Surely "institutional services" covers the question of disease and, as there is a statutory definition of "institutional services," would the Minister say where there is any definition of "specified class" or where it is intended to have it and will he say, again, where he has authority in previous Acts, as he says he has, to cover the proposal contained in paragraph (b) there?
The services specified appear to be covered in the case of smallpox.
When introducing this amendment the Minister stated that he had these powers for, I think he mentioned, ten years, but that they had been hardly ever used and he mentioned smallpox. Now again we are back to smallpox.
Is not that consistent?
It is consistent with the Minister's attitude, but it is not informative. It certainly is not an adequate explanation for the fact that in such a sweeping way the Minister takes power to himself here. As I say,the Minister simply mentioned smallpox when introducing the amendment. Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll intimated that it had been necessary to segregate particular classes into particular institutions already and that under the tuberculosis scheme that was very successfully and widely done and that it was done by persuasion. If there were powers to do it by Order, I do not know why it should be stressed that it was possible to do it in the case of tuberculosis by persuasion.
Here the Minister is taking to himself, over the heads of the local authorities that will provide and will be supposed to administer the institutions, to make these sweeping decisions and the only excuse we get is, smallpox. I suggest to the Minister that it is a quite inadequate explanation. The inadequacy of his opening remarks have been stressed to him already. He had time since yesterday to clear his mind on the matter and we are in the position now that we are back to the old explanation, smallpox.
I referred last night to the objection which was taken by the Hierarchy in October, 1950, where they stated that certain powers taken were in direct opposition to the rights of families and were liable to very great abuse and stressed that there was no assurance that they would be used in moderation to justify their enactment. I do not think it is going too far to say that that means that, if powers are open to abuse and if that abuse is contrary to faith and morals, then the Hierarchy's insistence was that these powers should be removed, that they would not be content with an assurance that the powers would be used in moderation. In other words, that the fact that things were capable of being abused was enough to have them condemned. That was in 1950.
In 1953, as I said last night, in the document which the unfortunate public have not been able to see, they spoke of undue interference. They protested against undue interference with the medical profession. They spoke about health education which even involved a scheme to direct a child according tomaterialistic principles. They had a phrase which amounted to a comment that the present legislation extended an already full medical service directed and controlled by the State.
I think, Sir, that you ruled last night that this document should be put on the records of the House. You intimated that to the Deputy. Is not that so? I think the Deputy is still quoting from it.
Deputy McGilligan has been citing a document here to-night as well as last night.
He used the word "Freudian", which is a direct quotation.
Is "Freudian" completely confined to hierarchical addresses? I am deliberately keeping away from quotation.
The Chair is making up its mind that the document is being quoted.
I am not quoting. I am paraphrasing what I am reading from. There is objection taken to a centralised and bureaucratic system and further objection taken that the power given to the Minister for wide regulations covering every detail of medical services in time to come interfered with the patient-doctor relationship. I want to apply that to this. I must make a brief reference to the position of the doctor. This particular enlargement of ministerial powers offends against the comments that were made in a letter which the public should have got round about the end fortnight of April this year. They were prevented from getting that by the action of the Government. I think it was a deplorable action that these people took. I think the House is entitled to get what the Bishops had desired to publish in the exercise of what they call their teaching office.
This amendment allows an Order to be made and, under that, a direction can be given with regard to certain services. Once that direction is given, a health authority must comply with that direction. I have asked several times, does anybody want to imposeon any medical man any Order which would be in violation of his conscience? I assume that nobody wants to do that. I asked then would the test contained in the letter of the Hierarchy of October, 1950, be applied. Is this possible of abuse? Is it such a thing that might be met by an assurance that the power which the Minister was getting would be used in moderation? Even if that assurance were given and accepted, would the matter still not fall under the criticism that the clergy made in October, 1950?
These institutional services are defined in the Act referred to so often and they include advice and treatment. I do not know whether we can get accommodation or agreement upon what is being discussed. There is power to direct by Order and a direction will go out to have services in an institution and these services will include treatment. Once these orders are given with regard to treatment, the health authority must comply. The health authority can only comply through their medical officer or possibly through the medical officer of the Minister's Department. These directions for certain treatment may be as objectionable as the matter in relation to the patient, the matter discussed by the Minister, apparently, with the Hierarchy in relation to the patient. These discussions led to an amendment that no patient was to be asked to undergo treatment contrary to the teaching of his religion. Surely the same thing ought to apply to the doctors.
As to the mother and child scheme, I quoted from a letter of the 5th April, 1951, from the Hierarchy:—
"It is to be noted that the proposed scheme failed to give clear evidence of the details of implementation. The scheme, as set forth in vague, general terms, has the appearance of conferring a benefit on the mothers and children of the whole nation."
I think that is a good summary of the position as it was on 5th April, 1951. The scheme was set forth in vague, general terms but there was nothing to enable the implementing details to be seen. The Deputy may wonder if helikes, but there was something which caused trouble between the members of the Cabinet and Deputy Dr. Browne that was called a mother and child scheme. There must have been a scheme because he was got rid of. I read through the letters of the Hierarchy at that time and they occasionally talk of a mother and child service. They occasionally talk about proposals and again the word "scheme" is brought in. In a series of documents there are remarks criticising the whole thing as being very vague, not capable of implementation and the finding of finance in a way different from that in which it was found. I am leaving that over for examination. The Minister was attempting to get away in the end from the documents that he made use of to-day. By the way, I gave the wrong date in connection with the document yesterday. I gave the date as the 1/1/51. The right date is the 11/1/51. The document is File 102/67/50.
There is talk in the document here of progress with regard to hospitalisation parts of the scheme, especially with regard to local authorities. That is put forward as a scheme of full details to be carried out if the matter had not abruptly been brought to an end. The other point which was not relevant to the discussion last night would show the methods contemplated. Once again the Department of Health intended to oblige dispensary doctors (apparently satisfied they have the necessary powers) to cave in and accept the mother and child scheme. That anticipated the other discussion.
That was the plan at the time. Compel the dispensary doctors to cave in. When the Minister publishes his documents, may I suggest, in order to get further clarification, he might add two documents to the ones he said rather vaguely he would publish—the opinions, briefly summarised, of the two attorneys who commented upon the proposal in the 1947 Act. I allude to that for the reason that in recent discussions about new health proposals since the re-emergence of Fianna Fáil we were always told that they would be guided by the Constitution and bythe directive Article 45. That directive Article was in the Constitution in 1947 when the proposals of 1947 came along. The Constitution in 1947 is the same as it is now. The Attorney-General who gave Fianna Fáil a ruling in 1947 is possibly the same gentleman who gave a ruling with regard to the proposal in 1952. I would like to have that put before the House in contrast with the view of the Attorney-General who advised the Government on the 12th March, 1948.
There were three aspects really to the controversy from 1948 until 1951. There was, first of all, the moral matter which occupied a good deal of the attention of the Minister for Health of those days and the Hierarchy. Then there was the constitutional aspect which did not take much time so far as the Government at that time was concerned. It was finished by a ruling given on the matter in which Deputy Dillon, as a private citizen, had taken an action before the courts in order to have a declaration from the courts that certain sections of Part III, mainly those sections which the Attorney-General on the 12th March, 1948, as far as legal opinion went, condemned and which Deputy Dillon wanted to have the court condemn. That was the action which was pending at the time the Hierarchy wrote to the Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, at the end of 1947. That was the action then pending which gave the then Taoiseach, Mr. de Valera, his excuse not to reply to the Hierarchy's letter, but to state that the moral aspect of the matter would be considered once the constitutional question was got out of the way.
The third matter was the practicability of the proposals. That should have meant co-operation but it meant collision with the medical profession so that there was controversy going on on three fronts. That is now presented here as a scheme which had the approval of a Government.
I do not desire to repeat myself particularly, but when the Minister was asked a question with regard to this proposed amendment hesaid the powers already existed under Section 36 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939. He alleged that Section 36 of that Act covers these powers. Section 36 of that Act says that when a local authority has established in its area an institution for dealing with a particular class of person or where they have made an arrangement by which that particular class of person will be dealt with by an institution not under their authority that particular class of person will not be treated at the expense of that local authority except in the institutions they have provided. The Minister refers the House to an authority of that particular kind. The lack of explanation on the Minister's part in regard to this amendment shows that the amendment takes revolutionary powers to overrule any local authority with regard to its institutions and the purposes for which they would be used and in such a way as to direct the particular class of treatment that may be given to a particular class of person. So that in respect of the general line of work that will be carried on in an institution and in respect of apparatus, treatment and matters of diagnosis, the Minister can direct, over the heads of the local authorities, against the experience or even against the prejudice of the medical people serving in the institution. He can direct them in regard to their work and treatment. The Minister's whole attitude is either that of direct deception of the House or of pawning off on us a proposal that he knows nothing about. Perhaps he does not know what the results of it will be and perhaps he does not know who is behind it.
The powers the Minister is taking here are clearly the powers provided under Section 36 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939. Reiterating the talk about smallpox in a parrot-like way will not cover up the wide and revolutionary powers in this amendment. I would ask him to treat us and the House in a reasonable and responsible way and let us know something of what is in his mind as regards the various classes into which people might be divided and the various types of institutions. Would he take any normal county and attempt to give us apicture of the institution and the types of segregation of the different cases that might be recognised in relation to these institutions?
I must say that I cannot follow Deputy Mulcahy's line of argument very clearly. I cannot see the reason why the Minister should not have power under certain circumstances to direct a local authority to give certain treatment to certain classes. It would be rather a queer position if each local authority hospital decided all matters of policy themselves. We might have a situation which we would not like if something in the nature of a serious disease or epidemic broke out in this country. Power should lie in the hands of a central authority—the Minister, in this case—to direct a local authority hospital to give certain treatment to people. That power must lie in the Minister's hands because local authorities might feel like refusing to adopt a certain attitude or to give certain treatment. That disposes of Deputy Mulcahy's point.
Deputy McGilligan has suggested that an attempt is being made under this Bill to give power to this Minister to force doctors to give treatment contrary to their conscience, to diagnose ailments, and so forth, and to act generally contrary to their conscience. I, for one, do not accept that at all. I am quite satisfied with the statement the Minister has made in the matter. The only argument that Deputy McGilligan put up to back his case was that the power envisaged in this new amendment to the section, which was brought in by the Minister, is contrary to the advice of the Hierarchy.
Deputy McGilligan then proceeded to paraphrase, as he so described it himself, the subject matter of a letter allegedly written by the Hierarchy to the Faithful. I am an Independent Deputy in this House and I hope I am a member of the Faithful. I heard nothing whatever concerning objections of the Hierarchy to this particular amendment. From what I can gather in this House, the Hierarchy wrote a letter to a number of papers but that letter has not been published.
I, as an ordinary Deputy of this House, have not seen that letter. But Deputy McGilligan comes in here and purports to quote from that letter or to paraphrase it. On matters of faith and morals I take my teaching and advice from the Hierarchy and certainly I am not going to take advice on matters of faith and morals from Deputy McGilligan.
You are not being asked to.
Deputy McGilligan is a first-class legal man. If I wanted legal advice I am sure that he or any member of his Party who is also a member of the legal profession would be capable of giving me first-class advice on legal matters. I deplore that any attempt should be made by Deputy McGilligan to sway my mind by arguments on moral grounds—arguments that he puts up to me in this House and which are based, according to himself, on a letter from the Hierarchy which he seems to have in his possession but which I, as an individual, know nothing about. Therefore, I cannot accept for a moment the fact that the Bishops have criticised the powers that will be given here.
I understood that there were certain matters which worried the Hierarchy and that the Government informed the Hierarchy that they were prepared to meet their wishes. As far as I am concerned, that has been done because I got no indication and I have heard nothing to the contrary. No statement has been issued that the Government have done something wrong and contrary to the wishes of those people. I think it is the right of the leaders of the Catholic Church and, indeed, of the leaders of all Churches to make their opinions known to the Government.
Hear, hear, and to the public.
And to the public.
And they should not have been stopped, would you not agree?
Who stopped them?
The Government did it.
Are they not independent people? Could they not withdraw the letter themselves?
Deputy McQuillan.
Deputy McGilligan is making a charge against the Government.
It is not denied.
It is a charge against the Hierarchy.
It is not a charge against the Hierarchy.
Will Deputy Hilliard and Deputy McGilligan please restrain themselves? Deputy McQuillan, on the amendment.
I want to put this. I do not believe that any Government in this country would dare for a moment to try to prevent the Hierarchy from making their views known to the faithful. That suggestion has been made by Deputy McGilligan. The allegation has been made in this House that the Government tried to prevent the Hierarchy from making their views clear on this Health Bill. I, for one, cannot accept that allegation.
If Deputy McGilligan wishes to get the majority of the members of this House to support him in his objection to this amendment, he will have to produce some other argument in its favour besides quoting from or paraphrasing a document in this House which I have not seen and which I know nothing about. Consequently, as far as this amendment is concerned, I intend to support the Minister. I feel that there was never any intention that members of the medical profession would be forced under the terms of this Bill or under the terms of this amendment to give treatment or to act in a manner contrary to their conscience.
The Fine Gael Party are not satisfied with this section. Deputy McQuillan has stated that hecannot see any real danger in these powers being given to the Minister. More than anything else, our fear is for the future. The powers which the Minister seeks are wide powers. In this section, the Minister is empowered to direct what type of patients are to be treated in a particular hospital. He is further empowered—mind you, I do not say he is going to use these powers —to direct what treatment is administered in that hospital.
For the benefit of Deputies, I will cite an instance of what has already happened in this country. There are certain restrictions with regard to a drug called cortisone, a comparatively recent discovery, which I think all Deputies know is for the purpose of treating rheumatism, amongst other things. At the present moment there are certain restrictions, as by ministerial Order, with regard to the utilisation of cortisone and the venues or the hospitals in which cortisone is used. The distribution of cortisone— in the Dublin areas, at any rate—for dispensary patients is confined to the teaching hospitals and to St. Kevin's Hospital. It was originally, and until recently, confined to St. Kevin's Hospital until a case arose in which a physician in St. Vincent's Hospital wished to treat a patient with cortisone and found he was precluded by this particular regulation from doing so—and it was not possible to move that patient from St. Vincent's Hospital to St. Kevin's Hospital. The regulation was subsequently changed so that teaching hospitals were included.
Quite recently, another case arose in a hospital in Loughlinstown. The Deputies opposite, and the Deputies who support them, have stressed all the time their interest in the welfare of the poor. This was a dispensary case in Loughlinstown Hospital. He required treatment with cortisone and he was unable to procure that treatment on account of the regulation which exists in regard to it.
I am citing that case to prove to Deputies how very dangerous this measure may be. Cortisone is not, in the main, a life-saving drug, but if we are to have legislation like this, we are going to restrict the powers of doctors to treat patients. It is a very dangerousthing. You are allowing the State to interfere with medical treatment.
Orders were directed to the county medical officers of health with regard to certain immunisation treatment that they were to use a particular product. For the benefit of Deputies, I should explain that there are different types of drugs which may be used for immunisation against different diseases. A ministerial Order was made directing the county medical officers of health to instruct the dispensary doctors that they were to use only a certain type of product. That is a definite Order, a definite restriction.
It is not a definite Order.
It was given as an Order.
It was not given as an Order, and never was.
I have it from a county medical officer of health that it was.
The Deputy's information is wrong in that case.
I withdraw the statement then. I agree that, at the present moment, it does not exist. I will grant the Minister that, but the original Order was that the county medical officers of health should instruct the dispensary doctors as to the type of product they would use. It does not exist now, I agree, because it was withdrawn. Why was it withdrawn? It was withdrawn because it was found to be impracticable.
These are two perfectly fair instances for fairminded Deputies to consider of interference with medical treatment by ministerial Order. You can call it by any name you like—I call it State control. That is what we object to in the Fine Gael Party, because we believe in the freedom of the individual. I think I am right in saying that the Hierarchy, who have been quoted here, believe in the freedom of the individual, as they have proved, to their honour and glory, out behind the Iron Curtain. I am not suggesting that a Fianna Fáil Government are going to impose these restrictions,but we object to this State control for the future, and, as free people, we are entitled to object to it and entitled to express our opinion, even though it amuses some of the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches.
Now we come to Deputy Dr. Browne's tenure of office as Minister for Health, and I am prepared to say that Deputy Dr. Browne was perhaps a little more amenable in some respects than the Minister, strange as it may seem.
He must be like putty, if so.
Deputy Dr. Browne, as Minister, restricted the supply of streptomycin.
On the advice of the Medical Research Council.
Exactly. Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to say what I have to say. The Deputy can reply and tell me if anything I say is wrong, but the trouble here is that you are not allowed to state your case because some Deputy gets annoyed and intervenes. The Deputy restricted streptomycin to doctors approved by the Medical Registration Council.
The Medical Research Council.
What is the Medical Research Council but a quasi-government body Is that not right?
I do not think they would agree.
That is the general impression. In medical circles, it is the general opinion that it is a quasi-Government concern. The Deputy, as Minister, however, restricted the dissemination of streptomycin. He was approached by the representatives of the doctors, the Irish Medical Association—I presume that I am allowed to state in this House that the Irish Medical Association represents the doctors—to ask him to withdraw these restrictions, because they acted as an inhibiting force on the treatment of patients. To his honour and credit, hewithdrew it. I am asking the Minister now if he will withdraw this.
Withdraw what?
I have given him certain factual cases where treatment has been interfered with. I am not suggesting that the Minister is going to interfere, but I am suggesting that the Fine Gael Party respects the freedom of the individual, respects the right of private enterprise, respects the right of doctors to treat patients in hospitals and respects the right of the staff to be free people and to act under the doctors, without dictatorship or control from the Minister for Health. Take this legislation whatever way you like, it is an attempt to force State control on a free people, and the Fine Gael Party is only doing its duty in opposing that. We will continue to oppose it, so that the Irish people can remain a free people, so long as we are returned here to Dáil Éireann.
The Deputy got very excited over all this. With regard to cortisone and, for that matter, streptomycin, they were drugs introduced into this country when very little was known about them. The then Minister, in the case of streptomycin, and I, in the case of cortisone, were approached by the teachers of medicine. I was asked to restrict cortisone. I do not know anything about cortisone, but this particular man said to me: "If you allow it to be freely used, you will have numerous deaths from wrong treatment." Was I to take the responsibility of saying: "I do not believe you"?
How long ago was that?
About 18 months ago.
Exactly.
What about it? The Deputy got heated because we would not allow cortisone to kill everybody in the country. What does he think a Minister for Health is for?
That was 18 months ago.
The Minister is entitled to make his statement without interruption.
Surely a Minister for Health must look after health and prevent people from being killed, if he is warned about it. What happened then was that cortisone was allowed to be used in every teaching hospital, until it became better known. Any doctor can get it through a teaching hospital, so far as I know, and it is expected that somebody in that teaching hospital will warn the doctor who gets it of its dangers. I am not taking responsibility for it—the teaching hospitals can do what they like about it. With regard to streptomycin, I believe that there was somewhat the same danger when it came out first, that it might not be properly used, and it was restricted in the beginning until the time came when it could be released.
I never said, and I do not say now, that this section can be accepted by the Dáil because it will be used in moderation. What I say is that it cannot be used in any other way. A doctor cannot be directed to give special treatment under this section. It is not possible. I am not going to take Deputy McGilligan's law on that, because I am afraid his view is a little too prejudiced for acceptance in this House. If Deputy Esmonde is prepared to take Deputy McGilligan as the law authority on a matter like that, he can do so, but I will not. I am not going to accept his opinion on it.
County medical officers of health, we are told, were directed to treat people in a certain way. There is one regulation, the only restrictive regulation I know—in the case of infectious diseases, the Minister may make regulations restricting the list of prophylactics and only restricting the list.
In other words if a thing is off the list the doctor cannot use that, but he can use what is on the list if he likes. He is not compelled to use anything on the list if he does not think it is good treatment. That was done—as Deputy Dr. Esmonde is probably aware—because there were from timeto time most dangerous types of drugs advertised, prophylactics, and so on. I do not think that the men who are working under the local authorities object to having regulations of that kind. I am quite sure that if any number of medical officers of health come along and say that such a thing should be added there would be no difficulty about having it added. There was never any compulsion that they should use special treatment. There was that degree of compulsion, if you like, that they were not permitted to use certain new drugs until something more was known about them. That was all.
There is one thing I would like to say arising out of a point made in particular by my colleague, Deputy Dr. Esmonde. As a doctor I cannot see how it is not necessary from time to time to have controls and limitations on certain drugs, particularly in the early stages when they are introduced. Take the example of B.C.G. vaccination. It is now working successfully in this country, but in the early stages of its use it was not open to any doctor to use it. Its use was restricted to trained vaccinators. When drugs are brought in shortly after laboratory work has been done and they are in the experimental stage, surely Dr. Esmonde must agree that it is essential that they are only used by trained people.
Deputy Dr. Esmonde says that the first group to control cortisone here was the State. I am not saying this to criticise my colleague in any way but because I want it made clear that certain controls are necessary. If he looks into the use of cortisone in this country he will see that the first people to control its use here were the voluntary hospitals.
Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll seems to have missed the point of my argument. Of course, I agree as a doctor that there must be a certain control on drugs. The point I have been making here is that with regard to cortisone—I think I made it perfectly clear—certain hospitals for dispensary patients are allowed to usecortisone whereas other hospitals are not. Will the Deputy appreciate the fact that if a dispensary patient is in a certain hospital and that particular hospital is not allowed, by ministerial or other order, to use cortisone, is it not commonsense that that dispensary patient cannot get the treatment in that hospital? Will the Deputy see that I accept there must be regulation of drugs. The Minister mentioned cortisone as being a dangerous drug. It was a new drug 18 months ago.
May I interrupt the Deputy for a moment? When it was first controlled it was controlled by a doctor and it was limited to two hospitals and nobody outside could get it.
St. Kevin's.
I am talking about the voluntary hospitals.
The voluntary hospitals only got the power to use cortisone quite recently, after this particular incident I quoted this evening where a voluntary hospital wanting to treat a patient with cortisone could not get it other than through the St. Kevin's hospital doctors. That is the position of affairs as I have said. If the Minister tells me that is wrong I will accept his word. However he has not expressed any opinion one way or the other.
The point I am trying to stress is that this section deals with the regimentation or the control of hospitals. I do not want to make any particular case about cortisone any more than anything else. I just want to stress that as an incident where certain dispensary patients in certain hospitals, as a result of this regulation, were unable to receive treatment. Therefore, I think it is wrong that the Minister should seek such powers under this section. I have been accused by the Minister and Deputy Dr. ffrench O'Carroll—I think they misunderstood me—of objecting to the control of dangerous drugs. There are plenty of other regulations for dealing with dangerous drugs without giving the Minister these absolutely unlimited powers. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister for Healthwill abuse these powers, but I say it is against the principles of free people. I said that before and I repeat it again, and that is why we object to this legislation for the future. In our objections we are in good company with other people.
I wish to stress the point that the objection to this section and this amendment is the power it gives the Minister to make regulations and to make Orders. They are very wide powers and there is practically no restriction. We suggest and recommend that no doctor would be directed to give treatment that was contrary to his conscience and I think that is a reasonable amendment to suggest and to put in. However, the Minister resists that.
I have said here before and now I repeat, that I have no doubt whatever that the present Minister for Health would not outrage any of the canons or rules of common decency, nor indeed would he, intentionally anyway, restrict our liberties. But this Act is to be a permanent measure. Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Labour as at present constituted will pass out of the world in a certain number of years. Another Minister of Health and of a new type may occupy that position and we are trying to guard against that. At least that is one of the reasons we are trying to provide this safeguard.
It is a pity that a number of things said here to-night were not said a considerable length of time ago. We had the antics of certain Deputies here in trying to convict or at least accuse certain people of certain things relating to a document that has not been published. I think that was contemptible but I leave it at that. With regard to the Deputies who declared they were elected to bring in a free mother and child welfare scheme, no matter what anybody else said, whether they be Bishops or lay people, we would like to know where these four are now. If Deputy Dr. Browne, as he says this evening, accepts the direction of the Hierarchy in this country on matters of faith and morals, is it not a pity that he did not say it to his colleagues in the Government in 1951?
It is quite untrue. It is on the record that I have accepted the direction of the Hierarchy.
If the then Minister for Health, Deputy Dr. Browne, accepts the teaching of the Bishops on that particular matter why then did he walk out?
I think the Deputy should address himself to the amendment.
I was a member of a Government that is being impugned by Deputy Dr. Browne this evening. I think I am entitled to make this comment in answer to the innuendo, or at least the charge, made by the Deputy in this House.
Your colleague, Deputy MacBride, demanded my resignation.
I assert that if Deputy Dr. Browne accepted the decision of the Hierarchy conveyed in their letter, there would have been no need for a crisis. It was because he refused to accept it and because the Government of the day were not prepared to accept the proposals—not his scheme but proposals—which he had outlined and which they had condemned, that that situation arose. What I asked the Minister here on the last occasion when the Money Resolution was being debated was: did his Bill meet the requirements of the teachers of Christian philosophy in this country? I said that if he said it did, I would accept his word. The Minister did not answer that question and he has not answered it yet. We do know that a document has been circulated or has been issued. I do not know its details exactly, but I do say that in my opinion from what the Bishops wrote in 1947 to the then Taoiseach and what they wrote in 1951 to Deputy Costello, who was then Taoiseach, the present Bill does not come within their requirements. I may be wrong in that but it is a reasonable question to ask the Minister.
We shall never get on with the business. There are too many theologians in the House.
It is not a question of theology. Does the Minister want to take the lead in opposition to the Hierarchy and Catholic teaching? Does he expect a poor ordinary Deputy like myself to lead an agitation against it? Is it not reasonable that the Minister and I should be on the same lines on that particular matter? Why should there be a dispute about the health scheme? Why should there be any trouble about it? Why will we not take the ordinary teaching that is there for us? Of course, we are a free people and we can reject it and go outside the Church if we want to, but if we are going to retain our standards, surely there is no reason in the world why the Minister, the Government or this Party here should not accept the teaching laid down. Why should there be any issue at all about it? I am only suggesting that this Bill as it stands and the amendments the Minister has put in—in particular this amendment— do not in my opinion meet the requirements. If the Ministers says they do, I stand corrected because again no matter what I may say about the Minister, I do not think he would tell a lie on that matter.
Did the Deputy not hear the Minister making that statement on Second Reading?
I did not hear him.
Read his Second Reading speech.
I have heard the Minister state that the Bill was going to be subjected to minor amendments.
These were not the words used.
Minor and consequential amendments.
I did not say "minor" at all.
Some amendments—whatever the qualifying words were. The Minister for Finance said that they were minor and consequential amendments. Deputy Killilea can getup and contradict what I am saying by a speech of his own instead of resorting to interruption. So far as I can read—and I do not claim to be a McGilligan nor even to be up to the standard of a Peadar Cowan—my reading of the Bill is that it does not come within the requirements which have been laid down. This section gives power to the Minister to make an Order that an institution is to give a certain type of treatment or is not to give a certain type of treatment and when he makes that Order, whoever is obliged to carry it out must carry it out. That Order can carry a direction to a doctor or an institution to administer treatment that is not in keeping with either their religious beliefs or consciences. Why give that power? Why not put in words to meet that danger and you then have this power in a restrictive way? Let me conclude with the statement that the whole question of the 1947 Act was raised positively in 1947 and was answered by the then Taoiseach in 1948, just immediately before the change of Government. The relevant documents are now available. They were quite clear to the Taoiseach, Deputy Costello, in 1951, and they are equally clear to-day. Only those who want to be deliberately dense will suggest that it was not on a question of faith and morals the Bishop spoke, but merely in accordance with some social teaching. That is nonsense. I submit this amendment should be carefully considered by every Deputy and that we should not have charges thrown across the House that some Deputies are trying to be better than others from the Catholic point of view. There is no point in that. If we get to that stage it means that no matter what a person may think, if he is going to be classed as a lay theologian, or accused of trying to be more Catholic than Deputies on the other side, you are intimidating him.
That is what Fine Gael does all the time.
There is an obligation on each one of us to give expression to our views as best we can in accordance with Catholic teaching. If the views we express are wrong.there are teachers in the country who will tell us where we are wrong and when they tell us where we are wrong, let us hope that we shall take that direction in the spirit in which it is offered.
I find it very hard to deal with this situation. It is quite obvious that Fine Gael set out to obstruct the passage of this Bill. Anybody looking at the sheet of amendments three weeks ago when the Money Resolution was first introduced would have thought that both the Money Resolution and the amendments would be through the House in two or three days. We are now five days discussing them and we have hardly started yet. Deputy McGilligan spent all day long here yesterday obstructing this Bill. He has gone now and he has gone with the satisfaction of the Party opposite. Deputy MacEoin is now taking his place.
I regret that I am not able to do that.
He is lecturing this side on religious matters and using these tactics to obstruct the Bill. I could imagine a person lecturing us on religion with good motives and with the idea of converting us but they do not want to convert us. They want to put us in the wrong—that is all. They are using these tactics to obstruct the Bill. I think it is disgusting and I am not going to answer any more of these questions.
I shall ask my last question so that we shall know where we stand. We are asked in this amendment to give the Minister power by Order in respect to specified health institutions to direct that institutional services—that is maintenance, treatment, the use of appliances and medicines—shall be given to specified classes in a particular institution; that he may by Order direct that the same services of a specified class shall not be given in a particular institution; that the same services shall be given in the institution to a specified class of person; and that the institutional services shall not be givenin the institution to a person of a specified class. He told us that he has these powers already and he referred us to Section 36 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939, for powers that are therein contained, but that have absolutely nothing to do with this. When we ask him about diseases or about purposes, all we hear is "smallpox." Here is, as it were, a smallpox amendment that gives the Minister dictatorial power to direct what shall be done in the various institutions under local authorities—over their heads, if necessary—and to direct everything that shall be done inside them, to divide people up into specified classes and he will not give us any idea as to what the specified classes will be. He takes these sweeping powers and refers us to Section 36 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939, and to smallpox. He then says that if we ask him any more questions he will not answer because we are trying to teach him religion in trying to get him to explain——
Because I provide for smallpox I am called a heretic.
——to a Parliament set up to assist and maintain the rights and liberties of our people.
Is this liberty? Is obstruction like this liberty?
We are trying to find out——
Liberty of a minority!
——for local authorities, for the medical fraternity, for all the people interested in the matter what the Minister is proposing under this amendment. The Minister is not helping us. We are doing our best at any rate to ask for information.
After five days on three amendments!
I am opposed to the section and I am opposed to the amendment. I am opposed to the Bill generally. I am opposed to the Bill for the reasons I have already given. I do not like the wording of the Billwhich says payments will be made as directed by the Minister particularly when the responsibility for payment will be passed on to the local authorities. For that reason I do not like the section and I do not like the amendment. At the same time I deprecate the attempt that has been made to bring the Hierarchy into this debate and to use the Hierarchy for election purposes.
Election purposes is right.
The suggestion has been made that the Hierarchy has been silenced by an Iron Curtain. I do not believe the Hierarchy can be silenced by an Iron Curtain drawn by the Taoiseach, or by the Minister, or by anybody else. Important Churchmen behind the Iron Curtain that does exist were not afraid to voice their opinions when matters affecting the faith and morals of the people were at stake. They suffered and are suffering a great deal for doing that. I do not believe the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Health, will be able to silence the Hierarchy if he is doing something opposed to faith and morals. But that does not make me any more favourably inclined towards the section and the amendment. I am opposed to any section which gives the Minister authority to say what payments will be made when, at the same time, he can say that he will only pay part of the cost and the local ratepayers will have to pay the remaining cost. I oppose the section and I oppose the Bill on that issue alone.
Amendment No. 4 in the names of Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Cowan.
Is it right that after all the trouble we had last night and again to-day this should be passed without a vote?
That does not arise. Amendment No. 4.
Deputy Cowan will now say it was passed unanimously.
Unanimously is right.
Order! Deputy Cowan will cease interrupting. Deputy Dr. Browne on amendment No. 4.
On a point of explanation. May I say that I stated I was opposed to this section. I stated that before and I tried to get a vote against something to which I was opposed, but I failed. I am in exactly the same position now.
You are opposing it honestly. The others are dishonest.
We are agreeing to it unanimously, according to you.
If Deputy Cowan wants a vote he can have it.
You are doing nicely now.
Deputy Cowan might allow Deputy Dr. Browne to move his amendment.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 9 to insert a new section as follows:—
Every institution receiving monies from a health authority shall be subject to inspection by persons appointed for the purpose by the health authority.
I hope it will be possible for Fine Gael to listen to the arguments I am putting forward on this amendment and to judge them on their merits without any heat or hysteria such as they have shown on more innocuous amendments brought in by the Minister.
I am afraid I do not believe it will be possible for the Minister to help in relation to the suggestion made here, but I would like to put forward some considerations which must now arise in relation to the continued further administration of our voluntary hospitals. The old position was that the voluntary hospitals were enabled to carry on by reason of the fact that the annual deficits, which at present run between £500,000 and £750,000, were paid out ofthe moneys invested by the Hospitals' Trust Fund. A decision was taken by the Minister for Health that the capital sum should be spent in the provision of further hospitals rather than have the money invested to provide interest from which the deficits could be paid. That money has now largely been used up in building hospitals or allocated in some other way for the provision of hospitals and a new position arises.
The position which now arises, I understand, is that this House will in the future be asked to vote a large part of the running deficits of many of these voluntary hospitals. I know quite well that, in putting forward the suggestion that institutions receiving money from health authorities should be subject to inspection by persons appointed by these health authorities, is open to a certain amount of misrepresentation. I hope that misrepresentation will be kept to the minimum. My only reason for putting forward the suggestion is because of conclusions which I had reached in two capacities. First, as a former Minister for Health, I saw reasons for thinking that local representatives and representatives of the Department should have the right of access to these voluntary hospitals. Secondly, in my capacity as a doctor I did not see that these institutions would suffer any grave disadvantage if we did have that right of access. I am not in the slightest bit anxious to upset in any way their general working conditions. I am sure a number of Deputies would be ready to pay tribute to the work which they have done over the years.
I think they have done good and useful work. At the same time, I feel the time has come when we must review their position, with the least possible inconvenience or upset to anybody, so as to make them a little more suitable for meeting the changing circumstances which largely revolve around the fact that, from now on, the taxpayers, whom we represent here, will be providing tremendous sums of money to cover the running of these voluntary hospitals—something in the region of £500,000 or £750,000. I supposeit would be optimistic of me to hope that the figure will ever become a stable one. At any rate, the position facing us is that in the next ten or 20 years some Minister or some Government, will be asking the representatives of the taxpayers in the Dáil to provide considerable sums of money for the running of these institutions As I have said, I do not want radically to interfere with the running of them. Quite candidly, I confess that I am not particularly concerned to upset the peace of mind of their managements. If that were to happen I believe it is the patients who would suffer, and the main consideration that ought to weigh with us is their welfare. The patient that I have in mind particularly when I put down this amendment, was the public patient. He is a taxpayer, and in that capacity is paying the running costs of these institutions. He is the person who is called upon to foot the bill, to pay the piper. I am asking, why should he not be permitted to some extent, to call the tune in regard to the running of these institutions? Everybody knows that these institutions were started many years ago, some of them 200 years ago. I think that probably most of them were started with the best possible intentions in the world by people who were revolted by the privations, hardships and sufferings which the rule of another nation had imposed on our poor people. We have, therefore, to give their founders credit for setting up these institutions for the care of the sick poor of our country.
Without wishing to be in any way offensive, I believe that the general attitude dominating these institutions was one of a supercilious looking-down on the pauper who was dependent on their charity for his continued existence, his restoration to health and his care in them. I do not think that attitude has persisted completely, but I think that it still persists to a certain degree in relation to some of these hospitals.
I see no reason why we should not now move towards the achievement in these institutions, of the attitude which, to a large extent, is beginning to appear in our public authority institutionswhere the patient as a ratepayer or taxpayer knows that he has a perfect right, as a citizen of the State, to the treatment which he receives. He knows that he is paying for it— that he is paying the salary of every man in these public institutions, from the hall-porter right up to the medical head of the hospital, and that consequently he is accepting nothing on charity. He is accepting the treatment he receives because he has a perfect right to it as a citizen in a free democracy. This amendment is an attempt to bring a little more of that democracy into these institutions, and a little more of the egalitarian outlook in regard to the treatment of medicine into them. It is for these reasons that I think we should have the right of access to these institutions.
There are many considerations which, I think, we should keep before our minds. The dominating one is that we, as the representatives of the taxpayers, are going to spend vast sums of money on the administration and running of these institutions. From time to time, over the last 30 years, we have laid down here certain guiding rules, principles and regulations which we considered were likely to react to the best interests of the patients in our institutions. In doing that, we imposed restrictions on our county councillors and on ourselves in regard to many of our functions and duties concerning these institutions. Therefore, I think that the conditions which we laid down for our county councillors and for the members of this House who are on the management committees of hospitals and institutions generally, should be the beginning of our approach to the controlling management of the voluntary hospitals.
I am of opinion that we should lay down, and gradually introduce the same guiding principles for the management and controlling governors of these voluntary hospitals. I do not think it can be said that Deputies on any side of this House can be accused of being in any serious way dishonest, corrupt or likely to evade their responsibilities as moral individuals, or in any way likely to do anything which would be contrary to normal Christian behaviourin a modern society. I am not going to side-step into a discussion on the moral law.
At the same time, we have seen fit over the last 30 years to lay down these guiding principles. We have them, first of all, in the establishment of the Local Appointments Commission. The fact is that the county councillors and Deputies who are on these hospital boards are bound by the excellent provisions of the Local Appointments Commission in the making of appointments to our local authority institutions, from the smallest right up to the very largest and in all aspects of our medical service. That is a system which can do nothing but improve—I cannot see how it could disimprove— the standard of medicine and the standard of treatment which our patients must receive in the voluntary hospitals, if we are to continue to pay the bill for these hospitals, which are now dependent on us to keep them going.
Again, in relation to contracts, in relation to the provision of equipment, food or clothes, in any of the aspects where the taxpayers' money is laid out in these institutions, we have a responsibility to ensure that the representatives of the Minister or of the local authority shall have access to the boardroom of these institutions, in order to ensure that the standards we have laid down will be followed. They are very excellent standards which no one could quarrel with. I would urge the Minister, therefore, to give consideration to this proposal. It is not a new consideration of mine or a new idea that I have had.
As far back as the time of the Meath Hospital Bill I was largely instrumental in ensuring that a majority of local representatives would be appointed to the board of that hospital. Whether I was instrumental or not I do not know, but I was most anxious that it should occur and it did. It has not led to any deterioration in the affairs of that hospital. In fact, I understand that a considerable improvement has taken place. That is a precedent which has been established and which could readily be followed, at least to someextent. We must expect that, not immediately but in the next ten or 20 years, it is conceivable that we will continue to vote large sums of money to institutions, some of whom behave in an exemplary way and some of whom behave in a way we would not accept at all for our local authority institutions. It is not the exemplary and well-organised institutions I am concerned about, it is those which will abuse the fact that it has a free hand in questions of administration which arise in the running of a hospital.
Though it is not completely analogous, there is a certain similiarity between this and the taking over of the G.S.R. and handing it over to C.I.E., or the taking over of the G.N.R. and running it by a statutory board. I am not suggesting that we could take over the voluntary hospitals and I hope no Deputy will follow me and say that I said we must nationalise our voluntary hospitals. I am merely suggesting that, now that we are going to hand out large sums of money to these institutions, we should exercise the care which, as private citizens, we would exercise in the disposal of our own private money, were we laying it out in anything like the tremendous amounts which will be asked of us from time to time in the Dáil. It is a principle which we have accepted in relation to other organisations and institutions and in relation to one hospital already.
There is another suggestion that I know will be put forward, the possibility that we would be interfering with religious orders in the running of their hospitals. I do not think there is the slightest need to have any fears in that regard at all. Religious orders run in an excellent way many of our local authority institutions. Most of our county homes are staffed by these ladies, who do magnificent work in the very trying circumstances of our appallingly derelict county homes, in many cases. Similarly, in many of our county hospitals the religious carry on their work, as is also the case still in St. Kevin's, I understand, and in Galway Central Hospital. Therefore, it is possible to have a considerabledegree of democratic control or supervision without in any way interfering with the autonomy of the religious order or of the medical officers. What we are suggesting is that these men who have been nominated by the people, as a result of a public open vote, who put themselves and their policies forward in different ways, who are elected to local authorities or to the Dáil, perfectly honourable respectable men on both sides of the House, no one can question that—should be given access to the activities and to the boardrooms of these hospitals.
If you examine the membership of many of these hospital boards, it will be found that very few members are any higher in character, personality or ability than members of this House, or of the average local authority. Most of us are as good as the people on these boards and I do not see why we should not have access to these board-rooms. Most of the elections to these boards take place in a completely undemocratic way. On the Catholic side it is done through the Knights of Columbanus and on the Protestant side it is done through the Freemasons. It is completely undemocratic and I do not think it should be permitted.
That assertion is made by a person who knows? You do know?
Largely so, yes. That is completely undemocratic, if we believe in democracy, as we do, since we all assemble here from time to time to try to make laws.
Deputy MacEoin is a Knight of Columbanus.
Deputy Browne apparently knows all about it.
A Deputy Knight.
An unworthy one, unfortunately, but the best I can.
The best Knight you can be.
Defensor fidei. If we are willing to put ourselves forward for election, if we go to the trouble of getting up on soap-boxes and holdingmeetings at street corners, trying to declaim to the public that we believe in democracy, we must pursue it to its logical conclusion and see that the spending of public moneys shall be carefully supervised. That is all that is being asked for here.
I have no objection in the world to the people who at present sit in these boardrooms or run our hospitals, whether they are Knights or Masons, taking the ordinary course of going to the people and being elected and, by virtue of their authority, derived either from the Dáil, the local authority or the Minister, whatever it may be, being then appointed to run those hospitals. Then they have won their right. But, if we profess ideas of democratic control of our institutions generally, I see nothing wrong at all in my proposition, with Deputy Cowan, that we should have right of access to those institutions.
We are not sending in any fanatical commissars to the institutions. We are merely asking that the perfectly normal, reasonable, honourable men who have gone before the public, who have been nominated by the public to look after and control their affairs and who do their best on both sides of the House to do that, should be permitted to follow this money into a particular sphere of social activity where a tremendous amount of money is spent every year and where increasing sums of money are to be spent in the years ahead.
I think Deputy Dr. Browne has made a very reasonable case for this amendment. He has made it quite clear that he does not want to interfere with the autonomy of the voluntary hospitals as the Minister himself has not done in this legislation. There must be many members of the House listening to this discussion who are members of local authorities. If people who pay taxes, and so on, are paying out a great deal of money for voluntary hospitals, it is perfectly natural to ask that they should have the right to make inquiries, to find out why such a thing was not done or why they could not obtain this, that or the other treatment.It is natural that, as public representatives and as the guardian of the money they are putting up, they should be in a position to have at least sufficient authority to make inquiries and to be presented with the facts and to be able to get full information on points that they raise.
As far as Dublin Corporation is concerned, I know that in the case of the voluntary hospitals that we pay grants to or finance in one way or another, we always have representation on the governing body.
Apart from making these few remarks I rose to ask the Minister does he know if that applies to all local authorities throughout the country? Where they make money available to voluntary institutions, of a medical or other kind, have they the right, or is it merely a courtesy, to representation on the governing bodies of the institutions?
There are representatives of local authorities on the boards of Cork voluntary hospitals. This year in the case of one voluntary hospital, there was an attempt made to get representation of doctors on the board. I was one of those who put in a notice of motion at one time to that particular hospital and got representation for the doctors with the idea that we would be satisfied with one or two who would be able to give technical advice to the lay members of the board. This year, as most people know, subscribers of one guinea a year to the voluntary hospitals can elect 15 trustees to the board. That is the position in Cork. Those 15 trustees, when elected, can elect 12 members to the board of management. If that situation is to develop, where you have families of doctors subscribing guineas and attending a meeting and voting on to the board a certain number of trustees— their number this year was limited; they did not look for all but they did not even get what they looked for— that by virtue of paying a guinea subscription to a voluntary hospital they would be enabled to elect trustees, it would not be in the best interests of democracy or in the best interests of the people as a whole. It is wrong that a number of doctors on a board shouldvote for the appointment of doctors to the particular institution while at the same time they are members of the staff of the particular hospital and attend as honorary surgeons or honorary physicians. There is no doubt about it that they earn a certain amount of money in these voluntary hospitals, whether from private patients or public patients does not matter very much. It is wrong that people should act in a dual capacity, running the board of management and acting on the staff of the hospital. It is not in the best interests of the people that doctors should vote when appointments are being made to the staff, particularly if they themselves are members of the staff.
I must say I do not agree with Deputy Dr. Browne on some of his ideas about the voluntary hospitals. I think they are fulfilling a very useful purpose. If they are to be allowed to continue, my opinion is that they must be left as they are. It is possible, as Deputy Dr. Browne says, that this inspection would not make an awful lot of difference, but I think they would consider that it would make a terrible difference. They would be violently opposed to it, I am quite sure and, for that reason, I think we would be making a great mistake to impose such a thing upon them because they would see in it, I am afraid, the beginning of control of some kind or another which is entirely opposed to the idea of the voluntary hospital.
As regards this board of management, the section concerns the local authority sending patients to a voluntary hospital or to any institution and the idea underlying this amendment is that in such case, where the local authority has made an agreement with the voluntary hospital to send them patients, it should have the right of inspection. I do not think there is much really to be said for this particular amendment. For many years the position has been that local authorities were sending their patients to voluntary hospitals. On the whole, I think they were quite satisfied and it is presumed that, under this particular clause, that practice will continue. It is most unlikely indeed that,even if we passed this amendment, the local authority would be likely to use it. If they have any cause for grievance with any particular voluntary hospital the obvious thing, as they have done in the past, is that they will just leave it and make their arrangements with another hospital instead.
I am, therefore, opposed to the amendment, first of all, on the general consideration of interfering with the voluntary hospitals at all as they are now constituted and, secondly, because I think in the particular instance that the power will not be used and that from that point of view it is unnecessary.
I can see very clearly the Minister's point of view in regard to this amendment. This amendment is, in fact, a clear indication of what will happen in the near future. The Minister says: "I do not want to interfere with the position as it is". What is the position? The position is that anyone can pay two guineas into the funds of a hospital and become a governor. Anyone in Ireland can pay two guineas and become entitled to elect the people who run the hospital. For two little guineas that is what you get in regard to these hospitals. But the present Minister and his predecessor, Deputy Dr. Browne, have pumped tens of thousands of pounds into the hospitals.
Millions.
Millions of money.
Whose money?
The money of the public who subscribed it. I will go beyond that even if I am wanted to. We have put into these hospitals millions of money from the Hospitals' Trust Fund. That has dried up. Now we are voting millions of the taxpayers' money and the local authorities are also contributing to the hospitals. Is it not a queer state of affairs that by paying a miserable two guineas you can have some say in the running of a hospital, but because you contributed as a local authority or as a Government tens of thousands of pounds you have no say in the running of it?
I know the difficulty in which theMinister is in regard to this. I know what will be said about these things. But should not the public who put tens of thousands of pounds into these hospitals have some say in the running of them? Should they not have as much say as the people who put up a miserable two guineas?
In the Meath Hospital—I do not know why it is called the Quaker Hospital—certain people thought that the Quakers should have no control and each of them contributed two guineas to run out the body which had controlled the hospital for very many years. Miserable, petty-minded individuals put up two guineas each and hunted out a body which had run the hospital for a long period. We in this city are contributing to that hospital tens of thousands of pounds. As Deputy Dr. Browne said, when we reconstituted it by Act of Parliament we provided that the majority of the governors should be members of the Dublin Corporation and of the Dublin County Council. Has that in any way affected the efficiency of the hospital? It has not. I happen to be one of the members of the Dublin Corporation who is a member of that hospital body and as such I can inspect it at any time I like. When that Bill was going through, I was insistent that a very large measure of control should vest in the medical board of that hospital cure the people who become patients and, as far as I am concerned, I consider the medical board are there to cure the people who become patients and any help they can get from us as governors they will get for that purpose.
Why can we not have the same thing in the other hospitals? What is wrong with it? How many voluntary hospitals could exist to-day if they had not had subventions from State or local authority funds? How long are we to have the position that individuals can subscribe two guineas to keep a hospital going? Take any of the big voluntary hospitals in Dublin. There may be subscriptions from governors of £1,000 and a subvention from the State and local authorities of tens of thousands of pounds and the system is that the people who contribute the £1,000 in subscriptions run the hospital, but the State or the localauthorities that in fact keep the hospital going are to have no say in it.
I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister so far as this amendment is concerned. In a very short time these charitable subscriptions given by generous and charitably—minded people will dry up, and when they dry up we will have a new system of control of these hospitals. If the Minister says that he will not accept the amendment of Deputy Dr. Browne and myself for the reasons he has stated, we can just keep patient for a very short period and and then we will have control of the hospitals by the people who put the money into them. The people who pay the piper should always call the tune. The people of Ireland keep the hospitals going, and they should control them through either the Dáil or the local authorities. That may be deferred for a very short period, but it cannot be deferred entirely.
People who go into these hospitals may have cause for complaint about this, that and the other thing which they would like their local representatives to look into. It is a queer position that I, as a member of the Dublin Corporation or as a member of this Dáil, may be told of something happening in a hospital which is entirely wrong and contrary to all our conceptions of Christianity. A person may arrive at a hospital at 10 o'clock at night to be told that he cannot be admitted and that he had better go to some other hospital. While seeking admission to another hospital he may spend the time during which his life might have been saved and die. If I put that up to the Minister in this House, although the State is paying millions of money to these hospitals, he can answer: "I have no authority, I have no responsibility in the matter." That is not a right position. These hospitals should be subject to some supervision by the local authorities or by the Minister or the public. I move to report progress.