Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 7

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

Question again proposed: "That Section 45 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Browne

This section provides for the making available by local authorities of facilities for training disabledpersons for employment suitable to their condition of health and the making of arrangements with employers for placing them in suitable employment. I was referring to the difficulty of the trade unions in relation to this particular matter. I had some slight experience during my period of office and can understand the trade unions' difficulties. I am sure the trade union members and officials will be able to help us more in this regard. I understand their difficulty would be the one to which I referred, that is, the high unemployment rate for able-bodied men who are skilled in certain work, but are unable to find employment. The trade unions are in a dilemma in considering the opening up of these same opportunities of employment to a disabled person.

For the duration of the time in which we have high unemployment figures, the implementation of this section will be a serious problem. There is no doubt at all that the trade unions will play a very important part in making this legislation effective. Naturally unless they are agreeable to facilitate the Minister or the local authorities in allowing different persons to be trained in these crafts and skills, the section cannot be effective.

In Great Britain in recent years this idea has been implemented under the Disabled Persons Act and the Factories Act. Industries were under obligation to take in a certain percentage of disabled persons. Of course, that was operating under conditions of full employment or practically full employment, about 2 per cent. of the insured persons in Great Britain being unemployed compared with our very much higher rate of 12 per cent. to 13 per cent., which made it possible for them to insist on the industries taking in a certain number of disabled persons.

As I said earlier, one of our greatest difficulties is the fact that the State itself, the central authority, has not given a very encouraging lead in the past to local authorities. There is no doubt that in many of the local authority health institutions, which institutions, I certainly hope, are going to increase and multiply as time goes on, it is terribly important that we getit established at this stage that the health authorities can absorb into their employment disabled persons for whom they can find suitable employment. A tremendous number of these disabled persons, particularly in the infectious diseases group, can be absorbed into the fever hospitals and the T.B. institutions as clerical or secretarial staff, in administrative or outdoor work, such as gardening, as telephonists, messengers, attendants, and many other forms of employment in the health institution organisation. These institutions can find employment for many of the people whom they discharge from time to time to the competitive labour market, who because of the fact that they cannot compete in the open labour market, who rapidly fall back into the original disability or illness; all the money that has been spent by the community in making them well is lost and the whole business has to be gone through again.

It is vital that the lead in this matter should be given by the State itself, that State institutions of all kinds should be made to understand clearly that they have authority to absorb suitable discharges into their service and rehabilitate them in that way. Again, of course, it is a matter in which the trade unions will have to be consulted because we will come up against the question, say, in relation to domestic staff, whether the trade unions will allow persons to be absorbed from the institution rather than from the employment exchange; similarly, in regard to gardening, secretarial work, administration, and so on. That is why it is absolutely imperative that an understanding be arrived at with the trade unions at the earliest possible opportunity.

The question of the payment of allowances while training will also arise; in the case of a person who is able to do, say, a two-hour day instead of an eight-hour day, whether the six hours which the disabled person cannot work should be made up in the form of an allowance under the Infectious Diseases Act or under this particular section; whether the person will be paid for the eight-hour day or merely paid for what they can do, the twohours out of a total of an eight-hour day.

The Minister will obviously see the danger of paying for the two hours in so far as in a six-day week the person will get money for only 12 hours which would afford him a very low standard of living. It is of primary importance to decide whether the full rate for the week's work will be paid even though the disabled person may not be able to achieve the same output as an able-bodied person. Again, the trade unions may object to that principle.

This whole question of employment of disabled persons is an exceedingly difficult one and I am glad the Minister is setting up some sort of consultative council because he will most certainly need it. The general direction in which the efforts of the local authorities go, whether it is towards the establishment of city workshops, city settlements or the different methods adopted in other countries, is a matter which could be worked out by such a council in order to advise the Minister, something which would be particularly well suited to our own way of life. It is a question about which most people have a fairly open mind and one which is not easy of solution.

I agree with the Minister on the question of the voluntary organisation which is there at the moment. Whatever voluntary organisations are there should be encouraged to take an interest in this Act in order to help the Minister and the local authorities to the maximum. It is one of the ways in which the voluntary groups can do quite a lot of good work. At the same time the health authorities themselves will have to take a considerable amount of responsibility for organisation.

I hope, with Deputy MacBride, that the Minister will have the power—I feel sure he has the power—to allow various local authorities to co-operate with one another. On the whole, it will be very difficult for a single county to organise the rehabilitation services on its own. It would be much simpler if they could group into different regional areas and provide a central rehabilitation service. I agree with the suggestion implicit in Deputy Corish'samendment that "brother or sister" might be deleted. Unfortunately, the amendment was not moved, but it seems a bit hard that the brother and sister could be considered for the purposes of Section 5.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That amendment was ruled out of order.

Dr. Browne

I am sorry.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The question can still be discussed on the section.

Dr. Browne

While I understand that the general feeling is that the parent must be responsible for the child, that the family must be responsible for the child, it is a bit hard on the brother and sister being so considered. It seems to be stretching things pretty far that, where there is a young person growing up, earning a living, probably, fairly hard, getting very little money, probably saving up to get married, he or she should be burdened with this responsibility. However, it is only a small point.

I welcome the section. It is a section which must be considered by most of us who have practical knowledge of the problems which arise from day to day as legislating for the millennium. While there was unemployment it would be very difficult to fit the disabled person into employment. I know that a number of small projects have been initiated, one in the West, in Tuam, Galway—I do not know how it is doing—and a couple in the City of Dublin, but, generally speaking, there is no real progress in dealing with the problem of rehabilitating the disabled person. It is very unlikely that there will be any substantial progress, largely due to the fact that it is very difficult to persuade an employer, or to persuade a trade unionist to persaude an employer, to take in a disabled person when there is a perfectly fit man willing to take the job.

While a person is training for any job by way of technical institution or vocational or technical school, or any kind of studies, craft or trade, the Minister should make it quite clear to the local authority that the allowanceis payable all that time. Where a man goes to a city from a country area to train for any form of rehabilitation in a trade or craft, or, I hope, diploma or university degree, I would like, again, that the allowance should be such as to allow him to live in reasonable comfort, bearing in mind that in many cases the person has suffered from a serious disease which would recur if he was not given a fair chance in relation to living conditions.

Mr. Moran

After the Second Reading of this Bill I remember pointing out to the Minister that a type of person whom we all come across in the country, for one reason or another, did not come within the scope of any of the provisions. I take it that this section is intended to cover this type of person, for instance, persons suffering from disseminated sclerosis or persons who had poliomyelitis in their younger days and were consequently disabled or persons who are permanent or chronic invalids because the particular disease that causes the condition has not been diagnosed, and persons born with certain disabilities. It appears that this section will cover them.

I am not so much concerned with the type of people that Deputy Dr. Browne or other Deputies have been speaking about, that is, people who would be in a position to take up some employment. I am mainly concerned with people who are not able to take up any employment and whose unfortunate lot it is to go through life as permanent invalids, solely dependent on those with whom they reside. In so far as this section covers that helpless category of our community, I take this opportunity of welcoming it. These particular people deserve most sympathy and, of all the provisions of the Bill, this particular section is most welcome.

We have all come across these cases. Unfortunately, even local authorities were not in a position under the regulations to do anything for them. I have personal knowledge of households in which there are two or three unfortunate people of this kind. They are not bad enough to be sent to an institution or do not come within the categories catered for by some of the institutions,and they are not well enough to be able to do any work or to help their parents or the other members of the family.

I am concerned with the portion of this section which deals with the payment of allowances. I have certain doubts because of the way the section is worded. I understand that the amendment to delete "brothers or sisters" has been ruled out of order. I would not agree with the principle of that amendment but I would ask the Minister to look into this matter. It appears to me from the way the section is worded that a deserving applicant could be cut out because, for instance, he or she had a brother or sister in America with a big share of this world's goods or a brother or sister, possibly, married away from the family and doing for themselves. Because that particular brother or sister was in good circumstances, an unfortunate applicant could be cut out. It means that, if one of the relatives as defined in the sub-section is well-off, that can be taken into account against the applicant although in fact the particular brother or sister might have been living away from the home for 20 years.

The Minister should clarify the matter. I would suggest that the words "with whom the applicant resides" or "a relative with whom the applicant resides or who stands in loco parentisto the applicant” should be inserted. The way the section reads to me I have certain doubts. We all know what the Minister has in mind, but this particular section will be administered possibly by local officials or local authorities and so on, and I think now is the time to clarify it and to make it clear that whomsoever these disabled people reside with—it may be a brother or sister or their father or mother—that the means of other members of the family who may be in good circumstances but are not living at home must be excluded when these people's claims for assistance under this section will be investigated.

Mr. Kyne

I think we might say for our Party that we welcome this section; in fact, we look upon this section as being one of the steps towardsa decent Health Bill that we had to give the Minister credit for introducing in this scheme. It indicates that the Labour Party is prepared to support this health scheme put forward by the Minister because of the fact that it has such a clause or other clauses similar to it. It is a step in the right direction.

The old idea of putting a man in hospital and curing him and then taking him out and leaving him on the labour market of no productive use to himself or to the community was bound to have an adverse effect on his health. He felt that he was an unwanted person and gradually he just faded away and died of the disease which he had contracted because of the crushing fact that he felt he had no desire to live. This section will give him, we hope, that incentive to live, that feeling that he is a cured person even though of limited productive use, that he is of use in the world and we hope that he will be able to find a place in the life of the community and be of use to himself and to the community. That, we hope, will be a factor in continuing him in the health to which he has been restored by the treatment he has got in our hospitals.

I would suggest to the Minister, though, that as Deputy Dr. Browne has stated, it is essential to co-operate with the trade union movement in carrying out this section. Unless that co-operation is got, I doubt if much can be done. It can be looked on from many points of view. Number one, a disabled person probably will be or can be somebody who prior to being disabled was a trade unionist himself or his people trade unionists, and he would desire that in dealings or arrangements that were being made he should be looked after by his trade union. He has come to look upon his trade union as the thing that protects him in getting a fair deal, and if he feels that his trade union will continue that interest in him and protect him and look after his interests he will feel more safe and more satisfied to accept whatever arrangement is made on his behalf.

As well as that, of course, if the trade union movement are party to thescheme, I do not want to suggest that there will be any employers who will seek to exploit disabled persons, but if there be such in this country the trade union organisation will see that a fair deal is got and that these disabled persons are not going to be used as a means of breaking a labour price or that in any way something done or arrangements made would not be unfair to them and to the rest of the trade unionists in general. We all know that there is a good deal of resentment among trade unionists when people come in at a lower wage or for part-time work or when anything is done in any way to reduce the price value of the labour content of a job. It is only when trade unionists will be appealed to and asked to co-operate in a scheme that you will operate it without resentment. I suggest that that is essential.

Deputy Dr. Browne will remember when he was pressed to receive a deputation or group of us, I think on his request, in connection with the very same task of rehabilitation in the C.I.E. bus section, for people cured of T.B. I think he will assure the House that he got co-operation from the groups representing the various unions there in so far as the people who turned up at that meeting were concerned that we would endeavour to use our influence to see that a rehabilitated person got an opportunity to establish himself back in life.

I feel that the Minister would do a good day's work if he himself would introduce the amendment that we did not move due to a misunderstanding, and would undertake to attend to that himself. I feel sure, in making that appeal to the Minister, that it will be agreed to. I believe possibly it is an oversight that it was not included already and I would ask the Minister to do that. Should the Minister indicate that he is not prepared to do it we will have an opportunity on the Report Stage to put in a further amendment, but I would prefer to see co-operation on this between the Minister and our Party rather than in putting down an amendment which obviously is goingto be defeated if the Minister resists it.

On the question of the brother and sister being responsible for the maintenance of disabled people in certain circumstances, I would appeal to the Minister to drop that portion because of the fact that a disabled person might very well have a wealthy brother or sister even if they were not in America and that brother will not take the responsibility for the disabled person and what will really happen is that the disabled person, due to no action of his own, will be deprived of a benefit which he would have got if that brother had not been alive. It seems ridiculous that due to the fact that the brother or sister refuses to take responsibility they will be able to do injury to people at home by refusing to take responsibility for them and do a further injury by existing at all. I can understand the reason why the Minister has put it in, but there are many brothers and sisters who, if they are not married with dependents of their own, will be making arrangements for future dates and it is difficult to expect a brother or sister to take responsibility for their other brothers or sisters. It is understandable where a parent or a wife or a husband or son or daughter from a moral and legal point of view have responsibility, but for a brother and sister I think it is stretching the thing a bit too far and I would appeal to the Minister to remove that clause. It is quite true that no amendment can be put in on it because I take it that the Chair has ruled it would be an extra charge on the Exchequer. That is so, but it is quite true that the Minister can, if he so wishes, amend that on the Report Stage and I would appeal to him to do so.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I am very glad to see that this section is being welcomed from all sides of the House, or practically all sides of the House so far. Personally, I think that this is about the best section in the whole Bill. I think that if it is fully implemented —and I am sure it will be some time before it is fully implemented—it is capable of making a magnificent contribution to public health in this country and to social welfare.

The whole section brings up a vast problem, practically as big as the whole question of health services itself. It covers in its field very, very wide aspects which involve issues that the public in this country will not be aware of at all until they understand the full significance of the limitation. Our experience on it has so far been only in regard to people who have been suffering from T.B., and here a small, cautious but very successful start has been made by a number of voluntary committees. This is a problem which so far the State has hesitated to grapple with, and the Minister shows great courage in bringing forward legislation of as wide a scope as he proposes in this section here. There are most tremendous difficulties involved.

I was delighted to see the Minister suggest that he should have a committee to advise him, and I hope that committee will be representative of all the facets in the very complex problem which stands in the way of legislation of this nature. I think a lot of the difficulties can be got over by education of the public and of the people involved as to what is really meant by rehabilitation. There are, of course, natural fears of misunderstanding between employers and employees. Employers might get partly fit men cheaper than fit men, but I think that that difficulty can be overcome when employers and employees and their representatives understand the position involved.

I was very interested in the remarks of Deputy Kyne in that respect and he was obviously thinking along the same lines. The State can play a very big part, as it is far and away the biggest employer in the country. We cannot talk about the implementation of this until the employment position has been tackled, but in every large industry it should be possible to find a certain percentage of jobs which could be reserved for those who have not been able to make a complete recovery from some illness—T.B., nervous diseases, poliomyelitis, disablement following injury or accident at work, or sightless persons, or whatever the defect may be I have noticed in big concernssuch as C.I.E., Bord na Móna and the bigger local authorities, that there are many jobs where disabled people could be employed.

The public must appreciate how much it is to everybody's interest that rehabilitation should be attempted. The alternative to rehabilitation is to put a partially fit man on some small State payment and leave him like that for the rest of his life. It means that mentally and physically he degenerates. I believe that many of the people at present listed as unemployed might fall into that category. That is why we will have to examine the whole problem very carefully.

The question of an allowance must be combined with rehabilitation in its various stages, no matter what the patient may have been suffering from. That is the big difference, where rehabilitation offers so much as against leaving the partially fit person on some sort of medical benefit, some sort of social welfare assistance. You can have a system whereby as the man's earning capacity increases whatever allowances or subsistence he is getting from the State is gradually reduced and you have the man feeling that he is making a recovery himself and becoming part of society again.

The State and voluntary effort— there is a tremendous opening for voluntary effort—will have to move cautiously and should move hand in hand. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the voluntary committees that have already been started. They have done a very fine job.

I notice that the Minister does not actually use the words "sheltered industry" or "village settlement" or any of the other phrases which are used so extensively in literature on rehabilitation. I take it that the section which he has here and the various descriptions which are given to the scope of the section cover those points. I personally think this is one of the finest sections in the Bill. I welcome it. It is a tremendous undertaking and I hope that employer, employee and the general public will understand its significance and the magnificent contribution which it will make to the country and that it willbe to everybody's benefit to work to implement a section like this.

Mr. MacBride

I would like to endorse everything that Deputy Kyne said in regard to the amendment— which I notice was not moved—which provides that the trade union organisations should be consulted. I think it is essential to secure the co-operation of the trade unions in any effort which is made to find work for the disabled persons.

May I appeal to the Minister? The Minister has had bouquets thrown at him from all sides of the House in regard to this section. I agree entirely with what Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll said—it is probably one of the finest provisions in the Bill. It does suffer from some defects, which could be easily remedied. Might I appeal to the Minister to do the big thing in this case by meeting us in regard to these difficulties?

First of all, as I pointed out before, to limit the training of disabled persons to persons of over 16 years of age weakens considerably the benefit of the section. Obviously, a disabled child, a child who may be disabled from birth or who becomes disabled in the course of childhood, is a much fitter subject for training than an adult and would be much more easily trained. I do not think that anybody could quarrel on any sociological grounds if the Minister made provision whereby local authorities made training facilities available for such children. The additional cost cannot be very heavy and the number of people involved is not very large. It would seem to be spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar, by precluding persons under 16 from coming under the provisions of the section. Once an age limit of that kind is embodied in the Act, nothing can move a local authority to make training facilities available for persons below the age limit. That is the first point on which I would appeal to the Minister to meet us. I think that all the Minister would have to do to meet us on that point would be to delete the five words in the second line of the sub-section, "over 16 years of age."

The next point, on which I wouldmake a similar appeal to the Minister, is this use of a means test, which is dependent upon the ability of the person to provide for his own maintenance. As I pointed out earlier, a person may well be able to provide for his own maintenance, he may well be able to feed himself and to clothe himself; but he may be completely unable to provide for a course of training. Inasmuch as the purpose of the section is to afford training facilities, the test should surely be not the capacity of the person to feed himself or to clothe himself but the capacity of the person to pay for the cost of the training required. That training may be quite an expensive thing, particularly if it is a form of training or treatment that requires a person to attend a particular centre. The centre may be in Dublin and the person may be in Donegal. That person would have to bear the expense of coming to Dublin and staying in Dublin to receive the treatment and training required.

I would suggest to the Minister that he should delete the words "provide for their own maintenance" and substitute the words "make adequate provision for such training". In other words, the test should be the ability of the person involved to pay for the training required. The sub-section would then read:—

"The persons referred to in subsections (3) and (4) of this section are disabled persons who are unable to make adequate provision for such training."

The third matter is a matter already mentioned, in regard to putting an enabling sub-section in, to enable a local authority to arrange with another local authority, or even with some other institution, to provide the training. If the Minister could see his way to alter these two particular matters in sub-section (5), namely, the age limit and the means test which is based on the capacity of the person to provide for his own maintenance, it would make the section much more useful for the people who really need the help of such a section.

Mr. Allen

As I read this section, there are two different problems in-sectioninvolved. As to sub-section (1), if the Minister could get voluntary organisations to do that kind of work without reference to local authorities, he might get the work done more effectively. For a great many years there has been provision in the local government code which would enable local authorities to do certain things in respect of disabled persons. But there was very little done by local authorities in that respect. They had certain powers all the time but there was very little done. I take it that it will be young persons who will be concerned in this matter.

Mr. MacBride

Young persons cannot be dealt with under that.

Mr. Allen

I take it that under sub-section (1) a person of any age can be dealt with in this matter of training.

Dr. Ryan

That is so.

Mr. Allen

I suggest that the training should be provided in voluntary institutions or by voluntary organisations. While I am all in favour of the provision being made here, I believe there are such voluntary organisations in existence that possibly might do the work more effectively if there was a grant-in-aid from the Minister or some other source. They might more effectively provide the training and make arrangements for the placing of such persons in employment rather than giving local authorities another activity to carry out which they might not carry out as well as others. As I said, there is a provision which enables local authorities to do a certain type of work somewhat similar to this but very little has been done.

With regard to the second portion, the class of people who are specified, I take it that would mean chronic invalids incapable of being trained or rehabilitated or provided with any type of work and that they should be entitled to an allowance. My reading of it is that the people who would come under this would be mainly people incapable of being trained, such as chronic invalids of any age. That would be portion of the work which a local authority might do probably more effectively than a central or voluntary authority. I disagree entirely withDeputy MacBride and Deputy Kyne that if there happens to be a semi-invalid in a family who are capable of providing for the maintenance of that semi-invalid they should be able to get out of their responsibilities. That would be all wrong.

Mr. Kyne

You are not compelling them to do it.

Mr. Allen

If you give them any way out of it, the tendency is to take all they can out of the public purse, irrespective of their means. We have come across that from time to time.

Mr. Kyne

If a brother or a sister will not pay, then you deprive the person who is entitled to the benefit of that benefit.

Mr. Allen

I do not think you do. If somebody is satisfied that the person is destitute the ordinary common law provides for his maintenance then in some way or other.

Mr. MacBride

Take the case mentioned by Deputy Moran of a family with a brother or sister married in America and making no provision for the maintenance of the person.

Mr. Allen

You will have cases of that kind, but you could not write them all into the law. Hard cases make bad law. I would not definitely write anything into the law which would enable a comparatively well-off family to throw their liability for the maintenance of an invalid on to the public purse. I believe we should not legislate in that direction. If the people are well enough off to maintain every member of the family it should be their responsibility. If, however, the relatives set out here have gone to America or cannot be made carry out their responsibility, I think we should provide for such a person's maintenance. Persons who have no means of providing for themselves should be provided for.

Dr. Esmonde

I do not think there is very much in this section with which we disagree. With regard to sub-section (5), it was suggested that the age should be reduced to under 16. It seems to me that the parents in thefirst instance should be responsible for anybody up to the age of 16. Of course there might be peculiar circumstances in which the parents would not be able to provide, but such cases could be dealt with in other ways, such as relief from the local authority or something of that kind.

Mr. MacBride

But if the parents are dead?

Dr. Esmonde

Where the parents are dead, there is generally a guardian or someone responsible for the minor. There will be somebody responsible for him up to the age of 16. I have very seldom in my experience as a doctor come across cases in which there was not.

Mr. MacBride

They may be in institutions.

Dr. Esmonde

In some cases they may be in institutions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dr. Esmonde is referring to Section 45.

Captain Cowan

It is not coming up this far.

Dr. Esmonde

I think this is a good section taking it by and large, because it does deal, as Deputy Dr. Browne mentioned, with people like infantile paralysis cases, as a case which comes to mind, and there are, as all Deputies have experienced, a good many people scattered throughout the country who have no means of support and who are dependent on relatives and I think the provision goes a long way towards meeting that.

Deputy Allen was speaking just now about people coming under this section who would be entitled to consideration as they would be unable to support themselves, but it seems to me that they are covered all right because it says in sub-section (5):—

"The persons referred to in subsections (3) and (4) of this section are disabled persons over 16 years of age who are unable to provide for their own maintenance and whose relatives within the meaning of this sub-section, are unable to provide maintenance for them."

The principal reason I got up was because we are in opposition to a good many things and I think this more or less to some extent meets a requirement that is necessary. There are some disabled people who have no means of support whatever, and when the Minister was giving an explanatory statement on this he did not actually say what was the amount. In one section here, it says that a certain amount of maintenance allowance would be paid to people but he did not actually state what that amount would be. It might not have been decided, and the Minister might like to clarify that point.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I think it is absolutely necessary for the Minister to include in this section a provision for consultation with trade unions. I am sure his reply will be that any sensible manager will consult the trade unions, but in this particular case I think it would be to the local authority's advantage if there was some clear-cut stipulation that such consultation would take place. I have had experience in my constituency recently where the manager was very concerned about placing an ex-T.B. patient into a certain type of employment, and he went a certain distance and found he came up with very many snags because he did not have regard to the trade union rules with regard to apprenticeship to which the local authority wanted to put this boy. He was very grateful afterwards when the particular trade union concerned volunteered to help and advise. I know that was very much appreciated by the particular manager, but there are very many rules governing apprenticeship especially and the placing or training of disabled young people would be very much facilitated if the local authority had the benefit of the advice and the counsel of the trade unions on these particular rules, or else the local authority might find itself very often in trouble with the individual trade unions and with the trade union movement as a whole. I do not say that as any sort of a threat but it will just so happen that way not that there will be any antagonism bythe trade unions to the local authority or to any official of it or to this particular scheme—on the contrary, but the general principle of the trade union movement and the rules for the different trade unions are there and there is certainly bound to be trouble.

With regard to the payment of maintenance allowances I do not think there can be much criticism in respect of training of disabled persons but there may be some trouble with regard to the payment of maintenance allowances to disabled persons who would be regarded as having been trained and who were, say, working at some particular type of industry within an institution. The local authority may come up against certain snags because it seems to me that there is a possibility or a likelihood of competition between certain types of industry that might be carried on in these institutions as against the same type of industry carried on outside the institutions. I have a few examples in my mind where there has been competition to the advantage of the industry being carried on within an institution and to the disadvantage not alone of the industry ordinarily run outside, but also to the workers in that particular industry. It has come to my notice in recent times in respect of one particulard industry that they found in this institution—I will not specify the institution—that they had unfair advantage over the industry outside.

Mr. Allen

Were they getting State funds?

Brendán Mac Fheórais

No, they were not but it could amount to cheap labour. I do not say this section is designed to do that. But say, for instance, there was boot making—that may not be the perfect example— carried on in an institution.

Mr. McQuillan

Or laundry.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Laundry, Deputy McQuillan says, but let us take the boot and shoe industry. Is it suggested that the industry be carried on and the workers paid a mere maintenance allowance? I am not saying this section is designed to create the situation I have describedbut there certainly could be unfair competition to a similar industry outside and that to the detriment of the workers so that, therefore, I would suggest that all these particular snags could more speedily be overcome and that the difficulties could be met in the initial stages and a training scheme set up or any type of workshop if there was a provision that the local authority should consult with the trade union movement.

Captain Cowan

Personally I do not see that there can possibly be any serious difficulty in the matter that Deputy Corish mentioned, because the number of people to be trained under this section and to be rehabilitated is, in comparison with the number of workers, very small I understand the Minister has in mind collaboration and consultation with the trade unions. I think that is so, and I think what that really means is not so much the reference down to a trade union movement in a city like Limerick or Cork but that in actual fact before the regulations are made the Minister would consult with the Trades Union Congress and the Congress of Irish Unions. That I think is what should be done—that it is much better that consultation should be at the highest level. That is the viewpoint I hold, that it would be better for the smooth working of the machinery that that should be so. My personal experience would be that the trade union movement itself for a long period has been pressing for legislation of this kind and I would be perfectly certain, at least it has been my experience, that every co-operation and help that the Minister should get will in fact be obtained by him in the making of these regulations.

There is only one other matter I should like to mention. I think that while the general sense of the House seems to be that a spouse, son, daughter or parent should have some responsibility for a person who is unable to provide for his or her own maintenance, that obligation should certainly not at this stage be extended to a brother or a sister. I think it is definitely not an obligation that should be placed on a brother or sister by legislation.The trouble about it is that if this obligation is put on a brother or a sister by legislation, a brother or a sister may be threatened, in fact blackmailed, by a threat of procesdings in certain circumstances, as does happen under the Mental Treatment Acts at the moment. Strictly speaking, the section as it stands means that if a person cannot provide for his or her own maintenance or if the relatives within the definition contained in sub-section (6) Cannot provide for it, the State would provide an allowance, but I think there would be, in fact, an obligation on a brother or a sister to contribute to the maintenace of a brother or a sister and that they could be compelled by statute to support or maintain that brother or sister. What that really means is what Deputy Kyne said earlier, that a disabled person who should receive a maintenance allow-ahce will not receive it simply because a brother or a sister is in a position to provide for the disabled person. I think that the section would be much improved and that we would be taking a step in the right direction if the words "brother or sister" were deleted from sub-section (6).

Mr. Larkin

Before the Minister replies I just want to touch on one point and that is in relation to the question of consultation with trade unions. The trade unions welcome a-section of this character but I just want to make it plain that whatever may be in the Minister's mind in regard to the question of consultation with trade unions, it should be in the section, not merely from the point of view of recognising that the trade unions are as equally important as, if not more important than, employers, but also to ensure that there is no possibility whatever of this essential. consultation not being carried out, either by the officers of his Department or by any successor that may be later in his place. In so far as the form of consultation is concerned, I would be concerned to have that consultation at a high level. The only point at which consultation will be necessary is when the question arises as to whether the person who has beentrained is going to be put into employment and the sooner we face the danger involved the better. It is all very well having sympathy for people who are disabled and unable to support themselves because of physical disability but those who are speaking here to-night, including myself, are not in the unfortunate position of seeing that that disabled person may be competing for the job we want for maintaining our family. It is very easy to secure acceptance, merely by the automatic decision of a vote, for the placing in employment of a certain person who is disabled in preference to a man who has got the full use of his faculties but that man may be suffering under another type of disablement. He may have a wife and five or six children. That is a physical disablement, too, and if we are going to work this section it has got to be done, not by regulations but by inducements, understanding and a sense of sympathy amongst workers, generally, for these disabled people and a willingness to make special provision so that they can be placed in employment.

I speak with some knowledge in this matter because only recently the Minister's Department was beginning preliminary steps to carry out a scheme of this type. Without any knowledge of the responsible officer in that Department or without any consultation with the trade unions, certain steps were taken that were quite frankly about to destroy the whole scheme. It was only saved because at the last moment it was made possible for the trade unions to be consulted. In this particular case, not merely was the individual suffering from a disability being placed in work which was not suitable and which was dangerous, but he was also being placed in that work at a rate, of wages which nobody could justify, particularly the Minister's own Department. Yet all this happened because some well-meaning individuals had gone in a hurry and made certain arrangements, without the knowledge of the officers of the Minister's Department or without consultation with the trade union. The same thing could happen under this section. It is more important in thecase of an adult person who has been trained in a certain occupation than in the case of a young person.

In most cases, where people are going to be trained, they will be trained to perform operations which form part of trades or crafts, such as metal work or woodwork. They are not trained as unskilled labourers; they are going into the field of industry where there is, in general, the utmost control and where there have been long-established conditions and regulations. To fit them in requires not merely goodwill on the part of the workers with whom they are going to work but it also requires knowledge as to whether or not the disabled person will be taken advantage of. Let us not "kid" ourselves that all employers in this country are Christians. There will be only too many of those persons offered work when trained at less than half the wages paid a fully capable person although the disabled person may be able to turn out more than the fully capable person. They may be put into employment under conditions which in many cases are very dangerous or under conditions which are highly objectionable.

There is then the other side, where in many instances, you will have the position where a disabled person desires training. It may be difficult to find an opening for him but, yet a few inquiries among the actual workers engaged in an industry, will very quickly elicit information if there is an opening for a definite type of training in which the disabled person will be welcome. Yet all that will not be known if this consultation is not available. Consultation has definitely to be with the trade union and, more important still, it has to be at the point where efforts are being made to get the disabled person into that actual employment. There is no use in arranging to fix rates of wages and conditions for a person of this kind and then find that you have omitted the most important thing of all—the goodwill of the people he is going to work with. My anxiety is to see this section put in a way that it will work, and to see that the Department will be able to operate it not merely with the goodwill of theparticular unions concerned—they will have that in any case—but with a provision for full protection for the persons concerned, and in such a manner as to get the most out of it. I would, therefore, urge the Minister not merely to commit himself to consultation but to commit himself to putting it in the section on the Report Stage. If he does not, and if it is left in such a way that consultation does not take place, then I think it would be far better to drop the section altogether because the section would not work without consultation with the trade unions, and I think the Minister should face that.

Dr. Ryan

I quite agree with what some Deputies said, that this scheme is not perfect. It is not so easy to produce a perfect scheme where you have not very much experience to go upon. Unfortunately, I have not got anything to draw from in other countries that would in any way be a guide to me here.

I tried to get figures from test areas in the country but I am afraid that they were most unreliable. Therefore, I feel that the section must be put through and that we must go a certain distance before we can make a reliable estimate of what this particular section is likely to cost. That being the position, I am very loth to go too far. If we were dealing with a matter such as old age pensions and if I were pressed to make some concession in the means test I would have a fairly good idea of what it would cost—or if I am asked to make any other concession I can say "Yes" or "No"—but in this particular scheme I have practically no idea of what a relaxation in any particular direction may lead to in the way of cost. For that reason, I am inclined to be rather cautious as to how we should start this scheme. If we find it is not costing as much as we feared in the beginning then we can be more generous. I am sure every Deputy is aware that our experience in regard to social services is that we are getting more generous as time goes on. Bearing that in mind, perhaps Deputies will not think that I am arguing against some of their pleas or that I am more hard-hearted than they. AsI have said, in this scheme I want to be cautious in regard to how we start and to be more generous as time goes on, if we can afford it.

One point that was made by Deputy Allen was that sub-section (1) might be operated by a voluntary body rather than by a local authority. I am afraid the local authority will have to take responsibility. We have voluntary bodies working in a small way—I mean, not achieving very much in the way of numbers—and yet they are spending a great deal of money for a voluntary body. In fact, you have a number of people on these voluntary bodies giving a great deal of their time in collecting money for the object which they have in mind. I am afraid that voluntary efforts will never get us the distance we want to go. That is why we are putting the obligation on the local authority to provide the facilities. They can arrange with the voluntary body to do the work. Under Section 59, that can be done, but it is the local authority that will have to arrange with that voluntary body to do the work and give them funds, premises, equipment, or whatever it may be, in order to help them to do the job.

Deputy Allen is right also in saying that, as far as sub-section (1) is concerned, there is no age limit and no means test. That means that, for the training of people, we have no means test and neither is there an age limit. Therefore, under that section, young people can be taken in and trained without any trouble. The age limit is 16 and the means test applies only when we come down to consider a maintenance allowance. The section is divided in that way: everybody is eligible for training but only those who need it, from the point of view of means, are eligible for a, maintenance allowance.

A point raised by Deputy MacBride was that we should enable a local authority to make arrangements with another local authority to do the work for it—which, of course, is quite a good point. As a matter of fact, that is arranged for under Section 43. It is quite obvious that if you take a county with only three or four poliomyelitiscases, and if these particular cases want a very specialised form of treatment during their rehabilitation, it would pay that particular county very much better to send these three or four cases to an institution in another county which could cater for them rather than to set up one themselves. All that can be arranged under Section 43. I am quite sure that what we will get under this section is specialised institutions, one in one county and another in another county, and that they will divide the work in that way and send their people to the best place, under that arrangement.

This may be a costly scheme: I should not care even to mention a sum. In the beginning, it was put to me that probably it would cost at least £500,000 for the country. It may be less; I do not know. We have not been able to get a very reliable estimate of the number of people in the country who will require rehabilitation under this scheme and the number of people who will require the maintenance allowance. At any rate, it will be a fairly big amount of money. It will cost a fairly big amount and, for that reason, we do not want to be too flaithiúlach for a start off.

That brings me to the amendment which is being pressed by certain Deputies, with regard to the brother and sister. I suppose every Deputy can recall such a case. I know several cases myself where a brother kept an invalid sister and where the brother was sufficiently well-off to do it. I think that we should not interfere with that arrangement unless it is necessary. In some such cases the brother may have been left fairly well-off but maybe no obligation was put upon him to maintain his sister. It was understood that he would do it. He did it. If we bring along a scheme where a brother is not bound to maintain a sister, she will apply, and be eligible, for the allowance and the local authority and the State will have to pay that allowance where, really, there is no great necessity that they should do so.

With regard to the case put up by Deputy Moran—he was the first to mention it—that we might have aninvalid here with a brother in America who is not in touch with the family here, then we must get over that. I think we would be able to put in some sort of an amendment on the Report Stage, if this clause is adopted, that would ensure that, wherever a reasonable effort was made, the person cannot be victimised because of some brother living far away and not in touch with the family, and so forth. Naturally, if a brother is married and has a family of his own, and is not in a position to do any more than that, then he would not be bound to contribute to the invalid brother or sister. At the moment anyway, I should be inclined to leave the brother and sister in, subject to certain safeguards that the invalid person would not be victimised if he fails to get a brother or sister to contribute, after all reasonable efforts have been made.

With regard to wages, the system adopted by the voluntary rehabilitation centres is that they pay either on piece-work or by the hour but they pay trade union wages. That is my understanding of the position. The people of whom we have any experience so far are ex-tubercular patients, and, in the beginning, the medical officer allows a person to work only perhaps 16 hours in the week. That person is paid for those 16 hours and the maintenance allowance is continued up to a certain point. I am not sure of exactly where it stops but let us say that it is paid until a person is earning half wage, working half the number of hours a week. When that is exceeded the allowance is stopped and he begins to get the trade union wage for whatever hours be works. A scheme like this could work on similar lines and I do not think there is any necessity to be afraid of low wages being paid and that in that way an injury may be done to firms outside which are paying ordinary trade union wages. Deputy Corish got a false impression when he saw the maintenance allowance. The maintenance allowance has nothing to do with the person learning a trade. It is a separate matter and is certainly not meant to cover the work that such a person is doing. It is put in to maintain a person, so long as he is being trained.I do not know whether any wage as paid until he turns out something, but when he starts to turn out an article as a result of his training, I think that wages should be paid—whatever wages are paid in the district or whatever the trade union wage is.

With regard to trade union representation, I had in mind, as Deputy Cowan said, for a start anyway, that the central committee would have a trade union representative on it. Any Minister would be foolish to set up a central committee to advise on a matter of this kind without having a trade union representative, because he would naturally know that some of the snags he would come up against would be conditions of labour and so on, and he would be most anxious to have the goodwill of the trade unions and. would, therefore, have representatives of the trade unions on the central committee.

Deputy Larkin made the point that it is most important that the trade unions should come in at the point at which the person is getting work. I am not disputing what he says—I am sure that from the trade union point of view it is very important and I am not objecting to it. I should like to ask the Labour Party to put down the amendment again, because while I do not think I agree with it as it is, I want to avoid laying myself open to charge of bad faith by neglecting to put something in and I suggest that they put it down again for the Report Stage. What I am afraid of, however, is that, if that amendment goes. in, it may put an obligation on the local authority which would be very embarrassing or might put them in a very awkward legal position on certain occasions. For instance, there may be no trade union in a rural area. where a person is being rehabilitated. Suppose there is a move for a rehabilitation centre for the training of market gardeners in a rural area. When a person has been fairly well trained as a market gardener, it may be found that an employer may not have trade union labour at all. The local authority then may say: "Look at the Act. We must consult the trade union before doing anything."

Brendán Mac Fheórais

That would be covered by the Agricultural Wages Board.

Dr. Ryan

It is not a trade union. I want to examine the wording of the Labour Party amendment to make sure that it will not make it impossible or difficult for a local authority to carry on in having to look around to see if there is a trade union before doing anything. I have no objection to the amendment in cases in which it is quite plain that there is a trade union, in respect of woodworking, the sheet metal business or any other trade, because it would be foolish to try it on without consulting the trade union in that case and there is no reason why it should not be put in, if they think it necessary. However, we can let the amendment go and I will consider the matter further and see whether I might not like to change the wording a little.

I want to come back now practically to where I started. I asked Deputies to look on this as a new scheme which we are trying out for the first time, a scheme in respect of which we have not got very much precise information. If we are a little particular in putting more safeguards in than perhaps would be necessary, if we knew more about the subject, I would ask Deputies to have patience because it is very easy to amend these schemes afterwards and to make them a little more liberal as we go along.

Dr. Esmonde

Could the Minister indicate what is the maintenance allowance for the totally disabled?

Dr. Ryan

I should not like to name a sum because I should like to have an idea of how many people there are first. I think the first step I should like to take when the Bill goes through is to get the central advisory committee, and to have it a committee which would draw up the scheme and give advice of that kind.

Mr. MacBride

I fully appreciate the viewpoint put forward by the Minister, and I think he has approached the House reasonably in dealing with a number of the pointsraised. I am sorry to raise another point, a point which occurred to me only just now. I notice that in sub-section (1) the provision of the training facilities is mandatory on the local authority—"a health authority shall provide the training facilities"; but when it comes to the payment of the maintenance allowance, it is purely permissive—"a health authority may pay" these allowances. Obviously, the intention of the Minister and of the drafters of the Bill was to leave it optional to each local authority whether or not it would pay these allowances. I could see many arguments which could be advanced in favour of that viewpoint, that each local authority should have complete discretion whether or not it would pay such an allowance, but I wonder has the Minister considered the possible consequences of that policy. Supposing, for instance, there was one particularly mean local authority in the country—as there are no Cork Deputies present— supposing Cork County Council or Cork Corporation decided they would not pay disablement allowances, because there is already a certain amount of traffic to Dublin, it is quite possible that there would be a drift of the disabled persons, too. Is it not possible that if there is not a uniform policy all over the country there will be a drift of disabled persons from the counties in which no allowances are paid to the counties in which they are paid?

Dr. Ryan

As far as I am concerned, I asked the draftsman to give me the same for both.

Captain Cowan

Is it not a wellknown legal definition that "may" may mean "shall"?

Mr. MacBride

That is not so. Am I to take it that the Minister will make that mandatory on the local authority? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would ask the Minister to deal with that point at a later stage. I think it would be a pity to let the section go as it is because undoubtedly local authorities will construe sub-section (4) as giving them complete discretionas to whether or not they will pay these allowances.

Mr. Kennedy

The Minister will look into the matter before the Report Stage.

Mr. MacBride

There is one other matter that might be worth examination. It may not be of general application but it is, I think, of some importance. We are dealing with the section in relation to disablement. In a number of law cases, accident cases, cases in which workmen are injured in the course of their work, insurance companies take into account the value of the national health benefits received by a person who has been injured and deduct that from its liabilities. The courts have a tendency, too, to deduct such benefits from the amount of compensation a litigant may receive and the net result is that insurance companies very often save a certain amount of the liability by passing it on to the public purse. It might be well to provide that the payment of disablement benefits should not be taken into account in assessing the payment of compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 46.

Question proposed: "That Section 46 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister explain sub-section (2) of Section 46?

Dr. Ryan

This replaces Section 40 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939. Deputies are aware that with the extension of city boundaries and so on dispensary districts have to be rearranged from time to time and the most appropriate doctor has to be allocated to a particular district.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Let us hope there will be a general reorganisation of dispensary districts in the near future. When did the last revision take place? Populations have changed and some medical officers at the present time are overburdened with work, not alone from the point of view of population but also from the point of view of the bad arrangement of thedistrict. In Wexford some doctors have to travel a very roundabout route to reach their patients. This particular section provides for rearrangement and I think that matter should be reviewed as soon as possible.

Dr. Ryan

There are two factors governing the rearrangement of dispensary districts: density of population and distance. Changes have been taking place. Not so very long ago the town of Wexford was divided into two dispensary districts. Enniscorthy is now being divided. Wherever population has changed fairly substantially a rearrangement has taken place. So far as I know there has been no general revision since the system started.

Dr. Esmonde

Am I to take it the Minister will build the scheme on the existing dispensary districts and this section will apply only when and where population varies? The Minister will implement the scheme on the present dispensary system. He has no scheme for revision in his mind.

Dr. Ryan

Not at the moment. In 1947 we made an attempt to start a survey of the whole country. I am afraid it did not get very far. It would be a very big job and it certainly will not be done for some time and definitely not until we have our health schemes working smoothly.

Dr. Esmonde

Deputy Corish mentioned that extra work might be put on doctors in particular dispensaries. It could cut both ways. At the moment the dispensary doctor is responsible for medical, surgical and maternity services to those who are unable to provide such services for themselves. From now on there will be a largely free maternity service and in the bigger centres of population, where the range of choice will be pretty wide, the dispensary doctor may in future find himself with less work. That would seem to call for a considerable redrafting of the areas in the country as a whole. In some cases it would possibly mean a considerable enlargement of the dispensaries. In other cases it would mean that they would be considerably reduced.Would the Minister not agree that for the purpose of implementation and discussion from the medical angle it could be necessary for him to have a pretty substantial scheme drafted at the back of his mind to put into effect? At least I would think so.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think it will very much change the situation in Dublin. The dispensary doctors in Dublin do very little maternity work.

Dr. Esmonde

Who does the Minister consider does the maternity work here?

Dr. Ryan

It is done in the maternity hospitals.

Dr. Esmonde

Who does it if tne dispensary doctor does not do it? Possibly the dispensary doctor in Dublin transfers more work to the hospitals but he would be sent for in the first instance. There would be a lot more cases and a higher ratio of hospital cases in Dublin than in the rural districts, but would it not be the dispensary doctor who would be the person who would be sent for in the first instance?

Dr. Ryan

In Dublin the great majority of women in the lower income group go to the maternity hospitals for antenatal advice. They are attended to from the hospitals. The doctor, the trainee or the nurse, goes out from the maternity hospitals. That is what happens in the great majority of cases but some are attended to by the dispensary doctor.

Dr. Esmonde

The logical inference from that is that the dispensary doctor would have fewer cases to attend to under the scheme.

Dr. Ryan

That is probably true.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 47.

Question proposed: "That Section 47 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacBride

Would the Minister translate sub-section (3) of Section 47?

Dr. Ryan

For the time being wemust maintain the public assiatance service in the Cities of Dublin, Cork and Waterford until we find it possible to get some sort of agreement between the various bodies concerned in these three centres. I am afraid that will be the subject of another Act. The public assistance authority will remain in these three cities.

Mr. MacBride

What is the purpose of the sub-section?

Dr. Ryan

To continue the medical officer.

Mr. MacBride

In these districts?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Surely this section deals with the employment of doctors as a whole. Would the Minister not agree with that? I think the Minister should give us some sort of outline as to whether any arrangements have been made with the doctors for the implementation of the scheme. This is a most vital and important section. If the Minister has not had any discussions with the doctors, would he indicate what kind of a scheme he has in his mind for the employment of doctors? Under this terms will be offered to medical officers. Is it not the purpose of this scheme to afford medical officers an opportunity of coming into the scheme if they so wish?

Dr. Ryan

Not in this section.

Dr. Esmonde

What then does it mean?

Dr. Ryan

This section merely transfers them from the public assistance authority to the health authority. There is no change whatever in their work or anything else. We are dropping the public assistance authority and transferring everything to the health authority.

Dr. Esmonde

Sub-section (1) Section 47 states that there shall be a district medical officer or two or more district medical officers for a dispensary district. Does that not suggest that it may be in the Minister's mindto appoint more than one medical officer for a district or is it simply to qualify the position where two already exist?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Is the Minister considering appointing any extra medical officers at all?

Dr. Ryan

No more than was done in the past. In the past three years we have appointed additional officers to the bigger areas. That may be necessary in the next few years but I do not know. That is what it means.

Dr. Esmonde

At the present moment we are dealing with the dispensary medical officers. They cover the lower income group. There will be a much wider field for them to cover according to the scheme introduced by tho Minister. Surely you will require more medical officers.

Dr. Ryan

The dispensary medical officer will not have more to do but a bit less.

Dr. Esmonde

What about extra maternity work?

Dr. Ryan

That will not be dispensary practice. He will have more maternity work if he goes in with the local authority to work the new maternity scheme. Then if any woman who is expecting to have a baby selects him he looks after her, but not as a dispensary medical officer. He will look after her as a member of the panel.

Dr. Esmonde

Surely this affects every dispensary medical officer in the country? They are going to have an opportunity of coming into the scheme under the new conditions and they would be interested to know the position. Surely the Minister could give us some idea as to what arrangements he intends to make with dispensary medical officers in that respect? Dispensary medical officers constitute the vast majority of doctors throughout rural Ireland. Has the Minister no statement to make at all? At some time or another there must be some agreement to implement this scheme. I notice the Minister has had no direct discussions but he may have some scheme at the back of his mind and heshould not keep it a secret. Could we not hear about it?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy does not expect I would tell him what I have in mind as to how far we are going to go with the Irish Medical Association. If I meet the Irish Medical Association, I will offer what I think is a fair reward for their services, but I do not think it would be fair to ask me what that is now. I suppose there would be a certain amount of bargaining. It is not likely that the Irish Medical Association will name a figure that I will say is too low. They are more likely to name a figure that is too high.

Dr. Esmonde

I know there will be bargaining.

Captain Cowan

This is a very interesting argument. I cannot hear one word of it.

Dr. Esmonde

I suggest that the Deputy come closer. If the Minister is going to introduce a scheme at some time or other he must have discussions whoever he has them with. Surely he must have at the back of his mind some idea as to what terms he is going to offer? I do not suggest that those terms would be final but they might be a basis for discussion. Surely it is not out of place to ask the Minister that? So far we have had no information. Deputs Dr. Browne had some sort of a scheme. He had a capitation scheme but the present Minister has not suggested anything like that. Nobody knows where he stands in regard to the scheme. We have got no indication that might give us a vague idea as to what the scheme will cost. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Minister to clarify the position.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid we will have to wait before we do that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 48.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 69:—

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

(5) The holder of any office under a public assistance authority towhich sub-section (1) of this section does not apply shall perform such duties as may be assigned to him in relation to the functions of the health authority for the area or district for which he acts.

This section transfers, to the health authorities, the holders of offices under the public assistance authorities, but there will be certain officers not transferred and their services may be required, even though they are not transferred. This amendment is to make sure that these officers who are not transferred, but who are carrying out certain duties for the local authority at the moment, will continue to do them, whatever they may be.

Perhaps I should give the House an example. At the present time, if a dispensary medical officer wants to send a patient into hospital he gets the home assistance officer to do it because, as I mentioned here on a former occasion, when my predecessor, Deputy Dr. Browne, asked the Irish Medical Association to do certain things, including the sending of patients to hospital, they refused to do it. The local authority, therefore, had to get the home assistance officer to do it. There are other things of that kind that may crop up. This amendment is merely to put an obligation on officers who are not transferred, but who at the moment are doing certain duties for the pnblic assistance authority, to continue to do them for the health authority when these functions are transferred over to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 48, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 49.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 70:—

To delete sub-section (5).

I put down the amendment so that I may be able to get a certain amount of clarification in relation to this sub-section. From reading it, it would appear to me to be an attempt to retainall the more unpleasant features of earlier poor law legislation. The sub-section seems to me to epitomise the workhouse attitude to what we now call the county homes. It struck me, when reading the early history of these workhouses, as I am sure it must have struck anybody who has read anything about them, that the general idea was to provide, for the tremendous number of destitute people who were dependent on them, an objectionable form of charity in those times—in the 19th century and in the early part of this century. These workhouses were set up more as penal institutions where the occupants were given clearly to understand that they were not going to get any shelter, food, health or sustenance unless they paid for it through work of some sort.

That was the general idea in the setting up of the workhouses which we now call county homes. At any rate, the occupants were made feel that they were dependent on the poor law charity dispensed by those in control of these institutions at that time. One of the conditions of getting shelter in them was the doing of work of one kind or another.

The Minister may have some explanation to offer in regard to this sub-section which may satisfy the House. From reading it, I personally object to the suggestion that, because a person is sufficiently destitute to require shelter in one of our county homes-and I think the majority of those in them would have to be destitute before they would take that shelter-he or she should have to work. I do not think that one of the conditions of getting that shelter should be that such a person would have work imposed on him or on her. That could be open to very serious abuse.

I do not know whether the Minister means that this work could be imposed on the aged occupants of our county homes. That would appear to me to be quite unthinkable. I am assuming that this may refer to the unmarried mother or to the able-bodied vagrant person. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that the sub-section does not mean that compulsory labour would be imposed on any of theaged occupants, in our county homes. That would appear to me to be completely objectionable and to be completely opposed to what is the correct view on these matters in relation to the protection and shelter of our aged people in their declining years. I should like to know if we are to assume that it is only the able-bodied vagrant or the unmarried mother who is to be subjected to this work and to this imposition by the local authority. If that is so, I am still opposed to it, because I think it is the wrong way of dealing with a person who is completely dependent on the local authority. I think it would be very unwise and dangerous to insist that work would have to be carried out if such a person is to have the right of shelter.

I should like to know the attitude of trade unions as to what the conditions of work will be. I am of the opinion that another amendment, which is to come on later an the names of Deputy Larkin and Deputy Kyne, if accepted, would seem to me to be an advance on the Minister's sub-section.

I should like to know, too, what the Minister's views are on the matter of the payments to be made to the occupants of these county homes if they are to be made carry out any work. I suggest that a person in one of these places is very much worse off than the ordinary employee. If he does not like his work, he can leave it. That may result in the loss of a certain amount of personal comfort to him, but at any rate he can get out. These people are in the unfortunate position that if they do not like their employer, they lose the roof over their heads. That is a very serious consideration. Personally, I feel, unless I can get an assurance from the Minister, that the enactment of such a sub-section as this would be a very retrograde step to take. It should not be incorporated in this Bill or in any social legislation that we pass in this century.

I should like to know, as regards the conditions of pay and the hours of service which these people will be bound to give, whether they will have trade union protection, whether the question of trade union consultation will be considered where, say, theywere used as gardeners or as clerical assistants, if capable of such work, or used as domestic helps, such as cooks, or in laundries. The latter are now big industries. Quite a lot of them are worked in this way. If that were to happen, it would seem to me that trade union employees engaged in laundries outside one of these institutions could be at a very grave disadvantage. The employee engaged on that work within the institution might be regarded as being engaged on a form of cheap labour—forced labour. It would be forced labour where a person is given the choice of getting shelter or of getting out.

They might not like the work and might not want it. I wonder where the freedom of the individual comes. in? In previous years, when he was in better health and circumstances he provided his share for the upkeep of the county home. If he happens to be destitute or aged, why should he not have the right to go into those places and enjoy a reasonable degree of comfort which is the standard adopted in most countries like Sweden and New Zealand, who profess to have-reached 20th century civilisation?

I would be much more in favour of having these county homes as county homes rather than as workhouses, which is implied by this particular sub-section. It is quite obvious that these places would have to revert to their old name of workhouse, that they would have that penal connotation in the mind of the people. If a person went in, his being given shelter might be on the condition that he would carry out work which he might not like and which he would have no right to refuse. I think that would be wrong and an unwarranted interference with the rights of the individual.

At the same time I know there may be able-bodied persons without work within these institutions and that suitable work might be made available for them. Nevertheless, it would be terribly wrong to victimise the majority; I would prefer to lean over towards protecting those few who might not wish to work rather than penalise the whole lot in order to catch the odd able-bodied person who would not workwhether he was in or outside the county home.

I would like to know from the Minister under this section, who would decide under this section what work would be carried out. I would repeat that if there is any question of the aged working at all in the county homes, I would be totally opposed to it and I would consider that no amendment would make it acceptable. If we aceept that the Minister is merely thinking of the able-bodied vagrants or the unmarried mothers, I would like to know who would decide the work those persons are to do and that they are able to do it? Will the medical officer be considered in relation to it or will it be the decision of the head of the institution? Will it be the decision of the county manager or who will decide what is suitable work for these persons. Will the doctor's opinion be considered? Furthermore if work is made available for this small group of peopla within a county home, will it be, as suggested in amendment No. 71, under conditions of work laid down by the different trade unions for the various occupations, namely, in regard to hours of work, terms of employment and remuneration. I would like clarification in regard to these points.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister would be well advised to delete that sub-section. This matter must be approached from two different angles. First of all, from the psychological point of view, I feel Deputy Dr. Browne is quite right when he says it is helping to maintain the old workhouse atmosphere and the whole concept of the poor law legislation. Secondly, from the practical point of view. I imagine that, generally speaking, most of the persons who are driven by force of circumstances to seek refuge in the county home would probably prefer to do some work. It might be extremely good for them, but the matter should be left to their discretion. The only objection I see to the sub-section is that psychologically it is the wrong approach to the whole question. Likewise I think that the following sub-section—are we discussing the whole section, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing amendment No. 70.

Mr. MacBride

Likewise, the following sub-section is one that should also be dispensed with on the same grounds.

Mr. Larkin

Frankly, we would prefer Dr. Browne's amendment to the one set down in amendment No. 71. Our amendment is an attempt to correct the position, but indeed it is a position that should not arise. We should not ignore the background to this sub-section. It is quite definitely the continuance of the workhouse mentality as well as the continuance of the workhouse atmosphere. You have only to read the sub-section to be quite clear as to its background. It does not set out to say that an able-bodied person who has had to have recourse to the county home shall perform, say, useful work and shall make a contribution to his maintenance, shall engage in some activity that will keep him occupied, and so on. It merely sets down that a health authority may, as a condition of the grant of institutional assistance, require the person to perform certain work. The whole idea is to provide the means whereby difficulties can be faced in the way of a person accepting that institutional assistance.

That was originally the approach in the matter. The whole idea of requiring work to be done in the workhouse was not from the point of view of getting useful labour but in the hope of driving them out of the workhouse. It required them to perform such menial, objectionable and useless work that any decent man or woman revolted and only those who had been so broken by circumstances and by life itself that they were prepared to submit to any humiliation, would pnt up with that. Those who have read about the old workhouse system at its worst will recall always the story of the men and women of spirit who, when required to do this work, revolted and left the workhouse rather than put up with it.

While conditions have changed, the atmosphere behind this sub-section is still there. As Deputy Dr. Browne said we should get rid of the sub-section inorder to get rid of the last remnants of the workhouse mentality and try to get a fresh approach.

In so far as the work to be performed by persons under the sub-section is concerned, I have no doubt that the type of work they will be asked to perform is not work that we in this House would stand over. It will be the most menial and useless work and in many cases it will be work to which there is strong objection to doing. However, when that pressure is there they must either do the work or be guilty of insubordination; they will thus create difficulties for themselves if they remain; alternatively, they must get out. There is certainly no conception of the dignity of labour or of the dignity of the person involved. There is no consideration given as to the value of the work to be done. It is a purely arbitrary attitude that certain tasks have to be performed as a condition of receiving assistance in the institution. If we feel that people should make a contribution to their maintenance or that they are better off working rather than being idle, that is all right. It is just a question of approach; it is a question of providing work not merely for the sake of work but because it is useful and performed under the proper conditions.

That is the approach we have taken in the other amendment, in an endeavour to see that the right kind of work is provided under proper conditions and that proper rates of wages are paid as in the case of cut-side employees who have the responsibility of rearing, families. There is nothing in the sub-section to recommend it. It is purely a penal section giving arbitrary authority, requiring the inmates to perform any type of task that may be required irrespective of the uselessness of the task or the character of the task itself. I am not querying at the moment, as Deputy Dr. Browne does, the position of individuals so far as their age or the state of their health is concerned. That may be the least objectionable side.

There is the other feature that we come across, that definitely the, question of the performance of work, particularlyin Dublin, has, in fact, been given a penal character. It has now become the established practice for persons receiving unemployment assistance to be called before the courts of Referee on the ground that they are not genuine cases and the test is applied that they will not be given assistance unless they go to the board of assistance, the old workhouse in James's Street, and perform task work in return for which they are given money under the head of assistance. The position is so bad that we have cases of men performing the ordinary work of a builder's labourer alongside a builder's labourer. The ordinary builder's labourer, being a member of a trade union, gets his trade union wages, while the unfortunate worker, doing the same work, gets a few miserable shillings as assistance. That is objectionable. So long as that section is there, it can continue. When I mention that, I am asked: "Why cannot the trade unions do something about it?" What can we do? We can withdraw our trade union members and object to their working with the unfortunate worker who is trying to earn a few shillings but we cannot compel the employment exchange to pay his assistance and back he goes to their tender mercies.

It would be far better to get rid of this altogether. Where men and women need to take advantage of institutional assistance because of their unfortunate circumstances, at least we should bear in mind that, when they pass the gate, they are still human beings, and if we feel that they should make a contribution to their maintenance by the performance of useful work, it should be useful work, it should be work that they are prepared to do and not, as has already been pointed out, work which they have refused to do even if they have to face the possibility of being turned out. Above all, if the work is worth doing, it is worth paying for. Then we can ask them to meet a sum in respect of maintenance of themselves and their families. Because we have treated them as human beings, as useful members of society, we are entitled to ask them to make their contribution in the same way as any other worker who isin useful employment and earning his wages does.

We must get rid of these remnants of workhouse mentality and this feeling that it is not a question of providing assistance and aid to a fellow-human being who is in difficulties but rather of creating as many objectionable conditions as we can think of and putting them between that individual and his family and the protection and the ease in so far as material support and comfort are concerned that can be provided by the community in the county home. After all, what is the purpose of providing the maintenance in the county home if we do not want them to take advantage of it? The whole of this sub-section has as its background the mentality of the workhouse, that the best way to keep the population of the workhouse low is to drive them out by asking them to do impossible task work.

Captain Cowan

I want to support Deputy Dr. Browne and the other Deputies who have spoken in support of his amendment. It is only right that we should avail of the first opportunity of endeavouring to alter what has been very properly described here as the workhouse mentality and the workhouse atmosphere.

When a person goes in to receive institutional assistance—as the section says, it means shelter and maintenance in a county home or similar institution —that person goes in for the very good reason that he is not able to obtain shelter or maintenance elsewhere. If it is to be a condition of his getting shelter and maintenance that he has to do certain task work, then the charitable objective of the section is defeated.

Let us look at any county home that we know. What work can they provide in that county home? There is no real work they can provide, no necessary work. They can, of course, have a considerable number of stones and hammers and they can put the unfortunate person to sit down on a bag of straw or on a bag without straw, to break those stones for a certain number of hours in the day.

I agree with what has been said byboth Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Larkin that those people are humans beings and ought to be treated as human beings. If there is real work there to be done for which they could be paid a trade union wage, then I am quite sure they would be willing to do it. If you simply have that prison atmosphere of being made to move a heap of stones from one corner of the yard to the other and, the following day, to move that heap of stones back again, that is humiliating.

Mr. Allen

Is there any such thing in existence?

Captain Cowan

There has to be in some places.

Mr. Allen

Still?

Captain Cowan

Yes, there has to be in some places. This section, unfortunately, provides that such a thing could be done because it says that a health authority may, as a condition of the granting of institutional assistance, require him to perform such work as-the authority considers suitable to his sex, age, strength and capacity. There is no doubt about it, that sub-section gives the authority power to prescribe work to be done by an individual.

Deputy Dr. Browne asked the question, who decides what work is to be done, who decides whether the person is fit or not to do that work? Is the person medically examined? Is he to be medically tested or is she to be medically tested to see whether they can perform that work or not or is it to be just an arbitrary decision of an official that a certain amount of work, whether it is valuable work or not, must be done in order to be maintained in that county home or similar institution?

The Minister should agree to the deletion of that clause. What we should be trying to do in institutions such as this where people who are broken and in need of institutional assistance go is, by kindness and consideration, to rehabilitate them rather than to use this offensive, disciplinary machinery that treats the unfortunate person as a cog to be ordered here and there by an official.

An opportunity is given to us now toeliminate this section from the Act and to permit us to adopt a completely new approach in regard to the treatment of people who have of necessity to avail of institutional assistance. I would press the Minister very strongly to agree to the deletion of that section and to leave the machinery of the institution to be developed on humane grounds by the different local authorities, because once that section is there officials will feel it is their duty to continue the old system that has been described here as the workhouse mentality and the workhouse atmosphere.

Mr. Allen

I think that the wording of the sub-section could possibly be different, but I have never known in over 20 years' association with local authorities that in any of the institutions other than voluntary work was performed. The law that exists at the moment is somewhat similar to what is there. I think it is even stronger, and there was no such provision in operation as Deputy Cowan suggested as breaking stones or anything else. If there is anything of that kind in the City of Dublin I would be surprised to hear it because in any local authority that I know they do not require the performance of such work in their institutions and county homes.

If you have able-bodied people in full vigour of health performing ordinary domestic tasks in keeping themselves clean, for instance, or something like that I do not know why there should be an objection to that. I think it would be very wrong if the management of that particular institution, whatever it might be, could not insist on able-bodied inmates or residents performing the ordinary domestic tasks in their own interests. We have often heard of occupational therapy. It is good for humans if they are in health; but such a thing as breaking stones or performing menial tasks or being compelled to hard labour—I doubt if it exists at all in this country. I have never heard of it. If it exists in any institution in the City of Dublin then they are behind the times altogether. I am surprised that even Deputy Cowan should suggest that there was such work being performed in this Cityof Dublin. It would be rather primitive. The Minister could change the wording if there is any objection to the wording of the sub-section as it is. I would not like that able-bodied men in full vigour and health should not perform small domestic tasks in their own interests in an institution. I think it would be all wrong, and Deputies will agree it would be wrong if that were so.

Mr. Kyne

Deputy Allen must have a very convenient county home in Wexford where they take all those able-bodied people in their full health and continue to keep them there in the leisure of the county home as we know them without requiring them to do any work.

Mr. Allen

We call it a hospital now —St. John's Hospital.

Mr. Kyne

A rose by any other name.

Mr. Allen

Yes, and there is a high standard of maintenance there.

Mr. Kyne

We have a very high standard but it was due to certain pressure; it was not through the goodwill of the management, I can assure you.

I think that Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment is serving a great purpose. Either this section is put in the Bill with some particular thing, in mind or else a good Bill would be a better Bill without it. The Labour Party certainly are prepared to support him to the full in the request that this be taken from it. It is not any great shock to me to know that people are required to do work. It is not so long back to the day when casuals went into the county home or the work-house—call it whatever you will—and were required to break a lot of stones before they got their breakfast in the morning. That was the time when they had on their back the members of whatever unions they were. Everything was done to humiliate them, to force them to keep away so that the rates would be kept down and so that only the very destitute people would avail of them and they were nothing more than down and outs. That is notdone to-day; but those unmarried mothers who have the misfortune to enter some of those homes are put to some of the most menial tasks, made to do unnecessary work sometimes, just maybe as a lesson to them not to come in again. I do not agree with that. If a girl is misfortunate I do not think having revenge on her in that way is going to be any help. It is going to make her embittered and warped for the rest of her life. Surely we have a new outlook on these things. People can make mistakes but they can be led back on to the right road rather than driven on the wrong road as they are being at present.

Captain Cowan

They are not let out even.

Mr. Kyne

They are not let out.

Captain Cowan

That is absolute brutality.

Mr. Kyne

They are kept in and made wash filthy linen and made do the most menial tasks. If it is done in the name of something I would not like to mention in here I do not agree with it. I would think that a service has been done in putting down this amendment which has drawn attention to that.

We felt that maybe the Minister had something more in this amendment than we could see, and because of that, because we thought that maybe there was some kind of principle of occupational therapy or some system where medical officers might advise inmates of a certain type that in their own interest there was a certain kind of work that could be done to improve them, we put down amendment No. 71 to meet that, so that there would be no exploitation under any other name. We were prepared, if you like, to have a double-barrelled shot at it. If the Minister overcame Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment with a plausible story of this occupational thing being good for them, then we wanted to make sure that if he is occupied in his own interests he is not going to be a danger to the ordinary workman or to himself by being exploited by anybody. So we have amendment No. 71 down, but we are supporting amendment No.70 if the Minister does not give a reason to Deputy Dr. Browne and to us that will satisfy us that we should withdraw that amendment.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I would like to say a few words about this. I am certainly opposed to this sub-section (5) here because I have heard a lot about State interference and unnecessary State control and this is, to my mind, a very powerful example of giving far, far too large power, very dangerous power, to a local authority under this Bill. I have seen examples which have already been reported by other Deputies where unmarried mothers were maintained in an institution and where as part of the return for the maintenance and treatment which they got they were obliged to give certain domestic services for a period of a year or two years, apparently without any remuneration, so that it is a practical fact that legislation similar to this proposed section is actually being used at present here in this city in what is effectively an exploitation of labour. It is a most undesirable section. This Bill is based on less progressive Acts than the 1947 Act and there are many traces of this type of very undesirable legislation. I join with other Deputies in asking the Minister to reconsider this section.

The amendment put down by the Labour Party would help to mitigate the difficulties in the sub-section, but I see no reason for the sub-section at all. It seems a most extraordinarily wide power and I feel it has come into the Bill just because the draftsman felt that it should be inherited from legislation of other days, I do not think it is in keeping with the spirit of the view of any Deputy or Party in the House; it is completely out of date and I would ask the Minister to consider it seriously.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid there is a good lot being made of this particular sub-section. The same trouble has arisen very many times on this Bill, where we are re-enacting a certain sub-section that was there already. It must be done when transferring functions from the public assistance authorityto the health authority, as we have to re-enact whatever we think necessary to carry on the position as it was before. We are taking over these homes from the public assistance authority and handing them over to the health authority. In handing them over, what is proposed here is to give them many of the powers that the public assistance authority had—but not all, as a matter of fact. There were some drastic powers there which are left out.

As far as this sub-section is concerned, Deputies should see that they can only be asked to do work which is suitable to their age, sex, strength and capacity. I want to see these homes run for a little bit longer, until we have time to break them up. We have been pressing local authorities to remove the unmarried mothers to special institutions. There are three or four special institutions running for some years, but not sufficiently large to take them all from all the counties. I know that some of the county managers have been in conference on behalf of the local authorities, to see if it is possible to get a home for unmarried mothers that would serve three or four counties. As soon as that problem is over, as soon as the unmarried mothers are removed to homes, one part of the difficulty will disappear. I suppose Deputies are aware that in these county homes at the moment you have the old people, those who are incapacitated and not able to work any longer; you have the able-bodied that come in for a night or two and go off again, the unmarried mothers, feeble-minded children and, in some cases, there were even people suffering from tuberculosis, though they have been removed now. We are endeavouring to get the unmarried mothers removed to special homes. We are making as speedy progress as we can with the erection of homes for mental defectives so that we can get the imbecile children away from these county homes. Eventually—in the near future, I hope—we will arrive at the position where nobody will be left there but the chronic sick and the old people.

I am very anxious to go further than that. I have circularised localauthorities promising them certain grants for rebuilding, etc., and encouraging them to try systems of homes for the old people, the colony system or the big house in the country, or anything else, any other suggestion they may make. I know that some local authorities are considering steps of that kind. In the meantime, the clause is being left much as it was. I have visited a number of these county homes in recent months and my experience every place I went was the same, that they are employing more and more people from outside to run the county home. They have people employed from outside in the laundries, in the cook-house, in the kitchen, where they had not got them some years ago.

Mr. McQuillan

That is when they run short.

Dr. Ryan

It is because the inmates are not being made work as they had to work before. Up to some years ago—maybe up to recently, in some cases—they had the unmarried mothers to do a lot of that work, laundry work and kitchen work. That has disappeared from some institutions and even where it is left they are not doing as much of that type of work as they were doing before.

Captain Cowan

Would the Minister say why an unmarried mother should be imprisoned for 18 months?

Dr. Ryan

I am not talking about the imprisonment part of it at all, but about the work. If the local authority had no power to tell a person he or she must do some work, I think it would be very bad. If there are able-bodied people, whether they come in for a night or two or are unmarried mothers, the local authority should have power to give them a certain amount of work in the running of the place.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

But pay them for it.

Dr. Ryan

It could be in the cook-house or the laundry or elsewhere. There is no other type of work visualised. They do not compel old people to work, though some of them are very glad to do a certain amount of it inkeeping the place nice and tidy or working about the garden. I myself have seen some of them sweeping up after meals or doing jobs of that kind, but they are not made to work. It is done only where they volunteer. It is a great thing to see them helping in that way and it is good for them. Where you have young able-bodied people, even some of them must be made to work. I had the experience myself—looking around me now, I suppose there is hardly anyone here at the moment old enough to have the same experience—of being in three or four internment camps. We had young able-bodied men there, and some of them had to be made work. They would be quite prepared to let some of the prisoners do all the work in the camp while they stayed idle. It would be very bad for morale that that should happen.

Local authorities should have power to make able-bodied people do a certain amount of work—whether they are unmarried mothers or not—and I think we should have some such sub-section as this. I do not mind if it is modified. I do not think we should give power to local authorities—I am sure they could not use it—to make them do work of the type mentioned, like breaking stones. Breaking stones before breakfast stopped in the British time—I do not think it went on even in the Cumann na Gaedheal time. I do not wish to give any local authority power to do that. Even if they had it, as everyone knows they could not get the work done. What I have in mind is work around the house, sweeping the place, or a certain amount of cooking, washing, and so on.

I know it is very difficult to legislate that they must not be overworked, as someone would have to interpret that, whoever did it.

I would be very much averse to making it possible for the local authority to make them work at all, and if we can get some progress there I would be quite satisfied.

Someone spoke of occupational therapy. It is being started in some of the bigger county homes and I suppose it will spread in time to thesmaller county homes. I have not that in mind, as I think occupational therapy could be carried on without compulsion. I am not making that a plea for this particular sub-section, as I do not think it would be necessary. The plea I am making is that, as long as county homes remain as they are and as long as we have able-bodied people in them, the authorities should have power to get them to do a certain amount of work around the institution.

Mr. Kyne

What about the Dublin cases cited by Deputy Larkin?

Dr. Ryan

I think Deputy Larkin,s complaint was that the occupants of the institution in Dublin were made to work in a penal way.

Mr. Kyne

He stated that people were sent to do building work.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to know more about that.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I do not want to suggest that the occupants of these institutions should not be asked to do work which they are able to do. I am asking that in 1953 we should not put a section in a Bill which would enable a local authority to make people do certain work without payment.

Mr. McQuillan

What I have to say on this possibly should be said on the amendment of the Labour Party. I should like to refer to a matter which the Minister mentioned, that this is merely a transfer of power to the health authority from the board of public assistance. I feel that when we are passing legislation we have no excuse for embodying in it the mistake in former legislation. If I, as a public representative, outside this House condemn severely the type of legislation which was in force from the British Government days, why should I be asked, when I come to this House, to support the carrying out of that legislation, even for a limited period, when we have the opportunity to set a new line? The Minister suggests that the powers now being conferred on local authorities are not as comprehensive as the powers available up to this. I do not dispute that.

I think that by allowing sub-section (5) to be embodied in this Bill we are condoning a system of slave labour. Whether that is to last for a long or a short period, we cannot say. We do not know when the opportunity may arise to change that. My anxiety is to see that it is not embodied in this Bill. I believe that if unmarried mothers have to go to these institutions and are asked to work they should be paid for the work. There is a lot of hush-hush attached to this business. The only reason I can see why this type of legislation was introduced is that those who envisaged the legislation were afraid that the illegitimate births in this country would be greater than the legitimate births and that severe penalties should be imposed on unfortunate girls who were unlucky enough to fall by the wayside. The position is that only a limited number of girls have to go to these institutions and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that it will not keep down the illegitimate birth rate if in England, Dublin and elsewhere, especially in England, arrangements are made to cater for unfortunate girls who suffer from that mishap. When they go to England, we do not know what the future holds for them. That is the shocking thing about it. There is no incentive to them to face the music at home where good conditions should be available to rehabilitate them. We are making the position worse by these impositions.

There is another serious aspect of this. If we give this power to local authorities, we are giving an example to private institutions to make things even worse for the girls in these institutions because they can point to the example set by local authorities and say that the power has been given by this House. Many of us know that there are institutions in this country at the moment where unmarried mothers from the day they go in until they die are not allowed out of these institutions. I can substantiate that statement. I know that the Minister or any other Ministers would find it very hard to interfere in the running of these institutions because no authority has been given to them by this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment deals with county homes and not with any other institutions.

Mr. McQuillan

It is a shocking position that there are not facilities available. If we give this authority under this sub-section we are going to set a bad example for private institutions. In the matter of employment and the treatment of those under their care the State and the local authorities should set the best example possible. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to carry out the suggestion of Deputy Dr. Browne and delete sub-section (5).

Dr. Browne

One of the difficulties which some Deputies have is accepting from me that we should not delegate responsibility to officials or to local authorities which these local authorities can carry out with safety because it is we who passed the legislation and, once it was in our hands to do that, it would not be objectionable in any way. I think Deputy Esmonde has a good case for suggesting that in passing a section like this in its present form we are putting into the hands of the county manager, or whoever it may be, power which we would regret to see used in our institutions. It is because I am conscious of our responsibility that legislation passed by this House must be as nearly as possible the absolute expression of our wishes and intentions in relation to these people that we must ask the Minister to give very careful consideration to this sub-section before putting it through the House or carrying it out in its present form.

From the Minister's statement, there seems to be only one section left for whom we are now legislating. He says that the old men and women occupants of our county homes will not be and must not be expected to do any work whatsoever.

Dr. Ryan

Not compelled, I would say, cannot be compelled.

Dr. Browne

They cannot be com pelled to carry out any work of any kind at all which they might refuse to do.

The only other person is the unmarried mother who is another vast problem. It appears she is going to leave the county home. That is a very good thing indeed. It leaves us with the vagrant, so that really this sub-section is concerned with the unfortunate person who has no home and decides to shelter in our county homes. As long as it is established in this sub-section that we are dealing only with this person then we can consider it from another angle. At the same time we have got to bear in mind that for many years to come the unmarried mother will continue to live in these county homes. I consider it no defence at all, as Deputy McQuillan has pointed out, to say that the clause is being left "much as it was," quoting the Minister's phrase. I think that is no tribute to the House. I think it is a positive reflection on the House. This sub-sections reads very like a sub-section or commentary that I was reading the other day in a Viceregal consideration or report on county homes or workhouses carried out 80 or 90 years ago, in which the same attitude was implied of penalising a man for being so criminally negligent as to be so destitute that he should find his way into one of our county homes.

I do not know if the Minister is prepared to be quite clear on that point in relation to old people—that they cannot be forced to do that work and that it is quite clear to them that any work they do is voluntary work in the gardens or clearing up. But at the same time I would be in favour, if it is insisted that the Minister wants to give local authorities powers in relation to making a certain section work —the vagrant, the person who is there for three or four days—of the suggestion in amendment No. 71, which presumably we will be discussing later, a leas-Cheann Comhairle, in the names of Deputy Larkin and Deputy Kyne, that any work they do shall be at stated rates and under conditions decided by the trade unions. So that, on those assumptions in relation to old people first of all, I think it is a greatmisfortune that the Minister insists on leaving the clause much as it has been since 1801 or so, I think it is a reflection on the House and on us, and I think the only possible argument that could be made for it is that it is in an attempt to cover the minutest percentage of people who pass through the county homes at present, that this offensive sub-section is to be retained by the Minister.

I think the best thing to do would be to redraft it to definitely exclude the sections which are definitely excluded in the Minister's mind and in our intentions, or preferably to exclude the sub-section altogether. If that is not possible then I feel that any work that is carried out—if it was work of a desirable nature decided by the medical officers—that that work should be carried out under rates specified and agreements as laid down by the amendment of Deputy Larkin and Deputy Kyne, that the work would be under stated trade union conditions. Again, I repeat, that it is unfortunate that such a sub-section has been maintained in legislation of our times. The ideal arrangement would be to provide accommodation for these people as long as they require it as men and women who had fallen in need of it and who, by virtue of the fact that they had the right of citizenship or were former ratepayers or taxpayers or whatever it might be had a perfect right to get the shelter that is offered to them as long as they need it.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dr. Browne is anxious that amendments Nos. 70 or 71 should be accepted. I would rather amendment No. 70 than 71 and I think Deputy Larkin agrees with that. I think I will accept Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment No. 70 provided amendments No. 71 and 74 are withdrawn.

Mr. Kyne

We agree to that; we will withdraw.

Amendment No. 70 agreed to.

Amendment No. 71 not moved.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 72:—

To delete sub-section (6).

Again, Sir, my trouble in relation to these county homes is my consideration of the correct attitude to be adopted in relation to the inmates of these homes, the aged. I find it difiicult to legislate for the small percen, tage of difficult persons who seem to dominate the minds of those persons who drafted the Bill and this sub-section (6). I feel that it contains in paragraphs (c) and (d), sub-section (6) the suggestion that the inmates of these homes shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for terms not exceeding 21 days. I would like to know from the Minister why it is that this sub-section is included in relation to county homes and does not appear to be intended for our other institutions, unless he means by "similar institution"—"every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similar institution..."—to include county hospitals, district and regional hospitals and district and regionalsanatoria, and so on? Is it intended that this sub-section referring to disciplinary action to be taken against persons who carry on in a particular way, should refer to all institutions controlled by local authorities or is it specifically referring to our county homes?

Dr. Ryan

Only county homes.

Dr. Browne

I see. I would like to know from the Minister why it is found necessary or desirable that this form of legislation should be included for our county homes and not for all our other institutions. Is it because of the type of person we have in these county homes, our aged people, as they are in the majority? It seems to be a very wrong reason. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, l5th July, 1953.