Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1953

Vol. 139 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Health Bill, 1952—Committee (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 33 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Esmonde

I agree that the principle behind this section is good, but I think it needs a little clarification. It appears to me that this section replaces, or amends, sub-section (1) of Section 38 in the Principal Act. That sub-section says:—

"Where a chief medical officer is of opinion, either consequent on his own inspection of a person in the area for which such medical officer acts, or consequent upon information furnished to him by a registered medical practitioner who has inspected such person, that such person is a probable source of infection with an infectious disease and that his isolation is necessary as a safeguard against the spread of infection, and that such person cannot be effectively isolated in his home, such medical officer may order in writing the detention and isolation of such person in a specified hospital or other place until such medical officer gives a certificate (for which no charge shall be made) thatsuch person is no longer a probable source of infection."

It appears from the new section we are discussing that an order made under it, in addition to being signed by the chief medical officer, must also be signed by another registered medical practitioner. As I have said, we accept that principle as being sound, but it would seem to put certain difficulties in the way which I should like the Minister to clarify. As far as I can see, this section deals with all types of infectious and contagious diseases. I can envisage a situation arising in which a case, that was discovered to be highly infectious, might come into this country by sea or by air which it was necessary immediately to isolate for the protection of the public.

Under the Principal Act, it was possible for the chief medical officer to have that case isolated forthwith, but, under this new section, in addition to signing the order himself, it must also be signed by another registered medical practitioner. I can envisage this difficulty arising, that if it were discovered that the person suffering from the disease had come into the country by sea or air there would not be any registered medical practitioner in attendance on the case. Deputy McGilligan raised that point last night as to whether it was considered necessary that another medical officer of health or State official would have to sign the order. As I say, if it were a case that had to be isolated immediately, the case of a person who had come in by sea or by air, there would not be any general medical practitioner in attendance. That is a difficulty I should like the Minister to clear up. I am somewhat confused as to what is the actual intention behind this new section. We are not against the section, but are simply seeking information.

Minister for Health (Dr. Ryan)

In the original Act, this clause was introduced to deal with what you might call an emergency and not an ordinary outbreak of infection. What we had in mind was smallpox or even a very bad outbreak of typhus. We had such outbreaks at the time; of course theyhave practically disappeared with modern treatment. It is only in a case of that kind where the chief medical officer would have great difficulty in clearing up the situation that he would have to take rather drastic measures and he would have to have power to detain certain people until the whole outbreak had been cleared up. At the moment I cannot think of any emergency that would be likely to arise, except in regard to smallpox, where this section would be necessary.

The objection that was raised to this section at the time and since then on many occasions was that one man could come to the conclusion that it was necessary to detain a certain person and that, first of all, he might be wrong in his judgment or in his diagnosis, or secondly, he might be too drastic or too impatient with certain individuals. It was thought that it might be well to have at least a second doctor to agree with the chief medical officer. In most cases there will be a second man because in most cases the first person to deal with the case, the field workers, as it were, will probably recommend this and the chief medical officer will sanction it. However, if the chief medical officer is on the spot himself he might order a man to be detained. It was because of such a case that this amendment was put in so that he could not order a person to be detained unless a second medical man agreed with him.

As I understand what Deputy Dr. Esmonde has said, he is afraid that it might be difficult for the chief medical officer to carry on. I cannot imagine any situation of this kind where the chief medical officer would not have a number of doctors with him clearing up the situation. I do not think it could ever arise where there would be any great difficulty in having a second man available so that, if he thought fit, he could sign the certificate with the chief medical officer.

Dr. Esmonde

I appreciate the Minister's reply very much and the clarification he has given as far as it has gone. The Minister said it would not be difficult to get a second doctor. I agree it would be very easy. Does itmean that the chief medical officer is empowered to employ a second doctor? I envisage a case in which a person arrives in this country in a ship or an airplane not having had contact with any private doctor. The Minister mentioned that in the case of smallpox and, perhaps, as Deputy McGilligan mentioned last night, bubonic plague, the question might arise of having that person isolated. In that event, is the chief medical officer empowered to employ some private doctor to examine the patient with him such as might happen in the case of certifying a lunatic where a second doctor is employed. Is the chief medical officer empowered to employ another doctor and guarantee a fee to him? It would facilitate the position if that was the case.

Dr. Ryan

If necessary he could employ a second man and he would be paid by the local authority. I do not think that position will arise. If the situation arose in a county district the district dispensary doctor would be the first man to deal with the case and the chief medical officer would fortify his decision if he thought fit. If it occurred at the airport presumably the doctor at the airport would be the first to deal with it. If the chief medical officer is there first on his own he can send for a doctor and say: "Your fee will be all right."

Dr. Esmonde

Might I ask a further question on the section? We go back to the Principal Act of 1947, Section 38. This is a very long section and it deals with many matters. However, the position does arise that in the event of a case becoming dangerous the person is detained and is put under the jurisdiction of what is known as the commitment officer. The Minister will find that in the Principal Act. It says that the commitment officer will be the medical officer who made the Order. Then it goes on to deal with a vast number of sub-sections which I do not propose to read here. It specifies the conditions under which the person may apply for release, and so forth, and it gives certain authority to the commitment officer. As I said, the commitment officer is the chief medical officer whose opinion is reinforced by that ofany registered medical practitioner. Does the case then arise that the commitment officer is in sole charge? Has the other practitioner who signed the detention certificate in this case jurisdiction as well? In any appeals for a release does he come into the consultations that may subsequently take place?

Dr. Ryan

No. The commitment officer would be in sole charge from the time the person is committed to isolation. As the Deputy knows, the Minister may immediately say that it is not necessary to detain this man or he may say it is necessary. If it is agreed that he must be kept, he is detained until the case is reviewed again and the Minister gives his decision. If the Minister gives no reply, the person is automatically free to leave after 21 days. If the Minister says: "I do not agree" then it would not be necessary for the man in charge to consult again the doctor who agreed to put the person in. He could on his own responsibility look after that.

Dr. Esmonde

What is the position in the case I have cited? The actual detention is an emergency measure. The Minister is giving the safeguard of introducing another practitioner, which I appreciate, but it is subsequently, when the person is detained and his relatives and friends appear on the scene, that the difficulty will arise. He may consider it is unnecessary to detain the person any longer. That is an occasion on which a difference of opinion is more likely to arise as to whether it is necessary to continue the period of detention or not. Therefore, surely the registered medical practitioner who has been consulted by the authorities and has signed the order for detention ought to be in a position to have a say in the matter. I admit that the Minister must have the final say for the protection of the community because it would be a very serious matter if anybody were allowed to go at large who would be a danger to the public.

I am sure the Minister will see the point is a reasonable one. The Minister is providing safeguards in thefirst instance by allowing a private practitioner or any other practitioner to have a say in the detention of the person. I maintain that the real dispute will arise subsequently. Nobody likes to be detained when it is unnecessary. The medical officer of health, as the commitment officer, may say: "I consider it necessary to detain Mr. X for a longer period." Soon the friends and relations of Mr. X may come on the scene, or by that time he may have contacted his own medical adviser who considers that it is not necessary to detain him any longer. The Minister says that if the Minister agrees it is not necessary, the person may be released, but in the event of the Minister agreeing that it is necessary to detain him and if the medical officer of health maintains it is necessary, surely the practitioner should at this stage come into the matter again, be consulted and allowed to give his opinion for what it is worth. That can then be reviewed. I admit that in a case like this the Minister must have the final say.

Dr. Ryan

This power is not likely to be used except in case of great emergency. I do not think it will be abused because everybody knows that if there was an attempt to abuse it there would be a very serious row over it. It works, I think, somewhat on the lines of mental hospital procedure. Two people put a person in but the R.M.S. may come to the conclusion that the person should be let out again. There is an appeal to the Minister. There is in the mental hospital case also. The Minister sends down his medical inspector and gets a report. If the medical inspector says: "I quite agree that the man should be kept" the Minister says: "All right. He should be kept". If the medical officer says to the Minister: "I think it is not necessary" the Minister is likely to say: "I am not agreeing to the detention of this man" and he is let out. Let us say that it was a dispensary doctor who first suggested to the chief medical officer of health that the person should be put in. I do not see how he could be brought into it again. It would only lead to confusion. He might say: "Ithink he should be let out", and the chief medical officer would say: "No, he should not", and there would be that sort of disagreement between them. It is better to leave it as it is.

Dr. Esmonde

I think the Minister will agree that the case he cited of the conditions that obtain in a mental hospital would hardly be parallel with these instances.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it is exactly parallel but it is something the same.

Dr. Esmonde

I think here the freedom of the subject arises. That is why I want to make the point. I cannot see that there would be any particular objection, if it was decided in consultation that the man should be detained to have a further consultation subsequently. It is often very difficult to make a decision like that. As the Minister has stated, if a person were detained unnecessarily, naturally, there would be a row about it. I have in mind the protection of the State officials concerned. The State officials are bound to be charged with overState interference and we should have all possible safeguards against State control in any shape or form. For the protection of the Minister and officials, it would be quite easy to have the medical practitioner through whom the case could be subsequently appealed. It would not be a question of his being there on the spot all the time. It would be just a question of the person detained or his representative or guardian in the case of a minor, saying: "I consider that Mr. X. is now sufficiently detained and should be released." It would be in the intesests of the State personnel to call the doctor subsequently into consultation. It is assumed that when two doctors get around a table to discuss the case they are reasonable individuals and would see each other's point of view. It is really a question of principle that is involved here.

Dr. Ryan

You must remember that when the person is put into the hospital the R.M.S., that is the man in charge of the fever hospital, would be the person looking after these people. The R.M.S. of the fever hospital wouldbe in charge. So, you have two men there in consultation—the R.M.S. and the chief medical officer of the county — and the two, in a case like that, would be consulting every day practically because we are dealing with an emergency. If the R.M.S. were to say to the chief medical officer, "I think there is no danger in letting this man out," the chief medical officer would give his opinion on the case also. I am not sure, but I think the R.M.S. could let him out without consulting the chief medical officer if he thought there was no danger.

Dr. Esmonde

Not according to the 1947 Act.

Dr. Ryan

According to the ordinary procedure and practice, though. If, however, this man thought he had a grievance, again, as the law stands, I think he would have a perfect right to ask his own medical attendant to come and see him and give his opinion. I do not think anybody could object to that. If the private practitioner first suggested that the man might be a probable source of infection and the man was brought in and detained, that private practitioner or dispensary doctor, as the case may be, would have a right to come and see him and would have a right, naturally, to suggest to the R.M.S. that he thought there was no further danger as far as this man was concerned—he would be speaking for his own district, and so on—and in fact, you would have that form of consultation.

Dr. Esmonde

I appreciate what the Minister says but we must remember that we are legislating for the future. It is quite true, as the Minister says, that the private practitioner could go and see the case, if necessary, in consultation with the R.M.S., but the commitment officer would be the chief medical officer of health and he would still be the controlling factor and he would have the official "say" in the matter. He is the State official concerned and this may be a state of emergency. We are legislating for the future. That is why I want to get it clear. If any evidence was subsequently transmitted to the Minister for his jurisdiction in the matter theevidence of the private practitioner need not necessarily go forward. He can go in and register his protest and say: "I consider that my patient is being detained unnecessarily in this institution" but it is not necessary for the chief medical officer or the resident medical officer—I do not say he would not do it—to submit that evidence to the Minister and, for all the Minister knows, he just gets the information that X is detained in such and such a hospital because the State doctor concerned considers it necessary to do so.

It is not necessary for him to put forward to the Minister any evidence or advice he may have received from the private practitioner. If the private practitioner is given joint responsibility in the matter, both sides of the case will be put before the Minister. There is a perfect safeguard for the Minister, which he should have, if this is a case of emergency because he is the overriding factor in the case. He would see both sides, instead of one. I am not saying that he might not be given both sides but, without embodying in the Bill the right of the practitioner associating with the medical officer, he would not have any official status or it would not be certain that his case would be put before the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 34.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 53:—

To delete sub-section (2) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(2) Section 44 of the Principal Act shall be construed as authorising the making of a payment for domestic help where a married woman is undergoing treatment for an infectious disease to the satisfaction of the chief medical officer of the health authority in whose functional area she ordinarily resides and her husband is unable to make reasonable and proper provision for the care of the family.

This amendment is really a drafting amendment. The meaning is not very much changed but it is bringing it intoline with the ordinary wording of the Act. The making of payment for domestic help is in line with other provisions of the Act rather than the payment of a domestic help allowance and it is also in line with the 1947 Act. Treatment is to be to the satisfaction of the chief medical officer of the health authority. That is also in accordance with Section 44 of the 1947 Act. The effect is the same except that it is bringing it into line with the wording of the Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 54:—

To add to the section the following sub-section:—

(3) Sections 26 and 31 of this Act shall apply in relation to the service made available under Section 44 of the Principal Act in like manner as they apply in relation to the services made available under Part III of this Act.

This amendment will substitute the provisions of Sections 26 to 31 of the Bill. We discussed these sections last night, relating to notification of change of circumstances of eligible persons and penalties for making false statements to get the benefits. This amendment relates these provisions to the provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 44 of the 1947 Act. Sub-section (8) of that section is similar to Section 31 of this Bill, and it is considered desirable that the same provision should apply to the maintenance allowance services as to the new services to be provided. It is really, if you like, bringing the penalties under this Bill into line with those under the 1947 Act.

Mr. Morrissey

This is not to provide a third series of penalties?

Dr. Ryan

No, it is not. It is bringing them into line under this Bill.

Dr. Esmonde

It is only to make sure that nobody escapes the penalties.

Dr. Ryan

I hope we have succeeded in doing that. I do not know.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 34 as amended stand part of the Bill".

Dr. Browne

I want to ask a question on sub-section (2) of Section 34, which deals with the question of domestic help in cases of infectious diseases. I want to know is it possible that if a daughter or a relation of the person detained suffering from infectious disease leaves her post in order to go in to look after a family she will be able to receive the allowance which would be paid to domestic help under the section.

Dr. Ryan

I think the position is that a domestic help allowance is only payable where a person is employed for the purpose and that the daughter of the family would not come under that heading.

Dr. Browne

I would like the Minister to consider this from a practical point of view, which has occurred on many occasions from my own experience. I wonder would he reconsider it from the practical aspect that where a daughter leaves a job where she may be supporting or helping to support a family, a good job sometimes, to come home to look after the family, I would imagine that that would be in accordance with the best advice in relation to these things and that she should be facilitated in doing that because it is a rather difficult choice for her to make. In many cases she has to give up a good job earning a fair amount of money which is a help to the family. I know it will be a very difficult thing and that it is capable of abuse as it might be used as a sort of supplementary allowance for the infectious disease, but I know cases where it occurs, where a girl comes back from England or from a very good job and the family suffers the loss of that income and she carries out what I understand would be her natural duties in caring for the family in a time of stress. It would be a much more natural and desirable thing if it were possible that a member of the family should take this position in a family rather than bringing in a complete stranger. From every point of view it would be much more desirableif a member of a family could be encouraged to give up her job and come home to look after the others.

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure how the law stands in reply to the Deputy as to whether it could be done or not, but I know that it is not done in practice. It does, at first sight, appear rather anomalous to me. I have certainly sanctioned in the past an allowance in more than one case to a sister-in-law, that is the sister of the woman who has gone to hospital and an aunt of the children coming in to look after them. It has been sanctioned that she should get the allowance. It may be hard to understand why that should be permitted and a daughter of the house would not rank for an allowance.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Minister sure of that? I understand that he is wrong.

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure but I do not think that I am wrong. I do not think there is anything in the law to prevent it, although it is not done in practice. I would like to look into it.

Mr. McQuillan

I believe that under the law there is power to give the allowance to a daughter who has come home where the mother is ill, suffering from infectious disease. I know an example myself where an allowance was sanctioned when the daughter, a nurse, came home, but due to the means of the family, they were debarred from getting the daughter the domestic allowance which she would normally have got if the means of the family were lower. I investigated the matter and found that there was nothing whatever in the law to prevent the local authority from giving the domestic allowance to the daughter provided the means test did not debar her in certain cases.

Dr. Esmonde

I am inclined to agree with Deputy Dr. Browne that it is very desirable that the daughter should be in a position to receive this allowance if she is not already in that position because, in my experience, when it is a question of getting anybody to mind the family of a sick person it is desirable that a member of the familyshould be there when it is a question of a sick mother or parent. In practically all cases it is the daughter who is sent for, and the daughter would naturally be the most desirable person to have in the house. I suggest to the Minister that if legislation to that effect does not exist surely he might embody it. It seems to me to be a very desirable suggestion to make.

Dr. Ryan

It is quite possible that Deputy McQuillan may be right, because if the county manager interprets the Act in that way and has made the allowance it might not come to the Department of Health at all and we might not have heard of it. I do not think that there is anything in the law to prevent it being done, but on the other hand I think the practice of the Department of Health has been not to allow that so far, so I must have the whole thing examined.

Mr. Morrissey

May I make a point in support of Deputy Dr. Browne? We want this thing to work, and may I suggest that if you exclude from the benefit of this sub-section a daughter or even a daughter-in-law of the woman in most cases it will be found impracticable to work it at all, for this reason, that in the first case they have to be satisfied that the father of the house is not able to make provision out of his own resources, and secondly, do we not all know that nowadays it is very difficult, if not impossible, to employ casual domestic help in a town or city or a village, and that people who are available for that work and would be suitable, particularly in the country, are very reluctant to go into a house where it has even the name of having infectious disease in it and even though the patient has been removed? There is a further factor that would be against the chance of getting a person like that in—the size of the home, the accommodation in the home for outside help. It seems to me that as we know circumstances in the country it would be very difficult, for a short period probably, to get suitable domestic help to accept a position like that, and I presume that the rate of payment would not be princely. I thinkthat the Minister would agree, from his own experience of conditions, particularly in country areas, that it may be almost impossible to make this sub-section work if you are to exclude from it the immediate relatives.

General Mulcahy

It seems to me that the Minister has power under sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Principal Act to make regulations in any way he wants to.

Mr. Morrissey

It is desirable to do it if the Minister can do it.

General Mulcahy

He can make regulations with regard to the rates of payment fit into a general scheme in respect of any class of persons, and it seems to me that under the definition "any class of persons" or a person of a particular type the difficulty can be provided for.

Dr. Ryan

It is a matter that requires examination.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Question proposed: "That Section 35 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Ryan

Section 48 of the Principal Act says that where a district medical officer becomes aware that a child attending school is verminous he may serve a notice prohibiting the child from going to school. It was found in practice that in cities at any rate the district medical officer was not the appropriate person or most convenient person to deal with this matter, that in a city the chief medical officer or his staff would be the people dealing with it. This amendment makes it possible for the chief medical officer to serve the notice instead of the district medical officer.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Morrissey

This is a very important section and, to a great extent a very necessary one, but powers are being given to the Minister under it,some of which, at any rate, ought to be given only after the Minister has made a better case than has been made so far. I am concerned at the moment with sub-section (4) of Section 36. If Deputies will turn to it, they will see:—

"Where any repairs, structural alterations or additions to premises are required by any authority enforcing regulations under Part V of the Principal Act to comply with those regulations —

(a) the repairs, structural alterations or additions may be carried out notwithstanding any covenant, agreement or condition in any lease or other contract of tenancy under which the premises are held, . . . . . . . ."

That is a very sweeping power. In relation to business premises—or indeed to what could more properly be described as residential premises, with a very small part set aside for a shop in a small way, selling very few articles of food—we are giving the Minister power, in effect, to set aside any contract made between the landlord and the tenant or between the owner of the premises and the person to whom a lease of those premises had been granted. They can, without his consent — without even looking for his consent, as a matter of fact, if this were strictly interpreted—make any change or alteration in his premises that the local authority calls for. You can change completely the character of the premises, you can build an addition to the premises or to any part of the property adjoining the premises. A building at the rear of a garden could under this section, in my opinion, be constructed or reconstructed or reconditioned to provide a slaughter house within the regulations laid down here.

That seems to me to be an extraordinary power. I do not know if there is any precedent for any such section in any legislation in this country. By a mere sub-section in a section, the Minister is given power to set aside any legal contract entered into as between the owner of a property and his tenant or leaseholder.That is something we ought not to do. I can quite see that the Minister is in some difficulty there, because if the premises have to be reconstructed to bring them into line with the regulations, you may meet, and you are likely to meet, a very unreasonable landlord. Some of them are unreasonable to the point that even though their premises would be improved as a result of the reconstruction they would still retain their rights and refuse to agree to the removal of a particular covenant from the lease.

There is a still greater objection and it brings us to something I hope we will be dealing with another day. The tenant of the house, if he wishes to carry on his business of selling articles of food, must comply with the regulations laid down and must carry out the necessary reconstruction or improvement, alteration, additions and so on, in order that we may have our food sold and handled under proper conditions. Immediately he does that, however, the valuation people come down on him and up goes the valuation. That is tough enough on the tenant, but it must be remembered that the valuation of the particular premises may be increased here in the City of Dublin by from £50 to £150. That imposes a very considerable additional burden on the tenant or leaseholder, but it also has its effect on the landlord, the owner, because if the valuation of the premises is increased from £50 to £150 that reduces very substantially the capital value of the premises. Remember that nowadays when your valuation is increased by £100 it means more than your rates going up; it means that your income-tax on the premises goes up also, and your E.S.B. charges if you are on the valuation rate, and so on.

Deputies may think I am exaggerating when I say that the valuation may be increased from £50 to £150. Indeed I am not. As a matter of fact, I got particulars of a case yesterday and I hope to have an opportunity of bringing it before the House later, of a premises which I sold myself last autumn. The valuation of those premises was £50. They were beingused as a nursing home. Now they are being used as offices. Nothing was done except that they were decorated and made more up-to-date. The valuation was increased from £50 to £140. In my own opinion, that is an outrage, but I am just mentioning it to confirm what I am saying, that under this section you are compelling people to make very costly alterations in their premises and on top of that you are going to put a perpetual blister on them.

It is worse still than that. The person who is being completely ignored and whose legal contract is being set aside, the owner of the premises, is affected also. I see the difficulty that the Minister must have some power to deal with a person who is going to be utterly unreasonable, but at the same time I do not think we can go to the extent of giving, in a sub-section of a Bill like this, authority to set aside every legal contract in relation to a business premises in this country. That is something the Dáil could not do in this way.

Dr. Ryan

There are two points raised by Deputy Morrissey and I shall take the second one first, as I want to dismiss it by saying I cannot deal with the valuation question. We may have sympathy with what Deputy Morrissey says, but I think it should not be dealt with in this Bill. There are motions before the Dáil to deal with the matter of valuation and it would more appropriately come up there.

Mr. Morrissey

But this will affect it.

Dr. Ryan

I quite agree, but I do not think we should deal with it in a Bill like this.

Mr. Morrissey

I was only giving it as an illustration.

Dr. Ryan

It should be in a Bill dealing with valuations. I may say that the first part of it gave rise to a great deal of consideration and thought. At first, it struck me that a man might come along, say, to Ailesbury Road and take a house there and start a shop in it, and then get the local authority to compel him to reconstructthe house and put up a proper shop. If there is a covenant in the lease against a shop then we cannot compel him. All that we can say is: "Close down; you have not a proper shop." It must be visualised in this that there is nothing against a person having a shop in the lease. However, the covenant might prevent him for, say, extending backwards for ten feet or it might prevent his putting on another storey, or anything like that. At any rate, the covenant might prevent him from making certain extensions. In that case, if the notice is served, he can say: "Landlord, your covenant does not hold here. I intend to make these alterations." If he is not prevented by covenant from having a shop, I think it lessens to a great extent the unfair advantage that can be taken of the ground landlord or the landlord who is letting his place.

I must say that I cannot imagine anything very bad happening under this section, looking at it from that point of view. However, I would not be unsympathetic to some sort of amendment that would make sure that a person could not take an unfair advantage of, let us say, a landlord by buying a house with the intention of setting up a shop and then getting an order to produce something quite different from what the landlord had agreed to at the beginning. I am afraid an amendment of that sort is going to be extremely difficult, but if the Deputy has any amendment to suggest I am quite prepared to consider it.

Mr. Morrissey

I think I am right in saying that what the Minister is proposing to do here in relation to contracts is unprecedented in our legislation.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a power that we should not give and a precedent that we should not establish.

Dr. Ryan

I am thinking of all these Fresh Meats Acts, and certainly it is in the Pigs and Bacon Act.

Mr. Morrissey

Probably the legal people—if any of them are present inthe House—would know more about it than I would. However, it appears to me to be an extraordinary power to give and an extraordinary precedent to establish. If it can be done in relation to business premises or shops selling food, then, at a later stage, if it is thought necessary, it can be done in relation to any other type of property. The answer we would get to any objections we might raise at a later period on a different type of Bill would be the same as the one which the Minister has given us just now in instancing the Fresh Meats Acts. We would be told that such power is contained in the Health Bill and that it was accepted by the Dáil without question.

I think the House should not agree to this sub-section. I think it is conferring very great powers indeed. The fact of the matter is that we do know that in certain parts of the country, and certainly here in the city, tenants or leaseholders, without the knowledge of the lessor, or in defiance of a covenant in a lease, open up in a very small way—it may even be what we would describe as a huckster's shop —selling food, either in bottles or in cans but not loose, just like selling a packet of cigarettes over the counter. A person like that would be brought under these regulations. The local authority would have to make the regulations and apply them to that particular person. Then such persons could get the protection of this sub-section and become legalised in spite of the owner of the property, in what they are now doing in defiance of the contract as between themselves and the owner. I feel that this section should not be passed. Certainly, it should not be allowed to go without being fully discussed and understood by the members of the House.

Mr. Larkin

There is another aspect to this matter on which I am not quite clear. In so far as the paragraph quoted by Deputy Morrissey is concerned, it seems to relate particularly to the covenant or agreement or lease or contract as between the owner and the lessee and the question of the tenant's being relieved from any restrictive clause in that covenant.

I am concerned, however, with another aspect of the question. For a considerable number of years past, in Dublin and in other cities, we have had the problem—particularly local authorities—of having to find accommodation for tenants who are forced out because the owner or the tenant of a particular premises desires to extend the business portion of his premises in a particular direction and take over portion of the premises that are being used as a dwelling. The Dublin Corporation have taken the view that it is not their responsibility to house families who have to move to suit the convenience of a business concern.

As the paragraph stands, it may not appear, for example, that if an individual acquires the lease of a house and then lets flats or rooms in that house to families, and later opens a small shop and sells food there, and if an order is made by the local authority requiring him to make certain alterations, he will then be enabled to secure possession of the portions of the house occupied by families. If that is so, then we are opening up very wide gates indeed so far as Dublin is concerned because that particular possibility will be exploited. While it is not clear in the paragraph at the moment, it seems to me that it would not be difficult to interpret it that way.

Quite clearly, if the Act is going to give power to the tenant to void all the provisions of a covenant or agreement or lease because an order has been served on him by the local authority, it will not be difficult for him to say that he is equally entitled to dispossess a family who hold a sublease of the premises.

If that is a development, it can become quite a serious problem in the big cities. We know that there is continuous pressure by business firms and so forth, to utilise every advantage they can to dispossess families occupying portion of their premises as dwellings, their excuse being that they require those portions of the dwellings for alteration, reconstruction and extension of their business premises. So far, it has been possible to restrainthem from doing so by obliging them to provide alternative accommodation. Now, they will be able to say that they are compelled to do this by an order of the local authority and that the Dáil, in principle, has accepted that they are entitled to void their contract. The Minister should consider these points in addition to those made by Deputy Morrissey.

The difficulty we have already experienced in regard to the victualling trade is that these orders are dependent on the inspection—the reports made by the inspectors and the requirements which they advise should be made upon the particular individual. So far as I am aware, there is no provision at the moment for appeal against the demands formulated by that inspection. Some of the requirements put down by these inspectors, and which have to be met by businessmen, are completely ridiculous.

The only justification is that the inspector says it has to be done and that is the end of it. From that point of view we should bear in mind that we are dealing here, so far as this section is concerned, not with a situation which will arise after very careful and long consideration and the affording to both parties of equal opportunity of putting forward their viewpoint and their arguments for and against the requirements that may be made in the regulations, but with a situation in which an order has, in fact, been made and which, so far as the requirements are concerned, is mandatory. In addition you are now creating the position, as Deputy Morrissey said, of undermining the whole position as between the tenant and the owner in respect of leases and covenants. You are creating a situation in which we are going to give a very excellent weapon to many unscrupulous business interests to dispossess ordinary working-class families from private dwellings on the excuse that they have to comply with orders, and that will create a position in which an additional burden will be thrown on the local authority if this type of dispossession takes place.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Larkin has raised two points. I need hardly say that there is no intention of giving the person on whom notice is served an opportunity of dispossessing a family who might be occupying rooms behind the shop. I do not think that it could possibly be construed in that way. However, I will get legal opinion on that again and make sure that it could not be construed in that way. Anyway I want to examine sub-section (4) from the point of view raised by Deputy Morrissey to see if we could safeguard in any way against what you might call an outlandish interpretation of the section. It will not be an easy matter to do but we will examine it.

The second point raised by Deputy Larkin is in regard to the inspector's power. In the great majority of cases the inspector discusses the matter with the shopkeeper and they agree and you do not hear any more about it; the thing is done. In some cases, however, the inspector's demands are considered by the shopkeeper to be too harsh or too severe and the shopkeeper may make an appeal to the Minister against the inspector's demands. I find that these appeals have been very carefully considered by the officials of the local authorities and I think you may take it that an unreasonable inspector will not get away with his demands because the officials of the local authority will advise the county manager that they are too severe and he will not agree to them. So that there is a certain amount of screening done before they come to me.

I do not think I have had a dozen appeals altogether since the Act came into operation almost a year ago, and in these cases I think no reasonable person would say that the business should be carried on. They were mainly small catering businesses and the conditions were really frightfully bad. There was no running water in some cases. There was only an ordinary basin and they boiled a kettle to do the washing up and the waitress had to wash her hands in that way. There was no sanitary accommodation and so on. They could not be permitted anyway to be used as catering establishments. That is the only type ofcase that comes up to me on appeal. You may take it that where a man is carrying on a business in a reasonable way and is asked to make some small alterations he will agree to that. I think that the number of cases in which shopkeepers would claim that they are asked to do something which they should not be asked to do would be very few.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has now raised a point with regard to certain amenities and the grievance that the occupier of a shop might have if he were asked to carry out certain alterations dealing with amenities of that particular kind which may be costly to him. But we are dealing here with the Minister's proposal under which a man would be allowed to override part of his contract and the Minister ought to give us some kind of a picture of the difficulties that have arisen, where on the departmental or the local authority side they came up against things that were not satisfactory from the point of view of food handling and against stipulations in a covenant in an agreement which would prevent alterations being carried out. That is really the problem which the House has to deal with. We are asked to pass legislation to override a covenant in an agreement. I take it that nothing has happened in the operation of the Health Act of 1947 up to the present that has actually overridden in a forcible kind of way any part of an agreement. What is the experience in that particular line then that drives the Minister to ask for power now to override part of an agreement?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot remember any case that was put to me, but I think any Deputy will see that it might happen. Coming to the point raised by Deputy Morrissey, I want to make it clear that if there is a covenant in a lease preventing a man starting a shop, then of course, this clause does not enable him to start a shop. This clause only deals with a covenant in a lease which prevents alterations being made that might be considered necessary by the local authority. We must presume, therefore, that the man has power to start a shop. Let us go a little further.Suppose a man says he can start a shop and spends a certain amount of money in getting the shop going and building up the business and the local authority say: "We cannot permit you to continue unless you make certain alterations", from the point of view of the shopkeeper there would be a great hardship if he was put out of business under the food regulations and not permitted to make the alterations he would like to make on account of some covenant in the lease.

We have to deal with that from the point of view of both parties. Undoubtedly it is a very difficult matter. I will examine the matter further and see if we can do anything more—I am very doubtful if we can do anything more—to safeguard the position of both parties. I think Deputies will agree that we will have to consider the position of the owner of the shop. It would be very unfair to put him out because he was not permitted to make some alteration owing to an unreasonable restriction on behalf of the landlord.

Mr. Larkin

On the point raised by the Minister, take the case which is very common in cities of a small two-storey house occupied by a family and they turn a parlour into a shop and live in the other rooms of the house. That is very common in Dublin. They are not concerned as to whether it will be used as a food shop or a newspaper shop; it is just a shop. As the law stands at the moment, a person may come along and take a lease and open a food shop and everything is quite in order. When we pass the Bill, regulations come into force and I am told that in order to comply with the regulations I may have to get another five or six feet on to the shop, and the only place I can get it is from the private family. As it stands now, I can insist on going ahead with those alterations and taking in the five feet. It may be argued that the owner of the house, which is a small house of the ordinary middle class family type, took the chance and put the shop there, and did not do it for the purpose of complying with the regulations which had not been made. He decided to open an ordinary small shop andthen these regulations were made and because the owner of the shop cannot comply with the regulations unless he takes an extra five feet, it is not the owner of the shop that is told he has to get out of the shop, it is the family who have to give up one of their rooms in order to accommodate the shop-owner. The position can quite easily arise, and particularly here, with small shops having limited accommodation. They may require additional space without the regulations made being in any way unreasonable, and that can produce a very peculiar position in regard to the owner of the small house who perhaps had a few pounds to spare and decided to turn the front parlour into a shop.

Dr. Ryan

All I can say to that is that I do not think the clause as it stands could be interpreted in that way. I do not think we could override whatever Act it is—I think it is the Landlord and Tenant Act they call it—where the person who is occupying rooms has the right to stay there and to secure themselves. I do not think anything here could be construed as overriding that. I will have it examined.

Mr. Larkin

I am thinking of the person owning the house and living in it.

Dr. Ryan

Well, the present position so far as I understand it, is this: taking the man the Deputy has in mind and supposing that man, as the Deputy said, has a small house and turns the front parlour into a shop, and suppose after that he lets the rest of the house to a family, and suppose he is keeping on the shop—if we serve an order on him saying you must extend, I do not think that will override the law that safeguards the family in their tenancy. But I will have the matter examined.

Mr. Larkin

I accept that, but would it override the owner of the house if he happens to live in the house himself? Suppose I own a house and make a shop in the parlour and then go and live in the back and the first floor. Then, when there is additional space required for the shop, this paragraph refers particularly to the lease or the contract under which the premises areheld, and apparently to the owner. I grant that the sub-tenant occupying rooms may be covered and I merely raise that for information but it is quite clear in the case here, the shop is held by the owner.

Dr. Ryan

If he lets the shop, can the shopkeeper dispossess the owner?

Mr. Larkin

Not dispossess him, but take space off him.

Dr. Ryan

No, I do not think so. I will have it examined.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely under clause (a) in Section 4 anything could be done?

Dr. Ryan

No, I would not say anything could be done.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Minister will read it out it says:—

"(a) the repairs, structural alterations or additions may be carried out notwithstanding any covenant, agreement or condition in any lease or other contract of tenancy under which the premises are held."

There is no question about it. In so far as the local authority will have to enforce regulations they cannot take into account any question of living conditions. They are concerned only with the business side of it and if in their opinion it has to be extended by five or six feet, irrespective of what effect it has on the residential portion of the premises or those who reside there, that regulation must be carried out or they will not get their licence. It is also clear that if the tenant, leaseholder or owner has the tenancy, lease or agreement for the premises and is using only the shop portion of the premises for himself, having sublet the residential portion, and if it comes again to a question of an extension of the business premises into the premises which at the moment would be occupied by the people living in the residential portion, then, notwithstanding whatever contract there may be between the people who occupy the residential portion and those occupying the business premises, their agreement goes by the board, and if the residentialaccommodation is entered upon to an extent that makes it no longer suitable for their requirements they have to go, no matter what agreement there is. It seems that is absolutely clear under clause (a) of sub-section (4).

I agree entirely with the Minister that this is a difficult matter and I agree entirely that the tenant or leaseholder of the house or business premises must be protected also. I do not want anybody for a moment to think I am here as defender of covenants in leases. Nobody knows much better than myself how unreasonable — utterly unreasonable—a great many of those covenants or restrictions are, particularly in the light of present-day conditions. These covenants or restrictions were made maybe a century ago and in conditions entirely different and the whole character of the area, say, in this city, where restrictions were first thought necessary or desirable, has completely changed. But still the ground landlords are only prepared to waive or amend these covenants or restrictions—if at all—on payment of a pretty heavy fine by the leaseholder. Do not take me as defending that. But there is a very big principle at stake here.

This is not confined to contracts between ground landlords and leaseholders, or to ground landlords and tenants. It applies to any contract whether it is the main lease or the sublease, whether the main tenancy or the sub-tenancy. Any contract that is entered into, if it is considered necessary to change the business portion of those premises, all those contracts are set aside by virtue of Section 4. I think that is too sweeping, but I agree it is a difficult matter and I agree entirely that it would be a grave hardship, and even a grave injustice for a local authority to be imposing conditions on the tenant, or on the leaseholder of a business premises, which he was not in a position to fulfil and to which the only alternative for him was to get out of that type of business. May I say again to the Minister that the mere fact that there is a shop owner on the premises does not safeguard him? Deputy Larkin has given one type of business here which iscommon in the City of Dublin. Let me put it this way; somebody has been carrying on business for 40 or 50 years, just an ordinary tobacconist-newsagency business alone, and to meet the current popular demand he decides to get into ice-cream. That immediately puts him into a different category. Or if he decides to keep a couple of dozen bottles of sauce and a few tins of cocoa or coffee on the shelves—that simple fact immediately changes the whole character of the place and brings it absolutely within the section we are now dealing with.

I have to admit that I am not in a position to suggest to the Minister a form of words that would give the protection to a businessman that he is entitled to as between his landlord and the local authority and that at the same time would safeguard the principle of a legal contract but I do want again to urge in the House that it is entirely wrong that by a sort of side-wind, by a sub-section in a clause of a sub-section, to take powers to set aside legal contracts as between landlord and tenant, as between tenant and tenant. and as between leaseholder and tenant. I think it is wrong and it is a principle to which the House should not commit itself.

Mr. Larkin

I think that everybody will sympathise with the Minister's efforts to introduce regulations governing the proper handling of food. I think the fallacy in this matter is that the section proceeds on the basis that if there is a clause in the covenant which forbids the opening of a shop then we should have sympathy with the owner of that shop and that where there is no such covenant and where the shop has been opened then the owner has got to face up to the present position. I think the weakness in this case is that the Minister has taken it for granted that at the time the owner agreed to the shop being opened, he knew that it was going to sell food. Therefore we proceed on the basis that having made that decision, he has got to take the consequences because he has agreed to allow his premises to be used for the manufacture or sale of food.

As Deputy Morrissey has pointed out, how many countless cases have we got of shops that were opened as tobacconists shops and because they have gone into selling ice-cream and other foods they must now come under this section. That frequently happens. Then without any decision on the part of the owner, these regulations will need to be applied. That is why I say that there is a weakness in the Minister's approach because he has taken it for granted that at some point the owner was in fact in a position to make the decision: "Well, I am going to have food sold in the shop and I am prepared to face up to what the consequences are." That is not the case.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I think the point put forward by Deputy Morrissey is very important. I want to put this to the Minister. Suppose a shop-owner desired to extend the portion of the premises used as a shop so as to include part of the living accommodation, the shop-owner, I take it, would have to go to court to obtain an order against the tenant. Would the Minister not consider leaving it to the court to decide which was the greatest hardship in that instance? There may be a case say where a man had been able to make a good living as a tobacconist but he wanted to open a restaurant in addition and required to take over the living accommodation of a family for that purpose. Assuming the man was able to carry on as a tobacconist, it would be unfair to take over the living accommodation of a family in the same premises but where there was no hardship in taking over the living accommodation the court might decide in favour of the shop-owner.

Dr. Ryan

That appears a fairly good suggestion, that the aggrieved party might have an appeal to some court if he thought he could establish that the hardship was greater on him than on the other party. I shall consider some provision like that.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know whether that will meet it, but I would certainly prefer it to the position in which we are at the moment. Thereis no doubt we are in a difficult position. I realise fully that the Minister is in a difficult position, but I do suggest very seriously to the Minister that the principle here involves the taking of power in effect to set aside, not in one, but in thousands or tens of thousands of cases, existing legal contracts. We are doing that by a sort of side-wind here. In a great number of cases that power will have to be enforced. We have been talking about the City of Dublin. These covenants and restrictions are more common here and perhaps in Cork and Limerick than they would be in towns and villages of the country but even in the ordinary towns of the country you will find them in contracts. Of course, the older the contracts are, the more covenants and restrictions there are in them. You do not get so many covenants in the modern contracts. The older the contracts are and the older the premises themselves, the heavier will be the outlay on carrying out the alterations laid down under the regulations.

May I direct the Minister's attention to sub-section (5) of the section which says:—

"In Sections 56 and 57 of the principal Acts, the word ‘food' shall be construed, in addition to referring to any individual food, as referring to any class whatsoever of food."

I have not seen a definition of "food" but does that sub-section embrace animal foods as well as foods for human consumption?

Dr. Ryan

Only human food.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Minister assures me, I accept that although, as I say, it is very sweeping. "Any class of food whatsoever" would seem to include all food, whether for human or animal consumption. Of course, if that is so, every food for animal consumption can be brought in under this. That could create infinitely greater hardship on the persons concerned.

General Mulcahy

The difficulty I find about the discussion here is that we are concerned with microbes or other disturbances in food that might be injurious to the public health. I donot know whether under this section we are supposed to be elephants trampling down difficulties and obstructions that are in the way of getting at the microbes in the food or whether we are doing just a little bit of preparatory crystal gazing to decide whether we want elephants at work to trample down these things. The Minister does not seem to offer any very great prospect of not having to use elephants in trampling down covenants and agreements in leases and contracts that exist at the moment. We have not been given any idea of cases in which a specific provision in a lease or covenant created difficulties in the administration of the 1947 Act up to the present. I doubt if we can pass a measure as sweeping as sub-section (4) without scheduling even certain types of provisions occurring in convenants and leases for the removal of which we want to use the power of this section. This compulsory wiping out of agreements is unreasonable. I do not think it ought to be necessary. I should like the Minister to say whether there has been listed in any way either definite terms or provisions or any class of restrictions in any leases up to the present with which this clause is intended to deal.

Dr. Ryan

I cannot say that I have come across any cases personally, but, as I mentioned already, although the food regulations have been in operation now for some time, I have been brought into only about ten or 12 cases altogether, where the appeal reached me.

General Mulcahy

They were not cases involving agreements?

Dr. Ryan

There was no case in which there was any covenant to blame.

General Mulcahy

The Minister, I am sure, appreciates that, that being his experience, it is taking a sweeping step to take powers to interfere indiscriminately with and to override indiscriminately provisions in covenants and agreements without giving the House any account of what obstructing provisions exist in some of theseagreements, or going to the extent of scheduling them.

Mr. Morrissey

Did I understand the Minister to say that he would look into this and see if he could bring in something on Report Stage?

Dr. Ryan

I should like to safeguard the position of both parties.

Mr. Morrissey

In order to be perfectly clear, is the Minister quite sure that, in clause 5 of sub-section (5) "as referring to any class whatsoever of food" does not include animal food, because if it does not include animal food, I do not know how it excludes it.

Dr. Ryan

Section 53 of the Principal Act sets out that "food includes every article used for food or drink by man other than drugs or water". This definition is built on that.

Mr. Morrissey

This sub-section goes on to say: "in addition to referring to any individual food, as referring to any class whatsoever of food". If that does not include animal food, I do not see how it can exclude it.

General Mulcahy

Section 55 of the Principal Act is being annulled and sub-section (1) is intended apparently to replace it, but to extend it to include licensing or registration of vehicles and stalls. I do not know whether, before the passing of Section 55 of the 1947 Act, it was necessary for a person with a shop selling food to get a licence or have it registered in any way, or for persons engaged in the distribution or sale of food to license or register. Could the Minister say whether it is necessary for a person who wants to open a shop to sell food, before doing so, to be registered or to get a licence, and whether it is necessary for persons employed in that shop for the sale or distribution of food individually to get a licence and to be registered? The Minister proposes to extend the places at which food may be manufactured, prepared, distributed or stored to vehicles and stalls and I should like to know what he has in mind in that regard.

Dr. Ryan

There is a difference between enforcing regulations and registration. There are only certaintypes of food shops that require registration —butchers' shops, for instance —but many other food shops are subject to inspection and must observe the regulations. They need not necessarily be registered and most food shops come within that category, so that it is therefore not necessary to get a licence before opening such a shop.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister say what kind of vehicles or stalls he intends bringing under the provision for licensing and registration?

Dr. Ryan

We had travelling shops in mind. When dealing with this matter some years ago, I was very anxious personally to deal with vehicles which conveyed meat from the abattoir to the butchers' shops, but we have not reached on that for the moment.

General Mulcahy

The Minister speaks of travelling shops. If it is not necessary to license from the point of view of the public health a shop selling food, why is it necessary to license a travelling shop from the health point of view?

Dr. Ryan

A travelling butcher's shop would have to be licensed or registered.

General Mulcahy

It is not intended to require that a travelling shop will be licensed, except where that shop would require to be licensed if it were not a travelling shop.

Dr. Esmonde

I am not very clear with regard to sub-section (1) (c) which reads:—

"The prohibition of the manufacture, preparation, importation, storage, distribution, exposure for sale or sale of food otherwise than by licensed or registered persons or in or at licensed or registered premises, vehicles or stalls (as the case may be)."

Is that a new regulation that did not exist previously in the Principal Act? Did these regulations exist in the Principal Act? Apparently they did not.

Dr. Ryan

I think these were all inthe Principal Act, except that stalls are now brought in, having been omitted from the first Act.

Dr. Esmonde

The only real change in this long section is in relation to stalls? There is no other change?

Dr. Ryan

Broadly speaking. There may be slight variations but, broadly speaking, that is true.

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister make a statement on it, if there is anything to make a statement about.

Mr. Morrissey

I understood the Minister to say, in reply to Deputy Mulcahy, that it was only businesses like butchers' shops that would be registered or licensed but under sub-section (1) and the subsequent sub-sections of Section 36 it can be applied to any sort of shop.

Dr. Ryan

It can be, yes.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to get that clear because it may be the intention at the moment to apply registration only to butchers' shops but the Minister is taking power to apply it to any sort of shop that sells any sort of food whatsoever or manufactures or imports food. It is all-embracing.

Dr. Ryan

So far as Deputy Esmonde's point is concerned it was the same in the 1947 Act.

Mr. Morrissey

I know the Minister is not deliberately misleading us but, in case anyone may be misled, I want to make the point that under sub-section (1) of Section 36 any person engaged in the manufacture, preparation, storage, distribution or sale of food for human consumption may be obliged to register, to be licensed and to pay a fee.

Dr. Ryan

That is quite right.

Dr. Esmonde

I take it, then, that it is intended to license all food shops or give the Minister power to do so.

Dr. Ryan

It is not intended but the power is there.

Dr. Esmonde

Was the power there before?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, it was in the 1947 Act.

Dr. Esmonde

Then there is really no change?

Dr. Ryan

No change as far as that goes.

Mr. Larkin

There is a change as far as the stalls are concerned.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Larkin

Has the Minister any idea of how far he will go in respect of the licensing and registration of stalls? Is it the intention to license all dealers in the city, all vendors of ice-cream working on carts, all stalls, either fixed or movable, in which minerals and ice-cream are sold? Has the Minister any general idea of what the position will be in relation to those people?

Dr. Ryan

Personally I have no intention of stopping these stalls. I merely want to ensure that they are properly conducted and clean and that they comply with the regulations generally. I think, for example, it would be very unfair to stop these ice-cream carts particularly in relation to outlying districts in either the city or the country. I cannot think of any particular class of stall that I would like to close down.

Mr. Larkin

I quite see there may be no great necessity to stop the ice-cream barrows, but I can very readily see a very serious attempt being made to stop the street dealers. That has been tried many times.

Mr. Morrissey

Certainly the power will be there.

General Mulcahy

Vegetables would be included under food?

Mr. Morrissey

Of course they would.

Dr. Esmonde

I take it the Minister also has the power to introduce a fee. Can he give us any indication of how that fee will be determined? Will it be a standard fee? Will it relate to the valuation of the premises, the size of the business, the area covered and so on?

Dr. Browne

The section says persons engaged in the distribution and sale of food. Would shop assistants come under that sub-section? If they are liable to licensing and registration, as Deputy Esmonde has asked, what will be the size of the fee? I imagine that the purpose of licensing and registration would be particularly valuable in relation to food distribution—milk, butter, and so on. What would be the standard there? Would the licensing be automatic because a person is engaged in a particular shop? Would it be dependent on certain health standards and, if so, what are the health standards?

Dr. Ryan

The fee can only be charged as authorised by the Money Resolutions passed here before the Committee Stage started. Deputies will remember that we had a fair amount of discussion on this. We discussed such things as dealers in rags, flock and so on.

Dr. Esmonde

And those dealing in radioactive substances.

Dr. Ryan

A few classes like that were mentioned. I would not have power to charge a fee. Of course a Financial Resolution was passed, but it is not authorised by this Act, anyway in regard to butchering. That is as far as the question of fees goes.

Dr. Esmonde

In the Financial Resolutions we discussed radioactive substances, rags, flock and so forth, and one other matter connected with poison. Under these Resolutions the Minister was empowered to charge a fee. As I understand the position now, the only food shops actually registered to-day are butchers' shops.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Dr. Esmonde

I take it from what the Minister has said that no fee is charged?

Dr. Ryan

I have no power to charge a fee.

Dr. Esmonde

Therefore the Minister really has no power to impose a fee except by introducing a Financial Resolution.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Dr. Esmonde

Therefore at the moment the question of a fee does not arise at all.

Dr. Browne

In relation to the registration of persons, will any particular health standard be required prior to such registration? There is an obligation in relation to butchers' shops at the moment. Later that may apply to shops in which butter and milk are sold where it would be dangerous to have employed a person suffering from an infectious disease. What procedure will the Minister adopt in considering the eligibility of a person for registration from the health point of view?

Dr. Ryan

So far I have not done anything about the individuals working in the shops. I admit that it would be very wrong, for instance, to have an employee with open T.B. working in a butcher's shop. The same would apply to bakers. However, we have not reached that point yet and we have not done anything about it. I suppose we can issue regulations.

Mr. Morrissey

I take it, then, that where a shopkeeper applies for registration and an appropriate licence he and his staff, which may consist of his family, engaged in any of the processes set out here may be subjected to a medical examination, and whether or not he will get a licence or will be registered will be determined on that medical certificate.

Dr. Ryan

We have not dealt with that yet and I do not expect we will be able to deal with it for a considerable time. It would, however, be a logical step to take eventually. I have heard people complaining. I remember one specific instance in which a lady said she would never go into a certain shop again because she was quite sure the man serving the food had T.B.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not a question of its not having been done before or the Minister not knowing what he will do. We are taking power here to register and license people engaged in the manufacture and preparation offood for sale. That does not merely mean sale or distribution over the counter.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Morrissey

It means also the manufacture of food. All people engaged in the manufacture, sale, delivery, and so on, of food will have to come under the registration regulations.

General Mulcahy

And those engaged in importation?

Mr. Morrissey

All these will have to come into it before they can get registration or a licence to carry on business behind the counter, in the slaughter-house, in the factory, or wherever it may be. They will have to pass a medical examination and on the medical certificate issued as a result of that examination will depend the question as to whether or not a particular person will get a licence to carry on his occupation in relation to the manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of food for human consumption.

Dr. Ryan

That system has been introduced in some countries but not very many. The only two I know are the United States of America and Switzerland.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not arguing that point. I am trying to concentrate all the time on the Bill and what we are being asked to do here. I am not even arguing the merits of the thing. There is a lot to be said for it. There is no question at all about that, but I want to be clear on the point that we may be laying down here in law and creating a position wherein a person in order to engage in, either as a member of the staff or as a member of a family running a shop, the sale, manufacture or importation of food will or may after the passing of this Act, be subject to a medical examination and subject to that examination for the purpose of discovering whether or not such person shall be able to continue in that business.

General Mulcahy

This throws a rather starting light on Section 36 and I would like to know from the Minister where, under Section 36, it is suggested that there is power to make regulations requiring persons engaged in the manufacture, preparation, importation, storage, distribution and sale of food for human consumption to produce evidence as to the condition of their health at all. Where in this section or in anything resulting from Part V of the Principal Act to which this section refers is there any such evidence?

Dr. Ryan

I could not say if we have power to do it. I thought it would be a logical sequel. I could not say whether we have the power to do it at the moment.

General Mulcahy

Sub-section (1) of Section 36 says:—

"Regulations under Part V of the Principal Act may provide for all or any of the following matters".

Where in that phrase is there anything that would suggest that these regulations can deal with matters affecting the person's health or the licensee's health or the health of persons registered under that section? I merely ask the question from the point of view of the implication of the law in the section.

Dr. Browne

I can understand the certain amount of concern caused by such a proposition. Obviously, the certificate would be given bona fideby the doctor in his effort to protect the public interest to the best of his ability. Is this not an extension of the powers we already have in connection with typhoid carriers? We can refuse to allow a typhoid carrier to engage in the handling of food. I think that is so. This is an extension of that medical protection which, unfortunately, is necessary.

Mr. Morrissey

With respect to Deputy Dr. Browne, it is dismissing the matter rather lightly to say that this is merely an extension of something which he thinks obtains for the moment. Let me carry the matter to its logical conclusion. If this regulation is made under this piece of legislation,then it must apply to every person in the State. We are not just dealing with the Cities of Dublin, Cork or Limerick but with the whole of the State. Let me imagine—as many of the Deputies can—a shop at a crossroads selling, as many of them do, anything from a needle to an anchor, including food both for human and animal consumption. That shop has to be registered. The shop is probably run by a man and his wife as shops are. Either or both of them may be suffering to some degree from T.B. I understand from medical men that there are many degrees of T.B. Because of that, the regulations may compel the doctor to give a certificate that will make it impossible for those persons to be registered and have a licence issued in respect of that particular shop. That is what can happen. That is what we have got to visualise. We have got to understand that we may be doing that here.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I do not follow the Deputy.

Mr. Morrissey

Suppose the regulation covers any person suffering from an infectious disease. Your regulation will not lay down the degree, I presume. The regulation does not leave the doctor any option.

Dr. Browne

I think the doctor is covered by the phrase "a probable source of infection". I think this gives the average doctor a fair amount of discretion to decide whether the type of person was a probable source of infection before he would put him out of business. Deputy Morrissey quite rightly suggested that he could put him out of business.

Dr. Esmonde

The position now is that any person selling food in any part of the country in any shop may be required to register and may even be required to be medically examined. Is not that the position? I do not think that is reasonable. As Deputy Morrissey said, some type of food is sold in practically every shop in rural Ireland. There is no shop that would not sell something, if only a few biscuits. Reference was made to typhoid carriers. As a rule, it is difficult to determine who a typhoid carrier is andDeputy Dr. Browne would agree with that. It seems to me that these regulations would be all right if they applied only to persons solely engaged in selling food. As it is here, the State can step in and force anybody selling any type of food—and that includes practically every shopkeeper in Ireland —to register if necessary and to prove he has a fair bill of health to enable him to go on selling food. That is an extreme power. The Minister may say that they will not be enforced in a great many cases. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it is unnecessary to go to such an extreme.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I disagree with Deputy Dr. Esmonde. To be effective at all, these food regulations must be extremely wide in scope. The small shopkeeper almost invariably sells loose milk and a great deal of damage could be done to the community if the milk were contaminated. Loose milk may be the only food item such a shopkeeper sells. Nevertheless, if the milk were contaminated, the most appalling damage could be done to everybody's health in the district where the milk was sold.

It is absolutely essential so far as the protection of public health is concerned that the scope of the power should be extremely wide. In this particular case the power must be very wide. Deputy Dr. Esmonde says that these people should not be examined medically but nurses, for example, are examined medically. He knows that all nurses in hospitals have to be examined. They must be X-rayed. I think we must, in the interests of public health, have power to examine and I think the ordinary person would have a very strong view on that matter. Imagine the distress of a mother of a family to whom it could be proved that her children had contracted T.B. as the result of the contamination of a local shopkeeper from whom she bought loose milk.

Dr. Esmonde

Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll stated the majority of shopkeepers down the country sell milk. I would not agree. I live in the country and there are always a couple of dairies in a district. It is unreasonableto introduce legislation whereby anybody with a shop of any kind— and that covers practically every shop in Ireland—should be subject to inspection and have to have a certificate showing a clear bill of health.

I do not think that we have had any serious epidemics in this country. We have had sporadic outbreaks of typhoid fever in parts of rural Ireland from time to time but these have been considered to be due, in the majority of cases, to a carrier, though it has not been actually discovered who the carrier was. As I say, I do not think that we have had any serious epidemics. Therefore, I do not think any State control is called for. I agree that there ought to be reasonable safeguards in the case of anyone primarily concerned with the selling and handling of food. Practically every shop in rural Ireland at any rate is concerned in a small way with the sale of food. This legislation tends to give power to the Minister to make all the shops in Ireland register for food purposes. I think that this is unnecessary State interference and nothing else.

General Mulcahy

I am not concerned at the moment with the merits of any proposal, but I am concerned with the rather startling suggestion that Section 36 does contain power to apply medical tests to persons engaged in the sale and distribution of food. I am asking where, either in Part V of the 1947 Act to which Section 36 refers or in Section 36 itself, there is any contemplated power to apply a medical test in relation to any person engaged in the manufacture, preparation or sale of food. That is the net point at the moment.

Dr. Ryan

Personally, I do not think this section is going to do that. I may be wrong in that. There may be power in the 1947 Act, though I am not sure—at any rate it will be some time before we reach that point—to deal with the personnel of these shops. If we have that power in the Principal Act, it must be covered by regulations and these regulations will have to be laid on the Table. It would possibly have to be preceded by legislation, although I do not know that.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde suggested the words "a person mainly engaged in the sale of food." I think if we were to adopt a definition of that sort we would encounter a good deal of trouble. Clery's Restaurant, for instance, and Switzer's Restaurant, would be exempt under that definition. I think it would be a bit dangerous even in the case of a country shop where all sorts of goods are sold— drapery and everything else. But, if these shops sell milk, which may be only a very small part of their business, then it might be potentially very dangerous if the person distributing the milk was a typhoid carrier or was suffering from T.B.

Suppose we had the power to deal with personnel it might not be exercised very much. If a person were to go to the medical officer of health in some provincial town and say that the person distributing a lot of milk in a shop there was undoubtedly suffering from T.B. I do not think that at the moment the medical officer of health can do anything about it. If, however, the power was there he could. I am not sure that we have the power at the moment. If we have it might be some time before we reached the point of dealing with the personnel. Before exercising the power, we would have to proceed either by bringing in legislation or, if the legislation is there, by making the necessary regulations.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister undertake to make inquiries and make a statement on the matter as to whether there is power in any legislation that exists to prevent a person or persons engaged in any particular type of occupation from doing so by reason of the fact that they suffer from some particular illness or disease? We ought not to be working in the dark.

Dr. Esmonde

If the Minister could tell us that the medical officer of health has the power to do this then surely that makes this extreme legislation unnecessary.

Dr. Ryan

I would not call this section extreme.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister should remember that we are legislating for the future. The position is generallyaccepted by members of the House that, when this legislation is enacted, it will give the Minister power, or the health authority in this case, to enforce licensing regulations on any shop in any part of Ireland that is selling any type of food, no matter how small. I take it that its inspectors will have power to see that this provision is enforced.

If the medical officer of health has this power already, as I believe he has, then I think that this section as it stands is unnecessary, and that wider powers than are necessary are being sought by the Minister. May I say again, that I do not think that the Minister's officials are going to abuse these powers, but again we have to remember that we are legislating for the future? The principle is again being raised that here we are going to have total State interference. The question is, whether we are to have that total State interference, or whether the rights of individuals are to prevail. That seems to be the point at issue.

General Mulcahy

We have not yet touched on sub-section (3). Will the Minister tell us what is the purpose of it? This seems to be a new introduction of district justices and peace commissioners.

Dr. Ryan

Part V of the Principal Act set out the functions to be performed by district justices or peace commissioners in connection with registration. It was left to the regulations to decide as between them. I suppose it was considered at the time to be a new step in legislation. Some attempt is being made here to define the duties. That is all it amounts to.

Dr. Esmonde

Sub-section (3) says that:—

"Regulations under Part V of the Principal Act may provide for functions to be performed for the purposes of the regulations by justices of the District Court or peace commissioners, these being functions relating to any of the following matters,"

and the following matters are then set out in a number of paragraphs. I am afraid I am not quite clear as to what the Minister's explanation means. Will this sub-section empower the courts to enforce the regulations through the Minister's officials?

Dr. Ryan

All that the sub-section does is to set out in more detail than the Principal Act what the district justices may deal with under the regulations.

Dr. Esmonde

Will it be necessary for the courts to enforce Orders made by the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

No. It sets out the matters which the District Court will deal with. Of course, the district justice will make his own decision. He will not be influenced by the Minister. It merely sets out the jurisdiction or matters that can be dealt with by the District Court.

Dr. Esmonde

One of the matters referred to is the making of orders "in relation to the destruction or other disposal of food which is diseased, contaminated or otherwise unfit for human consumption". Am I to take it that the Minister's officials themselves are not being empowered to order the destruction of food?

Dr. Ryan

No. If an inspector goes in and sees bad food in a shop and says to the proprietor that he must destroy it, the proprietor will probably obey, but suppose he says that he will not, then the only course open to the inspector is to go to the court and say: "This man had food unfit for human consumption on his premises and I want an order to have it destroyed." The district justice then decides whether it should be destroyed or not.

Dr. Esmonde

Supposing an inspector goes into a shop and finds contaminated food for sale. He apparently has not the power to enforce the destruction of that food without going to the court.

Dr. Ryan

Obviously the inspector cannot use force.

Dr. Esmonde

That will cause delay. You have a position where there is contaminated food in a shop. A health inspector comes in and says: "This food must be destroyed." The person who is selling the food says: "No. I will not destroy that food." Therefore, the inspector has to apply to the court. What is going to happen in the meantime? He cannot go to the District Court and get immediate action in the matter. An interval of several days may elapse.

Dr. Ryan

He can seize the food in the meantime.

Dr. Esmonde

And take it away from the shop?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. He can take possession of it.

Dr. Esmonde

This is setting out the function of the district justice? That is what it says here.

General Mulcahy

I am against the principle of this section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 37.

Question proposed: "That Section 37 stand part of the Bill."

General Mulcahy

What is intended here?

Dr. Ryan

This is intended to deal with radioactive substances. Section 54 deals with radioactive substances and it is was necessary to amend the definition of "substance" in Section 65 of the Principal Act in order to make Section 54 operative. Now, the definition of the word "substance" is: "a natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour, including a preparation or manufactured article or article which has been subjected to any artificial treatment or process".

It was necessary to amend that definition so that radioactive substances could be dealt with as visualised under Section 54.

The Deputy will know that we are here dealing with amendments to the1947 Act and the amendment of Section 65 of that Act is one of them. Sub-section (b) goes on to the enforcement of the regulations. It is necessary to have the powers again conferred for the enforcement of the regulations that may be carried out by the officers of the Minister, by health authorities and their officers. Sub-section (iii) provides for the enforcement of the regulations "with the consent of the Minister for Finance, by officers of Customs and Excise." Sub-section (iv): "with the consent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by officers of that Minister." We may in some cases be dealing with the manufacture of these substances as a by-product or perhaps as part of the operations of a larger factory. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would be the more appropriate authority to deal with some of those cases.

Dr. Esmonde

I think we had some discussion already in this connection on the Financial Resolution. I appreciate that radioactive substances are a new discovery and I am in agreement that there should be some control with regard to them. A parallel case arose in Britain and legislation was passed empowering the Minister to control these substances. We divide radioactive substances, as far as I know, into two different varieties. There is the medical type of radioactive substances which is used for a particular form of treatment. It has been discovered to be of some benefit in obscure blood diseases for which previously there has been very little treatment. It is possible that these substances may be required to be distributed to the medical practitioners and medical officers in the hospitals for the purpose of treatment.

There is a second variety of radioactive substances which is concerned with the discovery of defects that might exist in propellors of aeroplanes and ships. Of course, that would not be the concern of the medical faculty but of the commercial side. These substances in connection with which the Minister seeks powers under this section, powers which, of course, he is entitled to seek, are new and distinct, perhaps, from what we were discussing the other day, cortisone. It is a comparativelyrecent discovery and very little is known about these substances. They should be in the hands of experts.

In Britain the particular Minister sought these powers in the House of Parliament and got them. Having got them in relation to the medical section, that is in connection with isotopes or radioactive substances used for treatment, he delegated these powers to the medical research council, and in the case of the commercial product he delegated the powers to the scientific research council. I would like to ask the Minister if it is his intention to control these powers himself—of course, he will officially control them— or if he intends to delegate them to the particular societies I have mentioned, the medical research council in the case of isotopes or other medical products, and the scientific research council in the case of the commercial products.

Dr. Ryan

In a case like this I would certainly consult the medical research council because in my Department we do not claim to know very much about these substances and I suppose the only authority we could consult is the medical research council. If they have not got the necessary information themselves, they would get it for us. I do not think the Deputy need have any doubts about that. They would not, of course, administer that themselves. They would only give advice as to how best it could be done.

Dr. Esmonde

How about the commercial products? Would the Minister give an indication as to what he proposes to do in regard to them? Would he delegate them to the scientific research council?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. All we would be asked to do would be to give a licence to carry on.

Dr. Esmonde

A further point seems to arise. As far as I remember we discussed before this question of licences. Is there a licence to use or disseminate these products?

Dr. Ryan

I think the Deputy had better raise that on Section 54.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Ryan

This is similar to sub-section (c) of the section we have just passed. It enables local authorities to take part in the enforcement of Section 66 of the Principal Act which deals with the restriction of the importation or manufacture of certain articles which by their use cause serious risk of injury to health or body. In many of these sections in the Principal Act—this is one of them— prosecution, and so on, will be in the hands of the Minister.

In some of the amendments we are passing now we are amending the Principal Act and giving power to the local authorities to do the prosecuting which is a very much better system than the one already in existence.

Dr. Esmonde

What particular type of substances does this deal with? Could the Minister give an instance?

Dr. Ryan

The section does not specify the substances. It only refers to dangerous substances. It does not enumerate or specify them.

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister give any example of what he has in mind? Is it in connection with poison?

Dr. Ryan

Rat poisons.

Dr. Esmonde

Is this the rat poison section?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. They would be included, in any case.

Dr. Esmonde

Will there be certain restrictions on the importation or will there be control of these substances?

Dr. Ryan

Not necessarily, not, at least, in a certain sense. There will be no restriction on the import in the way of cutting down the quantity but we want to control them. That is the point.

Dr. Esmonde

Rat poisons have been responsible for introducing ptomaine poisoning in certain districts. We have not had it in this country. There is one particular type from which a particular type of infection originates. Is that what is in the Minister's mind? He says he does not intend to restrict any of them coming in but is the Minister using this section to prevent any type of rat poison coming in which might be responsible for the dissemination of disease? If so, there would have to be some restrictions.

Dr. Ryan

As far as my knowledge of this subject goes at the moment I have no intention of prohibiting any of these substances coming in but I think we should control them, give licences to those who apply for licences to import them and get a knowledge of those that are coming in. If there were any specific danger, as mentioned by Deputy Dr. Esmonde, there would be a case for prohibiting them but I have not heard any case for prohibition, up to the moment anyway.

Dr. Esmonde

Liverpool Virus is the name of the poison that has been responsible for ptomaine poisoning.

Dr. Ryan

That is a fairly common one.

Dr. Esmonde

It has been responsible in England for starting an epidemic. There are considerable restrictions on it now. It is one of a group. The simplest way to obviate risks would be to stop it coming in.

Dr. Ryan

All we are doing here is that I am sharing my powers with the local authorities.

Dr. Esmonde

Are any of these products manufactured in this country?

Dr. Ryan

Not as far as I know.

Dr. Esmonde

I think they are.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 55:—

Before Section 39 to insert a new section as follows:—

Section 98 of the Principal Act is hereby amended—

(a) by the deletion in sub-section (1) of the words "to give to the Minister when so required by him advice on matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people" and the substitution therefor of the words "to advise the Minister on such general matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people as may be referred to them by the Minister and on such other general matters (other than conditions of employment of officers and servants and the amount or payment of grants or allowances) relating to the operation of the health services as they think fit";

(b) by the deletion in sub-section (4) of the words "the National Health Council or of",

(c) by the addition of the following sub-sections:—

(7) Not less than half of the persons who are appointed to be members of the National Health Council shall be appointed by the Minister on nominations of bodies which, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the medical and ancillary professions (including particular branches thereof) and of persons concerned with the management of voluntary hospitals.

(8) The members of the National Health Council holding office on the 31st day of March, 1954, shall go out of office at the end of that day and the like provision shall have effect with respect to the 31st day of March in the year 1956 and in every second year thereafter.

(9) The National Health Council shall appoint one of their members to act as chairman of the council.

(10) The quorum for a meeting of the National Health Council shall be one-third of the members, or, if the number of members is not divisible by three, one-third of the nexthigher number which is divisible by three.

(11) The National Health Council may, by standing orders or otherwise, regulate their own procedure.

(12) The National Health Council shall meet at least once in each quarter of the year.

(13) The National Health Council shall meet—

(i) at such times as they may be requested by the Minister to meet,

(ii) subject to sub-section (14) of this section, at such times as may be determined by the council, and

(iii) subject to sub-section (14) of this section, upon a requisition to call a meeting of the council, signed by a number of members not less than the quorum of the council being presented to the secretary to the council.

(14) Where three or more meetings of the National Health Council have been held in any quarter, a further meeting shall not be held in that quarter save at the request of, or with the consent of, the Minister.

(15) Every meeting of the National Health Council shall be held in private.

(16) The National Health Council may present each year to the Minister an annual report and the Minister shall publish the report with such comments (if any) as he thinks fit.

(17) The Minister shall request the advice of the National Health Council on any regulations which he proposes to make under the Health Acts, 1947 and 1953, or under the Mental Treatment Act, 1945, except where he is satisfied that the making of the regulations is a matter of urgency and, in such a case, he shall request the advice of the council on the regulations assoon as may be after they are made.

(18) The Minister shall appoint a person to act as secretary to the National Health Council."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would suggest that amendments Nos. 57 to 61 could be discussed as amendment No. 55 appears to be intended to meet these amendments.

Dr. Ryan

They are all dealing with the Health Council. It is hardly necessary to go into it in great detail. The whole object of these amendments is to give more powers of discussion, at least, to the Health Council. There are various changes being made. Perhaps I should mention the principal ones. In the first place, when the Health Council is being formed in the future, at least half of the members will be appointed directly by professional bodies, the Medical Association, Dental Association, Nursing Association, etcetera, any of the professional bodies. They will have a nomination of at least half and the remainder will, of course, be appointed by the Minister. They will meet at least quarterly and they can meet at other times by requisition to the chairman. There is a limit, however, to the number of meetings that can be called. The number of meetings can be limited to three in any particular quarter. All regulations will be submitted to them for their comments and the only exception to that is that the Minister reserves the power, where a regulation must be made with all due speed, that he can make a regulation of that kind and afterwards submit it to the council for their comments. The council will arrange their own procedure. They will have their own chairman and their own secretary and they will issue an annual report. I think that covers the amendment. It puts them on a basis of independence, at any rate, but I want to make it clear that they are still only advisory because in our system of Government a Minister must take full responsibility for his Department. It was not possible, therefore, to accede to the request that they should have any executive functionwhatever. They can only advise and the Minister must take a decision in the end, whatever decision it may be. Their only remedy, if they feel the Minister is unreasonable in not accepting their advice, is that they have the annual report in which they can draw attention to that and members of the Oireachtas, the Dáil and Seanad, will have an opportunity of reading these annual reports and will deal with the Minister in their own way if they think he is unreasonable.

General Mulcahy

Am I right in understanding that there is no number fixed as to the size of the Health Council?

Dr. Ryan

There is no number fixed, but at least half must be elected by the professional associations.

General Mulcahy

The council will be appointed entirely by the Minister but not less than half will be persons who are recommended to the Minister for nomination by certain bodies?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

General Mulcahy

It is left to the Minister to decide what bodies he will invite to make the nominations?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister say whether it is proposed to place any apartments or any staff at the disposal of the council?

Dr. Ryan

They will have the use of a secretary, of course, and we will certainly provide a place for them to meet. I do not know if it would be possible to provide an office. They will be provided with a meeting place at least and they will be provided with a secretary from the Department.

Dr. Esmonde

This is a consultative and advisory council. Half of the council will be elected by medical and ancillary bodies, such as dentists, chemists, and so forth, and the other half will, in fact, be nominated by the Minister. I take it that the chairman of the council will be nominated by the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

No, they elect their own chairman.

Dr. Esmonde

Can the Minister give us any idea of what in his opinion is to be the size of this council?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy perhaps knows the difficulty here about getting every party represented. You must get to a fairly high number before you can give proper representation. Even among practitioners of medicine they may want mental diseases represented. You would naturally want the hospitals represented as well as private practitioners, general practitioners, and so on. Then you go to the other professions, the dental side and the pharmaceutical side. They are at the moment represented and the veterinary profession is represented. All these have to get representation so it is then a matter of sitting down and adding up how many are on the commission. That is half, and the whole is so and so.

Dr. Esmonde

I take it that the council will consist of at least 12 members.

Dr. Ryan

To get the profession represented I would like to give two to each branch if possible and you must give very much more than two to the bigger branches.

Dr. Esmonde

You are going to have, I suppose, medical representation, hospital representation, private practitioner representation and probably dentistry representation.

Dr. Ryan

If possible. It may be impossible to cover them all.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister will include dentists?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, certainly.

Dr. Esmonde

Chemists?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, chemists, nurses and the veterinary services.

Dr. Esmonde

There you have seven already from the medical and ancillary professions if you include the veterinary services and then another seven, which would be at least 14.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid it will be more.

Dr. Esmonde

I agree. I think the bigger the advisory council the Minister has in contentious matters such as health the better and this is a step in the right direction. They are to meet not less than every three months and if a majority of the council decide that they wish to meet oftener they are entitled to do so. The Minister says that they will be supplied with a secretary from the Department. Where are they going to meet? Are they going to have a secretariat and so on, or are they just a body who will meet now and again with the assistance of a secretary and disband again? Surely they would want some headquarters somewhere. Can the Minister qualify that?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister for Health will provide them with premises in which to meet. In regard to calling the meetings it is provided that the meeting may be called at the request of the Minister. It is obvious that if he has regulations to put to them he must have power to call a meeting. A meeting can also be called on a requisition of one-third of the members of the council itself, but there is a limit put to that, that they may not demand a meeting under that subclause more than three times in the quarter or in fact that the total number of meetings must not be more than three in the quarter.

Dr. Esmonde

Three in a quarter?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. That is put in to prevent a subversive third, if you like, meeting continuously every day of the week for some purpose of their own.

Mr. Kyne

Can the Minister say with particular reference to trade union representation if he has considered in a broad sense including representation to trade unions and the organised workers, mainly the general workers, and if he would consider giving representation on the council to that section?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. After all the best way to judge these things is by goodfaith in the past. We have had this in the past. We already had representatives of local authorities and recently we brought in the trade unions and the Employers' Federation or I think it is the Chamber of Commerce. The local authorities must be on it, the trade unions will be on it and the employers also or some organisation representing them, and by the time you get representation from them all it will be fairly bulky, but it cannot be helped.

Dr. Esmonde

If you are going to have a big body like this the Minister will appreciate that it will not be just a question of having a meeting and making a representative advice of views to the Minister. They will probably have a great many factors before them that they will wish to study and it will not be only a question of meeting for two or three hours and disbanding and returning to their different unions. Surely they would want an extended discussion among themselves if they are going to be of benefit as an advisory council to the Minister—they would want to discuss a thing fully.

Dr. Ryan

Oh, yes.

Dr. Esmonde

I feel that for that purpose they should have a secretariat and somewhere to meet. I appreciate that this is a great step. The Health Council we have had before met three times in four years or something like that. Now it is envisaged that we are going to have an Advisory Health Council and it is my opinion that all the facilities possible should be made available for them. It is not a question of just coming together in a small hall somewhere, meeting and disbanding again. The Minister might accommodate them in some way, giving them a secretariat and a permanent secretary as well. If they are going to serve a useful function they will have a lot of work to do. I do not say this in an acrimonious spirit at all or in any spirit of criticism, but there is no doubt about it that over the health service we have had a good deal of controversy during the past couple of years andthere is considerable controversy still. There is a lot in this Act that we do not approve of, and we hope that out of this advisory council the Minister may be brought to see the light in certain cases. We ourselves have been discussing these amendments and these sections over the past few days and I think it is true to say that we have had the greatest difficulty in understanding a lot of it. I do not see how diverse sections of the community are going to come in, just have a meeting and put up to the Minister certain proposals and disband again. That does not seem to me to be reasonable. I think that they will need extensive discussion if they are going to be effective in helping us to procure the best health service. You have therefore to provide for considerable discussions. Would not the Minister consider it reasonable that they should be provided with a secretariat and an establishment where they can meet and fully discuss all these matters which they are entitled to so as to assist in advising the Minister in every way possible?

Dr. Ryan

It is provided here that the Minister shall appoint a person to act as secretary to the Health Council.

Mr. A. Byrne

What powers will they have, to whom will they make their recommendations, and if they have a permanent secretary who will act in that capacity and keep them informed, bring them together and keep them together? I think the Minister ought to consider the appointment of a secretary for them and a place for meeting and that they should meet regularly and give advice to the people generally. I am thinking of the local representatives on that committee having to bring back recommendations to the finance office of the municipal authority of which they are members. Will their recommendations be subject to the approval of the Minister himself or will he give us an idea generally of the powers that they will have?

Dr. Ryan

I have already outlined that. The Deputy has asked me for something that is there already. The Minister must appoint a secretary. That is actually in this amendment,and the amendment provides that they must meet at least once a quarter. They can meet three times a quarter in spite of the Minister and may also meet with the consent of the Minister.

Mr. A. Byrne

Can they meet as often as they like?

Dr. Ryan

Within certain limits, yes. Their work is advisory work— they advise the Minister and he may accept their advice or not as he thinks fit.

Dr. Esmonde

I understood the Minister to say they could not meet oftener than three times a quarter.

Dr. Ryan

They can, unless the Minister objects. In all probability the Minister will not object. The limitation is put in really because there might be a minority, one-third, who for reasons of obstruction say: "We will give the Minister a dose of this; we will meet every day for the next quarter." This is to prevent these meetings being called unless the majority of the council is in favour of them.

Mr. A. Byrne

Can we put questions in this House if we are not satisfied or will we be told that the Minister has no power and no information on their activities or those of the minority he talks of?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister must issue an annual report.

Mr. A. Byrne

Can we ask questions in the Dáil on their activities?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, I suppose so.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

You may not get an answer.

Dr. Esmonde

When they issue the annual report—the Minister is not bound to accept their advice—will that report be placed before the Dáil?

Dr. Ryan

It must be published. That is what it says here.

Dr. Esmonde

Then Deputies will have an opportunity of debating that report, say, on the annual Health Estimate?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, if they wish.

Dr. Esmonde

I still feel that the Minister is not making sufficient facilities available for this consultative council. I, personally, place great value on it. It is a pity we have not had one in the past. We had one in recent years but made very little use of it. It would be necessary for the council to have considerable discussions. It is to be created partially by election and partially by the Minister. It will be a pretty big body which is going to discuss this Health Bill or matters appertaining to health. If necessary they will refer to the Principal Act and to this Bill to get information on the facts and an appreciation of the health services offered to the country. It is quite impossible for a diverse body of men and women as this will be to come together with just a secretary.

The suggestion is that a civil servant will come in from the Department of Health and act as secretary. It would be impossible to discuss these things by meeting for three days a month. If they are to carry out their function fully they will have to meet for days on end. They should have a separate secretary and staff. It may mean the creation of more civil servants and may mean having some buildings where they can meet to discuss these things. With regard to any advice they may offer to the Minister, I would not say they should be running every day of the week to him with advice; but it may take at least a week for them to get a grip on things and for any points they want to make it may take the best part of a week to prepare them. Unless they have somewhere to meet and some secretariat they could not serve the function for which they are being brought together.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister must give them a secretary.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am still anxious to know what power they will have.

Dr. Ryan

Power to advise.

Mr. A. Byrne

We will not be told in the Dáil if we ask a question, that itis like the E.S.B. or C.I.E.—the Minister has no function? That is a point I want cleared up.

Dr. Ryan

It will depend on the question.

Dr. Esmonde

That is a point that arises later. Deputy Byrne makes a very good point there. The point I am on is whether they are being put in a position to go into a matter fully and advise the Minister. These people will come together from all over Ireland. We accept the fact that these health services have caused a lot of trouble. By this council you are going to ease the trouble and create a better atmosphere straightway and make it easier for the Minister in health legislation as a whole. I do not think that the facilities under this section are sufficient or that the position is clarified enough. I do not see how they could serve their full function as set out and I think the Minister should meet the point and consider establishing a secretariat.

Dr. Ryan

The Minister must provide a secretary. How often more am I expected to make that statement? That is a secretariat. If the secretary comes to me and says he wants a typist and a writing assistant to help him, he will get them, but in my opinion he will not be fully occupied at all. The Deputy wants a week to meet and a week to prepare the advice. I have met the consultative council three times within the last three or four months—so it is not true to say they have not met for four years, although they did not meet for a long time previous to that—and I found it impossible to get them to agree to come back after lunch. They were all very busy people, they met in the morning and continued until 1.30 but that is as much as they were prepared to do. I can understand that these men have to do a day's work as well and it is very hard to expect them to give a whole day. They gave a half-day but were not prepared to come back in the afternoon or the next day. If we get these men to meet as laid down here or as visualised here, about once a month, it is as much aswe will do. I do not think the secretary will have full time work. I do not like to see a civil servant put into a job like that, a nice cushy job where he will get as little as two hours a week. I am just going to try this out and allow a civil servant to do that work. If there is full time work, he will be allowed to do it and will not be asked to do anything else. If he says he is not able to do the work and wants an assistant, he will get one. I will have to find out how much work there is in it.

Dr. Esmonde

Surely a body which is to advise the Minister on these matters must have a discussion on them? I quite appreciate that the Minister is providing a secretary. This body could not have a meeting and then adjourn for a whole month, as they could not possibly cover all the facts. There may be other points brought up which they would wish to discuss. If there is some secretary in residence in some particular place where they could go, they could communicate the facts to him and they could be brought up at the next meeting.

The health legislation is very complicated and it is difficult for people to carry these things in their minds. A member of this advisory council may be told a point by somebody, a point he thinks should be put before the Minister. We are all prepared to take advice from everybody—that is democracy. If they have had a meeting in the previous week and are not going to meet for another month, there should be some establishment with a secretary in residence where they could go and put the point. The secretary could take note of it and bring it before the next meeting. This is the only way they can function efficiently. I do not suggest that this advisory council should remain in perpetual session, but I do suggest they should have some headquarters. Every business establishment or secretarial concern has an office or headquarters of some sort, if it is to be efficient and function as an efficient body. This council must have something on those lines. Otherwise it will be just a whole lot of people coming to a meeting. Itis a very good thing to have people of diverse views coming together—and I fully agree with Deputy Kyne that the trade unions should be represented, just as the chambers of commerce and other sections of the community should be represented—but it would be impossible for these people to meet every day. There will be a lot of executive work that will have to be done behind the scenes on their behalf if they are to function properly. They cannot do that under the present arrangement. I suggest that the Minister is only creating a committee that will meet now and again and that they will lose interest after a bit. I do not want that, and I am sure that nobody in the House wants it. I am sure we all agree that we should try and even out our differences in our endeavour to give the people what they require, that is, improved health services.

Dr. Ryan

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The secretary will be at their disposal all the time. If a particular member wants something put on the agenda for the next meeting and either writes or calls to the secretary then the matter will be available and the The secretary will be available and the member can discuss it with the secretary.

Alternatively, I would say that this council will probably have an executive committee and that that executive committee would meet often to prepare the agenda, to procure the necessary data which would be necessary for the members in their consideration of any points that might arise, and so forth. One of their biggest jobs for some time to come will be to consider the regulations under this Act. These regulations will be in their hands for a considerable time before they meet and when the regulations come they will be in a position to discuss them. I have no objection to their meeting oftener if the great majority of the committee want to meet oftener.

Dr. Esmonde

The situation is clarifying itself. They are in a position to meet. They will have a secretary. Where will the secretary be?

Dr. Ryan

In the Custom House.

Dr. Esmonde

They will have a department and a secretary in the Custom House whom they will approach at any time to discuss the matter.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. He will be a part-time secretary for the present.

General Mulcahy

Sub-section (5) of Section 98 of the original Act provides:—

"The Minister may, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas and to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, pay to the members of the National Health Council or any consultative council established under this section or of any committee of such council:—

(a) travelling expenses,

(b) subsistence allowances."

The Minister proposes to provide a secretary. I should like to ask the Minister if, in the work of accumulating material, documents and so forth, the secretary really does not imply a secretariat—that is, that the council will have, through the secretary and the secretary's contact with the Department of Health, all the secretariat machinery that may be necessary for the assembly of information and for its dissemination?

Dr. Ryan

A secretariat, if you like. The material will be neo-styled.

General Mulcahy

If the council require documents and publications of one kind or another can we take it that these will be assembled and that finances will be available to cover the expenses of assembling that material and taking extracts from it and disseminating the information amongst the members of the council?

Dr. Ryan

Certainly, if it is reasonable. If, however, some unreasonable member says that he would like to have all the Health Acts that were published in England and America and various other parts of the world, I would say that that would be impossible, but anything within reason would be given.

General Mulcahy

I am thinking in terms of the Health Council acting in a constructive and reasonable way. You cannot have a council of that kind without very concentrated machinery at the centre as a secretariat even for the purpose of concentrating their own ideas and suggestions and making them available in documentary form.

The Minister has spoken rather with a touch of gloom of a subversive third element. He rather lightened the gloom by saying how busy most members of the council are and that they will have hardly any time to be subversive. What he has said with regard to that reminds me that, under Section 7, not less than half of the persons to be appointed on the council shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of bodies which, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of certain things. I take it from what the Minister says about the possibility of subversive elements creeping in on the council that the Minister has no intention of refusing nominations of certain bodies on the grounds that they might turn out to be subversive?

Dr. Ryan

No.

General Mulcahy

That is, the Minister does not anticipate that he will veto nominations of the bodies?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister said already that the medical side of it would more or less elect their own officials. Does the same apply to the other sections of the consultative council such as trade unionists? Will they be asked to nominate their own representative, subject to the approval of the Minister? Similarly the county councils themselves.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, that is the basis.

Dr. Esmonde

Then there is the question of the right of approach to the Minister. What are the conditions governing the right of approach of this consultative council to the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

I think that the Deputy probably realises that if a council want a Minister to go over certain thingsand to talk about them the Minister will not refuse—but there is nothing in the Act to say so.

Dr. Esmonde

Does the Minister intend to give them any particular powers other than those which the ordinary citizen has whereby they will have the right of access to the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot see what you would achieve by it. Suppose you had a Minister who was not approachable. No law would make him be nice to people unless he wanted to and, therefore, we might as well leave it out of the law.

Dr. Esmonde

I am making this stipulation. For the consultative council to be of maximum benefit it would be necessary that they would have access to the Minister—or is it the Minister's intention that this consultative council would meet and that the points they would raise would be referred to the Minister by the secretary, especially an official of the Department?

Dr. Ryan

Is is quite possible that in some cases they might say: "We should like the Minister to discuss some of these matters with, say, the chairman and two members or with the whole council." I cannot see any Minister refusing to meet such a representative and important council.

Dr. Esmonde

We are not creating a precendent by doing so. In other countries with consultative health councils the council have a right of direct approach.

Dr. Ryan

I am sure they will have it.

Dr. Esmonde

But there is nothing in this amendment to give them that.

Dr. Ryan

I do not see the use for it.

Dr. Esmonde

I should like to be clear on that point. We are not very clear as to whether or not they have the right. The Minister says they will have it.

Dr. Ryan

So long as you have anordinary human being as the Minister they will have the right.

Dr. Esmonde

That does not meet the point. The Minister is very approachable but can we be sure that the council would have a right of access to some future Minister?

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.