Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 8

Health Bill, 1952—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 72:—

To delete sub-section (6), Section 49.—(Deputy Dr. Browne.)

Dr. Browne

Last night, we were discussing an amendment tabled by me to delete sub-section (6) of Section 49. My objections to sub-section (6) are similar in principle to my objections to the previous sub-section, sub-section (5), and that is that the general tenor of sub-section (6) tends to place penal impositions on the inmates of our county homes. These penal impositions are contained particularly in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the sub-section which read:—

"Every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similiar institution who—

(b) is by reason of the consumption of intoxicating liquor drunk or incapable of conducting himself in such home or institution,

(c) does any act of insubordination in relation to an officer of such home or institution, or

(d) does any other act (whether of commission or omission) of misbehaviour in such home or institution which is prejudicial to the discipline or the good government thereof

shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liableon summary conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 days."

I suggest that that sub-section should be deleted from this Bill because, in my view, it is very objectionable in its suggestion that the inmates of our county homes are likely to require this special consideration outside the considerations which we give to the inmates of our district hospitals, our county hospitals, our regional hospitals, where we have them, and our T.B. institutions. According to the Minister all these people who are inmates of these other institutions are not covered by this sub-section, but it is directed specifically against the destitute aged poor who have found their way to the county home, not through any choice of their own. If they had a choice, as I said last night, I am certain they would not go to our county homes. County homes are not places that any aged person would readily enter or choose to spend the declining years of his life, if he had a choice.

It may be suggested, in fact I think it can be suggested, that these aged people on the whole tend to become extremely difficult charges and an extremely difficult problem for those caring for the inmates of these institutions. I think it is because of this great difficulty in caring for the aged that we should pay tribute to the many members of the different religious orders, here in Ireland in particular, who spend their lives looking after and caring for, in the considerate way in which they do, these aged persons. There is no doubt in the world that the majority of these aged people are difficult, that they are irritable, that many of them are cantankerous, badtempered and unreasonable and that some of them may indeed take an occasional drink and may at times be offensive to the attendants who look after them, but I still do not think that this penal sub-section is in keeping with the general tenor of our social legislation. I do not think it should be laid down here by us that special legal powers must be taken to deal with cases of intoxication and cases of insubordinationamongst our aged persons. If I could make my feeling on the matter clear, I would prefer a sub-section which would completely reverse the present paragraph (c)—that is, that anybody who is guilty of an act of insubordination in relation to an inmate of one of these county homes should be subject to summary fines and summary imprisonment. That would be my attitude because these aged people are there not through any choice of their own. They are there because most of them, at any rate, are entering into a state of senility, which means that the majority of them are not themselves, that many of them are cantankerous, bad tempered, unreasonable or even take a drink due to physical changes which have taken place in old age. Consequently, we should be particularly careful that every consideration and every latitude be given to these people rather than that they should be treated in the way suggested in this sub-section.

This sub-section is a continuation of the old attitude towards our county homes, our workhouses, which persisted right through the 19th century. These homes were set up, as Deputy Larkin said, as places to which people went through force of circumstances and not of their own free will and it was the determination of the authorities that life in them should be made as hard and as difficult as possible for these aged people. The idea was that they would spend as little time in these homes as possible and, if it could be so arranged, they would be driven out because of unsatisfactory conditions, unduly severe rules and regulations.

There is no reason in the world why the authorities cannot find legal remedies under the existing legal code in order to deal with any person who is intractable or difficult or who is wilfully and repeatedly offensive. I see no reason why this sub-section should be introduced. There are many private homes and institutions throughout the country and it has never been found necessary in their regard to have these extraordinary clauses in anticipation of drunkenness, disorderlyor riotous behaviour on the part of the inmates. Most of these institutions depend for the maintenance of order on the tact and understanding handling of the attendants and religious orders looking after these homes.

The suggestion that the aged poor would be so offensive as to require special legislative clauses providing for dragging them into court is to me utterly repugnant. As a member of the younger generation, I refuse to accept the idea or suggestion that our aged poor require these penal clauses. This is like an echo of the report of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform in 1906; the implicit suggestion in that report was that the poor were poor and destitute through their own criminal negligence in failing to make provision for themselves; that the native Irish were dirty and improvident and should be treated like animals; that they deserved nothing better. The whole conception of workhouses was to degrade and humiliate our people.

I do not think the idea implicit in this sub-section should be allowed to emanate from this House. Our voluntary hospitals find they can run their institutions perfectly well and orderly without any such legislation. Institutions for the aged, such as the MacGeough Home and the excellent institution in Mallow that I had the pleasure of visiting on one occasion, find they can get along perfectly well without legislation such as this. Hotels, to which many aged people go in the latter end of their days, find it unnecessary to have any such legislation.

Into these homes will go the old people who were once patients in local anthority hospitals. We do not find it necessary to have any such legislation in connection with our hospitals. Why should it be necessary, therefore, when we come to deal with the aged poor? The protection that should be given is protection of the aged themselves, rather than the other way around. I am not suggesting that the attendants, or those who look after these old people, are themselves insubordinate, but I would prefer to see protection forthe aged rather than any suggestion of protection against the aged.

I admit that the inmates of county homes are difficult. Any aged person is difficult, cantankerous, quarrelsome and intractable. Some get drunk, though it has always been a puzzle to me how a destitute person can get. drunk sufficiently often to necessitate the enactment of legislation in order to deal with him. Nevertheless, I think it would be a retrograde step for us to continue the atmosphere of penalty inherent in this sub-section. This is a heritage of 19th century legislation in relation to workhouses and the treatment of the aged poor. Most of these people go into these institutions because they have no other choice. Their only crime is the crime of being poor and destitute and it would be wrong for us to accept the suggestion that they should be marked in this way.

It may be suggested this legisilation is for the purpose of catching the vagrant or the person who stays overnight in an institution. Even if that is so. I suggest it is not worth the slur on our aged poor or on ourselves to have this legislation. The tiny percentage of casuals can surely be dealt with without this penal enactment.

I think this is a watered-down piece of legislation inherited from people with a completely different attitude and approach to the, problem of the aged poor from the attitude we have. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. There are cases in which trouble can arise, but I really think this is a too-sweeping power. I object, in particular, to the implication the sub-section carries. The suggestion is that the aged must be treated like delinquent children. I think that is entirely wrong and something alien to our feelings towards our aged poor and I do not think this should go out as the collective will of this House.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid Deputy Dr. Browne has proceeded to debate this sub-section on a basis that is not altogether correct and, from that point of view, I think I should clarify the position at this stage. Nobody would bring in an amendment like this todeal with the aged poor quaaged poor in these institutions. It is necessary for the purpose of dealing with casuals who come into such institutions. I think that if any person were to visit some of the old people in these institutions he would say that this was necessary for their protection. I say that because you have in some of the county homes—it is quite a common practice— casuals of various kinds coming into them on the night before the races. There is one particular town where races are held, and the night before all the casuals come along in the hope of making a few shillings at the races. They spend the night in the county home and when they go in they are not always sober. The fact is that it is not easy to keep order among them.

There is another town where dog races are held a fairly short distance from the county home. There is a view of the dog races from the windows of this county home and the night the dog races are on people come into that county home and fight to get a place at the windows. They make a great deal of trouble, so much so that it would take the Civic Guards to keep order among them in their scramble to get to the windows so as to have a good view of the dog races. These are the sort of things that are taking place and the things that we must keep in mind.

I think the Deputies should look on this provision more as a protection for the old people who, are in the county homes and who want to have peace and quiet and do not want to be disturbed by people coming in for the night. I think that, if Deputies were to look at it from that point of view, their approach to this clause would be quite different from what it is.

It is true, of course, that we have not got these powers in regard to the ordinary institutions, such as hospitals and sanatoria. It must be remembered, however, that the people who go into a hospital or a sanatorium are sent in by medical men. They are suffering from some illness, and it is to be presumed that they go in for the good of their health. In the case of the county homes, however, you have aminority—it is true a small minority— of very undesirable people going into them. Those people are not very amenable to discipline of any kind, and they have to be controlled by rather drastic methods at times. The Guards are not inclined to go into these places if there is a row going on. They say to the head of the institution, whoever he may be, that he is responsible. They regard whatever may be going on in a county home in the same way as they would regard a row going on in a private house. As Deputies are aware, if there is a row in a private house between the members of a family, the Civic Guards do not go in. They leave it to the members of the family to settle it or to prosecute one another if they think fit. The point is that the Guards do not interfere. In the same way, the Guards leave it to the authorities in the county homes to deal with a row if there is one going on. They leave it to the inmates to have it out between themselves or bring a case to court if they think fit.

I do not think that we could possibly run these county homes as long as casuals are admitted to them unless we had a clause of this kind. As I said last night when dealing with this subject, the aim is to try and get the county homes divided up, to get the various categories of people there taken to separate institutions: the unmarried mothers to one, the casuals to another and the old and infirm people to another place. If we had achieved that, then I think there would be no necessity to apply this clause to the institution where the old and infirm were kept. It probably would be necessary to apply it to the building in which the casuals were located. But I think the clause is necessary as long as the county home is an institution where all these people come together.

I must say that I cannot see how a county home could be run without the powers laid down in the sub-section. I would, therefore, appeal to the Deputies who are interested in the good running of these institutions to leave this power so far as the county homes are concerned, at least until we get them broken up into the variouscomponents of the population that we have there at present. If, as I have said, we had achieved that, it would then be only necessary to apply this power to the institution that housed casuals because these are the only people we have in mind so far as the county homes are concerned. I would, therefore, strongly appeal to Deputy Dr. Browne to reconsider his amendment in this case and allow the sub-section to stand.

Mr. MacBride

I do not think that the Minister can have seriously considered the full implications of this sub-section, and that he should reconsider the position. I think the sub-section is outrageous. It is setting up a different code of criminal law for people who are unfortunate enough to find that they have to enter a county home in their old age or because of poverty. I have no doubt that the Minister is really re-enacting something that was there before. He is certainly re-enacting something that is archaic and completely out of tune with the present day. The sub-section hits directly against what is recognised to be a fundamental principle for the administration of the law, that is that there is equality before the law: that, if an offence is created by statute, that offence can be committed by any citizen in the State. There are no privileged or unprivileged in the eyes of the law. Indeed, that is a principle enshrined in the Constitution which we have in this State. I think that if the section remained it might as well be argued that it is completely unconstitutional.

Dr. Ryan

Where is the inequality?

Mr. MacBride

The inequality is this: take paragraph (d) of the sub-section. It creates the offence of misbehaviour, whatever that may be, or conduct which is prejudicial to the discipline——

Dr. Ryan

Misbehaviour is always an offence, no matter where it is committed.

Mr. MacBride

Then there are very few members of this House who wouldremain out of gaol after a stormy debate if that were so.

Dr. Ryan

We all have our rights. That is quite different.

Mr. MacBride

Misbehaviour is not defined in this sub-section. What is the meaning of misbehaviour? Is it misbehaviour if you do not touch your hat to some official when he passes by, or if you do not call somebody "sir"? What does it mean? What is the offence of misbehaviour which is "prejudicial to the discipline and good government of the institution"? If an old person complains, for instance, about the quality of the food will it be argued that that was misbehaviour prejudicial to the good discipline of the institution?

The sub-section creates four new types of offences which can only be committed by persons who are in the institution and imposes a special penalty for them. I think that if anybody cared to try it out that the sub-section would be declared to be unconstitutional because it does violence to the principle of equality before the law which is fundamental to the administration of justice.

I am surprised that the Minister should insist on keeping the sub-section in the Bill because it runs completely contrary to what I understood to be his attitude towards county homes. In earlier discussion I think I raised the question of providing homes for old people more or less on the type of those provided on the Lansbury estate in London and the Minister indicated that he had visited some of these homes and agreed entirely that that was the line to move on. To come along at this stage and re-enact a penal sub-section of this kind would be a step backwards. I do not think it is of any real value. I do not think the Minister can justify it by saying that in one county home there is a window from which you can see dog-racing and that several people want to get to that one window. Surely we can deal with it otherwise than by enacting this section.

Dr. Ryan

How could you?

Mr. MacBride

Close up the window, if you like.

Dr. Ryan

They must admit people.

Mr. MacBride

Do not let the people into the room where the window is. You can take an extreme case of that kind in regard to anything and start making a case for it but, as regards the Minister's case, the average people in the county home are old people; the vagrants and casuals that come in for the night are a very small proportion of the population of the county homes. It would be quite easy to set aside a portion of the county homes for casuals so as to ensure that the old people who are there would not be disturbed by any noise that the casuals might make.

I am speaking subject to contradiction on this, but I do not think a similar position exists even in regard to inmates of prisons. I do not think any special power is taken to deal with them more stringently than people outside. The ordinary law is there and it is capable of being invoked if needs be in regard to the inmates of homes and if anybody in a county home uses obscene language or is drunk in an offensive fashion, the ordinary law can be invoked if needs be. I do not think this sub-section adds very much to the position that exists at the moment but it certainly puts a label on those who, through no fault of theirs, have to enter such a home. The Minister should not persist in it and should accept Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment or withdraw that sub-section.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I am sure every Deputy would be anxious to see the old unions and the workhouses go as soon as possible. I am sure everybody would be anxious to see the inside and outside appearance of our county homes changed overnight if possible. Everybody in this House, I am firmly convinced, wants to get away from the relics of these old poor law institutions. Why then, at this stage, when we are trying to formulate a Health Bill, lay down legislation which permits the continuation of that very system? It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is only intended to apply this to casuals but what does the section say? It says:"county home or similar institution" and what does the sub-section say? It says: "every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similar institution." The Minister's case that this will only apply to casuals cannot be sustained when legislation with that scope is envisaged.

This is a most authoritarian and ruthless piece of legislation and I would be very sorry to see it go out from this House. I am a member of the Dublin Board of Assistance. The Dublin Board of Assistance is an institution which was at one time the biggest union in this country. With the moneys which the Minister and his predecessors made available and by the action of previous Governments there was an endeavour over the years to transform that place from what it once was, a union, into a modern hospital and I would be very sorry to see that that institution would continue, under the Health Bill, 1952, to have powers to treat anybody in St. Kevin's like that.

I would like to join issue with the Minister on each of the points that he has raised in defence of this section. I have a note of them here. He says, first of all, that Deputies are under the impression that this might be used to deal with the aged people in the county homes. Let me point out again to the Minister that the section includes a very wide number of people and includes several different types of institution. If the Minister wants to deal only with casuals—and I do not even accept that where casuals are concerned he should have the legislation—why did not he say so in the section? The scope of this is very wide.

We accept it that there may be a number of casuals who would come into a county home or similar institution, but these people also go into voluntary hospitals and they go into homes provided by voluntary institutions here in the city—soldiers' homes, sailors' homes and various other places. Are those authorities given legislation like this to deal with them? They certainly are not. They can manage perfectly well without it. Often when I havebeen on duty in a voluntary hospital, a casual or a drunk or some obstreperous person has come in during the night. Did we have to have an Act or a section like this to deal with him? Not at all. We telephoned the police and they came and dealt with the situation quite effectively.

When you enact a piece of legislation like that and allow a county home or similar institution, St. Kevin's or wherever else it may be, to deal with somebody in that manner, you immediately class it as something quite apart. The police, the Minister says, refuse to go in there. They refuse to go in and do their job because they know that people who have no power to implement the law are being allowed to take the law into their own hands in these institutions.

I think this is a matter that we would want to consider very seriously. Take the various parts of the section. Paragraph (c) says:—"Every person who does any act of insubordination in relation to an officer of such home or institution." I would ask the Minister to tell me what is meant by that sub-section. That can cover practically anything. Here we have a position where we have a health authority operating a county home or similar institution. The sub-section says that it applies to every person and then we have somebody who is "guilty of an act of insubordination." An act of insubordination could be anything. Why should we, under this Bill, in regard to institutions which we are trying, in the interest of public health and medical progress, to make into decent medical centres, turn them into semi-prisons by giving them power of that nature? I do not want to be facetious about this but a person might get 21 days for speaking to a nurse. This is quite a ridiculous situation.

This legislation was framed when there was a completely different attitude towards public health, when there was a completely different attitude towards illness in medical circles and amongst doctors. This legislation was framed at a time when people who were suffering from mental diseaseswere treated in prisons. What are the casuals to whom we refer? The casuals are the people who in the old days were suffering from mental conditions or other diseases which medicine at that time was not able to diagnose and treat. Most of these people are sick people. St. Kevin's Hospital in Dublin is the biggest institution which will be operating under this scheme and I would say that there are at the moment not more than two or three casuals who come any night to St. Kevin's Hospital. Why, because two or three casuals come to a hospital which has 2,000 beds, should we put in a section here which allows the institution to treat every person maintained by them under sub-section (6) and the very wide scope which it envisages? I have listened very carefully to the points put up by the Minister and I know the explanation. When I raised objection to the section at a board meeting of St. Kevin's Hospital when we were discussing the Bill, the very able executive officer put the objections to me that the Minister has put to the House. I discussed the objections with him and, in my opinion, not one of his objections could be sustained.

I ask the Minister again to look into the points raised. This is an extremely ruthless and authoritarian piece of legislation which covers a very wide scope. It covers county homes and similiar institutions and everybody in these institutions and I see no necessity for taking on to ourselves in any hospital or institution what could be perfectly well done by them.

Mr. Kyne

Last evening we had occasion to congratulate the Minister in connection with another section in this Bill. To-day, I am afraid I must join with Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and Deputy MacBride in condemning this section. I think this could well be termed the Belsen Camp section of the Health Bill. Last evening, under combined pressure from Deputy Dr. Browne, Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll and the Labour Party, with the help of Deputy MacBride, we succeeded in inducing the Minister to withdraw one of these penal clauses. I hope we will succeedto-day in getting him to see that the inclusion of this sub-section will certainly have the county homes looked upon as Belsen Camps. It is an awful thing that we are proposing to have this kind of special legislation.

I am not a bit convinced by the Minister's reply to the points made by Deputy Dr. Browne. The Minister clearly stated yesterday that he hoped when this Bill came into force the county homes, as such, would just shelter aged people who had not the means to keep themselves outside, that he had plans, as a result of which he hoped all the casuals would be transferred elsewhere and the unmarried mothers put into some other institutions. We must look upon this as a section to deal with old people. Would any of us like to think, if our mother had to go into a county home and if, through forgetfulness, she omitted to do something required by the regulations, she would be liable to be dragged before the courts and imprisoned for 21 days?

As one Deputy of the Labour Party I will never consent to the passing of any Bill which contains such a provision.

The story about the casuals is ridiculous. I am certain that the county home in my county is no different from those in the West of Ireland. Admission is by ticket. It is usually given by the relieving officer, and you are not let in after a race meeting unless, with the connivance of the relieving officer, you can get in to stay for the night. I am doubtful that there are people going to race meetings who take the advantage of lodging in the county homes.

Dr. Ryan

You cannot refuse them.

Mr. Kyne

Is it not true that the relieving officer has to satisfy himself that the person is in need of a ticket?

Dr. Ryan

You cannot refuse them.

Mr. Kyne

That is not so. If people on a race night wanted to go into a county home I am quite sure that a reason could be found for refusing them. Is it not also true that this couldbe prevented by closing the gates at 4 or 5 o'clock? That is done regularly even when there is not a race meeting.

Dr. Ryan

If I made a regulation to close the gates at 4 o'clock, I am sure the Deputy would object.

Mr. Kyne

I certainly would, and I have done it. As long as there are needy persons outside I would object to refusing them admission. The Minister should not shelter behind these fictitious persons going to a race meeting. This is a penal clause which I imagine was put in by the officials. It is a hang-over from the old days, and every Deputy should protest against it and say we will not have any going back to the workhouse days. The Minister's statement that these persons cannot be refused admission is ridiculous. There is no such law. The relieving officer has to satisfy himself that the person is in need of shelter. I have seen people refused time and again. The police can come in answer to a phone message and take them away from outside the gate if they are kicking up a row. The Minister says that the police cannot go into a private house. That is so, unless it is on the invitation of the person in charge of the house. They can go in then. If I have visitors in my home and they attempt to murder me, I can call on the police to come in and protect me, and they would be compelled to come in. The same thing applies to casuals in county homes. If they attempt to murder somebody, on receipt of a phone message the police would come and remove them.

I see no reason at all for this provision. It is a desperate thing to think that progressive legislation in the form of a Heath Bill should have these relics of the old Dickens days tied on to it. I appeal to the Minister to see the light of reason and to do as he did last night on the other section, remove the sub-section. In fact, I think the removal of the whole section would be an excellent idea. In the next section the Minister takes power to say that certain people need not be allowed in. Under the next section he can stop race goers fromgoing in and let the ordinary people enjoy, if you like to put it that way, the amenities that the county homes will give them in future without any threat of a term in jail hanging over their heads for any act of omission or commission.

Dr. Ryan

The next section which the Deputy refers to gives the Minister power to make a regulation to exclude certain people. But, of course, the whole idea of the county homes is that they should be places where people who are destitute and who cannot get accommodation elsewhere must be admitted. We must keep that in mind. I have been trying to get this Bill for many days. I am beginning to despair, because I think people are mistaking licence for liberty. Liberty is all right, but you must remember that the old people in these places must have liberty to live and sleep and so on. Are we to have no remedy for dealing with blackguards who kick up a row at night?

Mr. MacBride

You have the ordinary law.

Dr. Ryan

The ordinary law will not work. It is ridiculous for people to talk of liberty for individuals when we are dealing with blackguards. The ordinary law will not work. I told the Deputy that, because the Guards will not come.

Mr. MacBride

Why?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy must listen to me. I am telling him that the ordinary law will not work. If it would, I would not need this. I am beginning to get impatient about this whole thing. I am trying to do my best here for people like these—I am thinking of the old people in these institutions—and I want to have them able to settle down and live a peaceful life and sleep at nights and not have them disturbed in their beds because of a blackguard coming in, and because I want to do that, the peace-loving and liberty-loving Deputies want me to leave the blackguards alone.

Mr. Kyne

The ordinary law works everywhere.

Dr. Ryan

We must have regard to the liberty of the ordinary decent people. Deputy MacBride may say to me we are legislating here for a few people. You might as well say you should have no law relating to murder because only a few people commit murder. It is for the sake of the few, of course, we are legislating, for the few blackguards that might come in and kick up a row in the county home. It is only for these we are legislating. I am determined as far as this clause is concerned to guard the decent old people in these institutions and see that the governors and so on are able to deal with the people who come in.

Somebody said to me that I was thinking of one particular institution where a window overlooks a dog track. I took that as an example that could be given, but surely if I take an example, it is not to be gathered from that that I am only dealing with that individual case. I could give several examples. We want to divide up these county homes, yes, but until they are divided up we must continue to protect the old people.

Mr. Kyne

Another month or two will not make much difference.

Dr. Ryan

Another year or two perhaps. I do not see why Deputies should go absolutely berserk on the idea of the liberty of the individual and allow our old people to be disturbed in their night's rest in the interests of this sort of theoretical liberty.

Mr. Cogan

Most Deputies will have a great deal of sympathy with the points of view put forward by Deputy Dr. Browne, particularly in so far as he stressed the position of the aged and the infirm. We are all anxious to see that the aged and infirm in the county homes enjoy at least as good treatment as in the voluntary hospitals or institutions but I think we have got to be reasonable in this matter. We must recognise that there is a statutory obligation on our county homes at present to accept able-bodied people who are destitute. A person may not be very orderly or very amenable to law or discipline, but if he fulfils the qualification of being destitute thecounty home must, under existing law, admit him. It is therefore necessary that something should be done to protect the other infirm patients there and also to protect the very deserving people who are running those homes. Deputy Dr. Browne referred very eloquently to the services rendered by religious orders in those various institutions. They have a very difficult task to perform and they do perform it with great zeal and self-sacrifice and I think nobody can deny that. It would be wrong to refuse to afford them the little protection that is provided in this section pending the time when those county homes will be divided and become—the county homes proper—purely nursing homes for aged and infirm people. But whatever happens it will always be necessary for the State to provide shelter for able-bodied and completely destitute people, and as long as that is so, that some sort of shelter must be provided for these people, it is essential that special legislation will be there as far as those institutions for the sheltering of the able-bodied destitute are concerned.

I think Deputies on all sides should be reasonable in this matter, and I think there is a certain amount of exaggeration in regard to the position. Deputy MacBride suggested that the problem of able-bodied people coming in and fighting for a particular window from which to view a dog track could be solved by closing up the window, in fact, by turning the county home into a sort of Black Hole of Calcutta with no admission of air or light. The problem is not so easy of solution. As long as there are a few and comparatively only a few able-bodied destitute people there is a statutory obligation on the local authority to provide accommodation. So long as that position remains special legislation is necessary in order to ensure that the shelter and accommodation to be given can be given without doing harm to other people or those people themselves. There is no comparison whatever between the county homes which must admit able-bodied destitute people and the voluntary hospitals or nursing homes of any kind which mayrefuse to admit persons who are disorderly or who misconduct themselves. I understand that the various homes for disabled people run by religious orders and by other wellmeaning people refuse admission to people who make themselves obnoxious and who do not conform to any rules of discipline. They can refuse to admit those people, but the county homes cannot refuse to admit people who fulfil the only qualification required, namely, that they are destitute. As long as that position remains, something should be done about it, but I think the Minister might be able to, meet objections, perhaps, by some rewording of the section so as to differentiate between the able-bodied ambulant persons or casuals and the ordinary infirm patient. I do not know. It may be difficult to draft such a section, but some compromise might be found possible. Certainly nobody wants to impose any hardship or indignity upon the deserving, aged people who find it necessary to avail of the county home accommodation.

This whole discussion reveals the urgent need for the immediate implementation of the reforms which the Minister has suggested, namely, the segregation of the different types of patients so that we shall have instead of the present type of workhouse, homes for the aged and infirm to which no able-bodied person can be admitted. We must then, of course, provide separate institutions for able-bodied people and there again, I think, provision will in that case be found necessay in respect of the separate institutions that may be established for the able-bodied casuals and people of that kind.

Mr. McQuillan

I want to say I have the greatest sympathy in the world with the Minister in dealing with this Health Bill generally. I know perfectly well he has gone through a lot since this Bill came before the House, and I sympathise with him in having to put up with the criticism levelled by the main Opposition Party. But I want him to understand that this, now, is an attempt by the more progressive elements in the Opposition and amongthe Independents to deal in a constructive way with the measure before the House.

As so many constructive suggestions have been put forward, I would ask the Minister to bear in mind that the people who have spoken so far on this sub-section are engaged in an attempt to prevent the re-enactment of legislation in this House to which we are totally opposed. There is no doubt that what is contained in sub-section (6) is a carry-over from former days which we should all like to see removed. No Deputy worth his salt would like to have his name associated with the re-enactment of legislation which for years we have been endeavouring to remove. The Minister has stated that his sole aim at the moment is to protect old people from the blackguards who come in at night, to allow the old people to sleep in comfort and to ensure that these blackguards who come into these institutions according to the Minister are dealt with in a proper manner. In order to give effect to that intention the Minister takes some extraordinary powers in this sub-section in which you have paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I do not want to bore the House by reading them out, but in paragraph (d) it is provided that every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similar institution, who does any act (whether of commission or omission) of misbehaviour in such a home or institution, which is prejudicial to the discipline or good government thereof, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 days. In order to protect old people from a few blackguards that very wide legislation is being enacted.

Last night the Minister decided— and I congratulate him on it—to accept an amendment tabled by Deputy Dr. Browne to delete sub-section (5) under which a health authority, as a condition of the granting of institutional assistance to a person, might require him to perform such work as the authority considered suitable to his sex, age, strength and capacity. That sub-section, as I say,was withdrawn but now we find in the following sub-section that where any person maintained by a health authority in a county home does any act, whether of commission or omission, of misbehaviour he is liable to the penalties I have mentioned. Is it not a fact that in sub-section (6) the Minister is taking unto himself the powers which he already sought under sub-section (5) so that although he has given way on one sub-section he is still retaining the powers which he sought in that sub-section in the following sub-section? I think that to be logical the Minister having accepted the suggestion of Deputy Dr. Browne to delete the previous sub-section should also agree to delete this sub-section.

There is just one other point I want to make with regard to the blackguards, as the Minister described them, who may come into county homes and disturb old people. I know for a fact that one of the reasons why the Garda Síochána will not interfere at the moment when these disturbances occur is that they know that the power is there for the local authority to take action themselves. Naturally enough, no superintendent or sergeant of the Garda will interfere when he knows the power already exists for the local authority themselves to take the necessary action. The Garda are not inclined to act outside their own duties when the power is given, as the Minister wants in this sub-section, to the local authority to take action. If however that sub-section was removed, the Guards will do their duty as they do at present when called into private institutions.

If there is a row in a county home as a result of two or three of these "boyos" having taken a few extra "jars", it is quite a simple thing for the responsible authority to ring up the Garda Síochána and within ten or 15 minutes that little fracas will be dealt with. There is no need to insert specifically in legislation powers to enable the local authority to deal with these matters themselves. I think the Minister, having taken such a progressive line on this health legislation inregard to other matters, should withdraw this sub-section.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I agree with everything that has been said in the debate on this amendment except the remarks of the Minister. I think it rather unfair of the Minister, at a time like this, to infer that there is an attempt at obstruction, at least by the people who have spoken here on this amendment because it is the desire of the Labour Party, in any case, to have the Bill enacted as quickly as possible and any remarks we make or any amendment that might be proposed from this side, are designed merely to improve the Bill. That was the approach of the Labour Party on the Second Reading of the Bill. Our remarks are designed to get information and to be as helpful as we can in having this Bill enacted as speedily as possible. There is no necessity for me to reiterate the objections that were mentioned by Deputy Dr. Browne who proposed this amendment but I should like to mention a few points that occur to myself. The first point is that people who are maintained in an institution such as the county home must have as their first qualification, destitution. If some of these people are charged with insubordination, misbehaviour, or the breaking of any type of regulation, they will be charged by the local authority which in most cases will be the county council. The county council will have their solicitor representing them at the District Court but who is to defend the unfortunate person who has been described as a delinquent? As I said a moment ago the first qualification for these inmates is destitution and I think anybody will agree that if these people are charged with insubordination or misbehaviour, they will not get a fair crack of the whip unless they have adequate means at their disposal for their defence. The Minister has not indicated to us whether free counsel or free legal aid will be provided by the local authority which charges them.

Mr. Allen

That is a good suggestion.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

What is that?

Mr. Allen

Free legal aid.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Does the State not provide free legal aid in certain cases?

Mr. Kyne

Even in cases of murder.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I am asking the Minister to say who is to defend these people unless it is done voluntarily by some solicitor or some legal man in the locality.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

And they would not have any witnesses on their side.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

No, they would not have the advantages that a local authority would have. I would seriously ask, if we are to enact this type of legislation, why should we not introduce similar legislation for hotels, cinemas, theatres or concert halls? I would not place much importance on the arguments that were put forward by the Minister when he said the Guards were reluctant to go into the county homes. The Guards are reluctant to go into hotels if there is a row. The Guards will always think twice before they go into a dance hall in order to prevent a row. The Guards will think twice before they go into a public-house even though they hear the din inside. The usual procedure is that the manager of a hotel, or some other official or employee, calls the Guards on the phone. In a cinema the manager will summon the Guards if there is a row kicked up and a Guard is promptly on the scene. The same thing applies in relation to dance halls and other places of public assembly. In particular, I give the example of the hotel. The Minister made the point that no person can be refused admission to a county home and it is, therefore, difficult to keep out the blackguard and the rascal. The same argument could be put forward in relation to hotels. So far as my information goes, the hotel proprietor has no right to refuse anyone who presents himself to be bedded down for the night or fed.

I do not think that the Minister's argument has impressed many of us here. I find it difficult to believe that race-goers of the type the Minister described can get free accommodation in the county home on the night before a big race meeting in a particular town. I think that would be stretching State charity a little too far. I am perfectly certain the local authority can prevent people from using county homes as hotels. That may have happened, but it is not the casuals who are at fault: it is the people in charge of the homes who are at fault. The Minister cited that example as a practice that is carried on. Surely the officials could use their ingenuity to prevent that practice. As far as I know officials can prevent a county home being used as a hotel before a race meeting.

I think Deputy Kyne was right when he described this section as the Belsen Camp section. I find it somewhat extraordinary that we should have to legislate in such a strong form for blackguards, who are in a small minority, when the fact is that this penalty of 21 days' imprisonment can well be applied to some unfortunate inmate who errs unconsciously and who, if this is passed into law, will have to go to the District Court without legal aid to prove that what he did was in fact a real error on his part.

Mr. Allen

On the road to perfection we can sometimes become ridiculous. We all aim at perfection. Deputy Corish has just told us that not alone should there not be this provision but that if any of the people whom this provision is meant to cover break up the county home or beat the matron they should be provided with legal aid in court.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I did not say that.

Mr. Allen

That is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. The Deputy asked that legal aid should be provided for these people.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I asked the Minister who would provide legal aid?

Mr. Allen

The Deputy wants the Minister to provide legal aid for people who beat up the matrons in county homes. If that is not from the sublime to the ridiculous, I do not know what is. There can be no question about that.

Mr. Kyne

What about the case where an inmate might kill the matron?

Mr. Allen

The sub-section reads:—

"Every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similar institution who—

(a) wilfully does any act (whether of commission or omission) which is a contravention of a regulation in force by virtue of this Act in such home or institution,

(b) is by reason of the consumption of intoxicating liquor, drunk or incapable of conducting himself in such home or institution,

(c) does any act of insubordination in relation to an officer of such home or institution."

Deputy McQuillan spoke on this a short time ago. Deputy McQuillan was a member of a disciplined force, and as a member of that disciplined force he knows quite well that if any member of that force damages the property of the Minister for Defence he is subject to punishment.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

He would not get 21 days for insubordination.

Mr. Allen

Many a one got 21 days in the glass-house for breaking up a barracks and these were men who were not under the influence of drink.

Mr. L. Walsh

Sometimes.

Mr. Allen

Sometimes. In schools and voluntary institutions there are regulations for the protection of property. There must be some regulation. Provision is being made here for specified offences. If these offences are not committed, nothing will happen. There will be no charge against anyone. This is for the protection ofofficials of the institution from assault or insubordination through drunkenness.

Mr. McQuillan

Why not call the Guards in a case like that?

Mr. Kyne

You were not hanged in England 100 years ago unless you stole the sheep.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Kyne wants to defend the itinerant who thinks well of calling to the county home when he likes and demanding admission. There must be some provision to ensure that these people conduct themselves in an orderly manner. The section will not operate unless certain specified offences are committed. We all believe in liberty but we do not believe in licence, though some Deputies seem to want licence.

Mr. Kyne

I suggest the existing law covers any situation that might arise.

Mr. MacBride

There seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding in relation to the purpose of this sub-section. The sub-section does not affect the right of the management of a county home to call in the Guards. At the same time it does not confer upon the authorities any additional rights to maintain order or discipline. The purpose of the sub-section is to create a new set of offences applicable only to the inmates of county homes. It will not give the manager one iota of power as regards the calling in of the Guards other than the power he has at the moment. It creates four new sets of offences and creates a punishment in respect of each of these offences. In other words the section says that there will be the black citizens who are in these county homes who are liable to certain penalties, but that the white citizens who are not in these homes cannot be convicted of these offences. It sets up two separate codes of law, one in respect of old people, the unmarried mothers and so on who are in these homes, and one in respect of the ordinary citizen whois not in these homes. That, I think, is a very fundamental objection.

I agree entirely with the objections which have been put forward by the other Deputies. If you like, the objections put forward have been in the main on humanitarian grounds and on a psychological approach to the problem. I endorse everything that they have said in that respect. It seems to me that there is the very important principle that we are now enacting a law which imposes special penalties and creates special offences in respect of a limited class of persons who, mainly because of poverty, find themselves in one of these homes. This, as Deputy MacEoin remarks to me, is a Public Safety Act applicable only to the inmates of these homes. Therefore, I think the Minister should be patient with us and not become intolerant of criticism because this does raise a completely new principle.

I think Deputy Allen referred to the question of the maintenance of discipline in the Army. As far as I know the only case in which special offences are created are in regard to the Army, and, God knows, I think we hedged them in the Defence Bill and in the Constitution with a tremendous number of safeguards to ensure that persons subject to military discipline may be tried in a different way or may suffer different penalties. That has caused, not merely this Parliament, but every Parliament in the civilised world a considerable amount of trouble and difficulty. By this sub-section, you are adding a third category of people. We will have the ordinary citizens, the ordinary civilians of the state; we will have the Army, those subject to military discipline, and now we will have a third category composed of persons subject to a special code of law applying to themselves.

As I said before, this does not add one iota to the powers which the management of the county homes have for enforcing discipline in the county homes. It is quite easy to make capital on one side or the other as to the type of person who goes into the county home. But let us face realities. The fact is that 95 per cent. ofthe inmates of the county homes are old people who are destitute, with probably a percentage of unmarried mothers. The number of troublesome cases is fairly small. I do not want to emphasise the example which the Minister took of the county home where there is a window overlooking a racecourse. But, surely, it should be possible to set aside, in every county home, one or two rooms into which the troublesome type of casual could go for the night. If a person were intoxicated it should be possible to have a room into which that person should go so as to keep him away from the rest of the inhabitants. I am certain that is done in practice.

Deputy Allen referred to the need for the maintenance of discipline in the Army. We are not dealing with the Army here. We are dealing with the very opposite, with weak, old defenceless people. Several references have been made, I think on both sides of the House, to the reluctance of the Guards to go in. This sub-section will not affect the willingness or unwillingness of the Guards to go into a county home. If they are called in, presumably they will go there and carry out their duty. That is a matter for the Guards. If a person rings up the Guards and tells them that there is noisy behaviour in his home it is the duty of the Guards to investigate that. If there is a danger of a breach of the peace being committed, it is the duty of the Guards to intervene.

The sub-section creates a number of offences. One is the offence of insubordination. What does that mean? Insubordination is not an offence under the civil law. It is an offence under military law, and there are definitions of insubordination under the military code of law. I do not see how that code of law can be applied to old people in the county homes. It would be ridiculous. What then does it mean? Does it mean a refusal on the part of some old person in the county home to do something that he is ordered to do by an attendant—for example, to refuse to get up in the morning.

Captain Cowan

A lot of us like to do that from time to time.

General MacEoin

It would be an offence under this.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Even last Thursday morning.

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Mr. MacBride

What is the definition of misbehaviour?

Captain Cowan

There was no great advantage in getting up.

Dr. Ryan

Even Fine Gael are getting liberal now.

Mr. MacBride

What is the definition of misbehaviour? Probably most members of this House could be accused of misbehaviour when they become irrelevant or rowdy in the course of their speeches in the House. I think that the Minister should yield to the pressure which has come from all sides of the House in regard to the sub-section. I do not think there is any need for a sub-section of this kind at all. If the Minister has the need, there is a simple way by which he could get over it. That is, instead of the sub-section, to include a provision to provide that any act which would constitute an offence, if committed in a public place, shall constitute an offence if committed in a county home. In making that suggestion to him, I was thinking of the cases that the Minister might wish to deal with.

It is not an offence for a person to be drunk in his own home, but it becomes an offence if he is drunk in a public place. Likewise, it is not an offence to make as much noise as one likes in his own home, but it is an offence to make noise in a public place and disturb the peace of the neighbourhood. If the Minister's case amounts to this, that he has no power to prevent persons from getting drunk in county homes and is unable to prevent it by the ordinary running of the place, or if he says that he has no power to prevent people from being noisy in the county home on the ground that it is not a public place, he can get over that difficulty by including in the Bill a short section saying that any act which constitutesan offence if committed in a public place shall likewise be an offence if committed in the county home. I do not think he has need for that actually. I think the ordinary common sense of the management of the county home should be able to prevail and obviate the necessity for any penal clause of this kind. Certainly, it would be outrageous to ask the House to pass the sub-section as it stands now. I am sure the Minister agrees. He should withdraw it and not waste any more of our time.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

Deputy MacBride makes play about the interpretation of "insubordination". Let us come down to realities. I shall deal with a county home that I know, Mullingar County Home. It is administered by the Sisters of Mercy and their approach to everything is in charity and kindness.

Mr. MacBride

I am sure it is.

Mr. Kennedy

To say that persons will be brought before the court if they refuse to get up out of bed is ridiculous and removed from realities. One would think that the district justices were tyrants and were forever packing people off to jail. The realities are that it is very hard to get a conviction, that fines are mitigated and the Probation Act is applied again and again. To paint the picture that anyone that is brought before the court—which would be a rare thing— is summarily sent to Mountjoy or somewhere else is ridiculous.

Deputy Corish is surprised that people go to the county home on the eve of a race meeting. If he lived in a locality where there are race meetings he would know that that is a fact and that the Minister is making an understatement. If he were a member of a public board he would know the trouble that occurs again and again as a result of people coming in. The Act lays it down that a person must get in for shelter and maintenance if he has not shelter and maintenance. Existing legislation lays itdown that they can go to a warden in Mullingar or any other town for a ticket which will admit them. That is honoured more in the breach than the observance.

They apply, Sometimes, not always, and not in the majority of cases, they are intoxicated. They are taken in and treated humanely. As a member for 25 years of the Westmeath County Council and having been on the board of health for a number of years, I know of cases that have occurred again and again where rows have been created by these people. They have created trouble for the nuns and trouble for the nurses. The old people who have been in the homes for years have been disturbed. They made life impossible through the night until the Guards came on the scene.

These are the actual facts of the case. These casuals come along on the eve of Mullingar races, on the eve of Mullingar show, very often on the eve of Mullingar fair—there are 14 fairs in the year—and they give immense trouble.

Mr. McQuillan

You cannot penalise the whole country on account of Mullingar.

Mr. Kennedy

The Deputy will not draw that red herring across the path. What is true of Mullingar is true of every other town of its size where there is a county institution. There are the two categories—the old and infirm people, who are well looked after, and the casuals who come along and claim maintenance and shelter for the night.

Mr. Kyne

Surely these are kept separate.

Mr. Kennedy

It does not matter where they are kept. They have no right to wreck the place.

Mr. Kyne

The story about keeping the people awake is just another red herring.

Mr. Kennedy

If the Deputy was ever through these institutions he would know that the buildings are comparatively small and compact. Disturbance in any part of the building often affects the adjoining hospital and the T.B.ward in Mullingar, which is in the same building.

Mr. McQuillan

The Parliamentary Secretary knows the story of the tramp who walked through all the towns in Ireland but ran through Mullingar.

Mr. Kennedy

I heard it about every town, about Kinnegad and Naas. That does not take one whit away from the argument I am making or from the soundness of the case I have put up.

Captain Cowan

I feel that we are wasting a tremendous lot of time on this section. In my view the section as it stands should not have been put into the Bill at all. We must have a reasonable approach to a problem that exists. Whether a person is in a hotel or a county home or anywhere else it is only reasonable to expect him to behave himself. That is a fundamental point on which we would all agree. If he does not behave himself, if he is in a hotel he can be thrown out. I take it the same can apply to a county home or institution. If a person becomes obnoxious to the inmates there is no obligation to keep him there. That is the first consideration. If an institution is provided for a number of people, no individual should be permitted to make life a hell for the other inmates.

Having said that, I am inclined to the view that the draftsman took this section out of an old Act and wrote it in and that there is an attempt being made now to justify the section. You can make grounds of justification of some kind. You can defend anything. It is part of my profession to do that.

Mr. Kyne

You are trying, anyhow.

Captain Cowan

One can defend anything. Deputy Allen and the Parliamentary Secretary are endeavouring to defend this section on certain personal knowledge that they have of things that have occurred in the past. Let us look at the section. Obviously, if an institution is to be run, there must be some regulations in regard to it and those regulations must beobeyed. They are just like traffic regulations. If they are not obeyed there has to be some penalty for not obeying them. What that penalty is is a matter for consideration. In my view it is not the sort of penalty that is provided in the section.

We come to the next matter—a person who is drunk. The ordinary law refers to a person who is drunk and incapable. The ordinary law does not convict a man of being drunk; he has to be drunk and incapable or he must be drunk and kicking up a row or drunk and riotous, or something like that. If you are simply drunk, it is no offence unless you happen to be in the driving seat of a motor car or driving along the road. If an inmate is drunk he can be dealt with under the ordinary law, if he is drunk and incapable or if he is drunk and riotous. You come to a very queer point in sub-paragraph (b) that if by reason of intoxicating liquor he is incapable of conducting himself, he commits an offence. That is the sort of thing that should never be written into legislation —that he is incapable of conducting himself. A lot of people even in this House are not capable of conducting themselves at times.

This is the sort of thing which, in my opinion, should not be written into legislation: "does any act of insubordination in relation to an officer of such home or institution...." We have reached the crossroads I suppose now. I do not know whether we are going into civilisation or where we are going, but for more than 100 years we have had experience of penalties for insubordination and what was insubordination in the old days. That a human being should express himself in front of a minor official is considered insubordination. I would not stand for the insertion in any Bill of a provision that an unfortunate person who simply expresses himself, perhaps forcibly in the way Deputy Dillon might express himself, to an officer of an institution is guilty of insubordination. I do not think it is right and I do not think we ought to have it in this Bill.

Then we come to the last sub-section: "does any other act (whether of commission or omission) of misbehaviour in such home or institution which is prejudicial to the discipline or the good government thereof." I have had many years' experience in the Army and we used to have a section in the Army regulations, Section 68, that anybody who walked in such a way that his corporal or sergeant did not like was guilty of an act prejudicial to good order and military discipline. No section has been abused so much during my 30 years' experience as that particular section. You almost had to crawl on your hands and knees to avoid committing that offence, if some superior happened to be around. We do not want that sort of thing.

If this section is passed, and if there was an attempt to put it into force, we would be creating an instrument of tyranny for petty minor officials in these county institutions. I am all for reasonable regulations, reasonably enforced, in any institution, just as we have them in this House. But I think that the draftsman in this case got a section out of an old Act, perhaps more than 100 years old, and put it in and now there is an attempt made to justify it. We want to get this Bill passed and into law as quickly as we can. I ask the Minister to say that, having heard the views expressed by Deputies, he will have this section reexamined and then we can talk about it on the Report Stage if necessary. Deputies have expressed themselves very forcibly in regard to it. The Minister will realise that this is really an argument between two things, between the old approach and the new approach, and I think the Minister, when he has time to consider what has been urged by Deputies, may be able to bring in a section which will be considered to be reasonable by this House. I ask him to do that now and let us get on with the Bill.

Dr. Browne

I have listened to the explanation by the Minister and I ask him to have patience with us. As Deputy Corish said, I think the majority of Deputies have quite honestly spoken from the deepest convictionin regard to this matter. Speaking for myself, I think it can hardly be said that I am attempting to hold up the passage of this Bill through the House. Nothing could be further from my mind, because all that the Minister has suffered during the discussion of this Bill has been suffered equally by me in the attempt to delay its passage through the House.

I objected to this section and I still object to it. I believe that it is a reflection on the aged persons in our county homes. As they are in the majority in our county institutions, I consider that this is sectional legislation against a group of persons who are destitute, legislation against persons who are either aged or who are in these places because they are paupers. I believe that this sub-section is a direct descendant of all the obnoxious, objectionable legal impositions carried out in the atmosphere of landlordism and in an attempt to degrade our people in the centuries gone by. I do not think that is an exaggeration. It is a perfectly just criticism of this sub-section.

It is interesting to notice that in this report which I have mentioned on a number of occasions of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform in Ireland issued in 1906, which was a most ludicrous document practically in every section, on page 54, chapter 211, this explanation is given about the casual or vagrant wards: "Admissions very often to the vagrant ward of a particular workhouse for the night are far more numerous on the eve or on the night of general popular assemblies, whether cattle fairs, markets, races, or athletic sports." That was the explanation given to the Government in 1906. I do not think it is an explanation which we can accept in 1953 as a justification for this sub-section. It is a slur on our aged poor people and even on our vagrants. I believe that if the vagrants are handled in the right way it is possible to deal with them without these penal clauses. Even if it were not possible, as Deputies on all sides have pointed out, particuarly the legal Deputies who have knowledge of these matters, the Guards have a right to come in if called upon and help anybody such as a ReverendMother or whoever may be running these institutions. As I said, our existing voluntary institutions of this kind do not require this legislation. People running these institutions or even bona fidepublic houses can deal with blackguards by calling the Guards if they feel it is necessary.

I do not think it is good enough that we should merely get an assurance from the Minister that there is no implication on the character of our aged persons. In this section it is clearly implied that if an old man in one of these institutions gets a few shillings from home or from relatives in America or elsewhere and goes out and has a few drinks and is a little truculent when he comes back, the official can use this power. Nobody has fought the more—shall I say—reactionary Deputies in this House than I have on this question of the delegation of power to officials. I think that it is highly dangerous. I think our answer is perfectly sustained. If we are careless about the type of legislation we entrust to our paid officials they will carry out only that which we enact in this House, and it is only in that way I can stand over the provision of legislation and the delegation of power and the making of regulations through the Minister. I think the powers in this sub-section are much too wide and far-reaching, and while it may suit officials or official advisers of the county homes, or of the Department or anywhere else, we are the people who make the laws and we make the laws under which regulations are provided to carry out our will. It would be very nice to provide legislation which would release an official from all his worries by providing in this House—as many of us would like—a guillotine act every time we are obstructed. I have often wished for it myself but we always give way to our feelings that the right thing to do is to reason and wait and have patience, and we know that in time we will get it in the ordinary, proper way of democratic assembly.

Similarly, in the way of discipline in institutions, there is the hard way ofslapping a person into jail or taking criminal proceedings against them or reasoning with them, trying to educate them and to improve their conditions of life. A majority of these people are largely vagrants, who because of the state of society in which they were brought up are now on the road and out of occupation. And the fact that they are on the road and out of occupation is our fault. We should have provided them with these things so that they could have fitted themselves for a job and kept out of the county homes. Anybody would think that the vagrants wanted to be on the road or went to the county home because they preferred it to the Gresham Hotel. I think we should be very much more lenient and much more understanding of these people's problems. We should tend at all stages to protect them to the best of our ability against the fruits of our own inadequacies as Governments in not providing them with employment.

Deputy Allen tended to attack Deputy Kyne because he said that he wished to defend the itinerants who go the road and expect to get food and shelter and so on. If Deputy Kyne does not want to defend the itinerant and anybody else who is in need of such protection, I do. Just because they are vagrants or tramps or because they are aged or poor or destitute, that is all the more reason in my view why we should be particularly cautious and careful in interfering with their liberty. They have exactly the same rights under the Constitution as any of us here or in the Gresham or Shelbourne Hotels, or as any person of wealth. It is in defence of that liberty which I hold above everything in spite of the accusations that have been made against me on the matter from time to time, that I oppose this present Section 6 as I opposed the previous section. I must continue to press my amendment.

Mr. Kyne

I was rather surprised to be the subject of such an attack by the Minister because of our apparent defence of the person who goes the roads. God knows one would have thought that there are plenty Deputy Allens and plenty Ministers and officialswaiting to make all the rules against that type, and that he would rather welcome the fact that some of us in the Labour movement with the help of some Independent Deputies were prepared to stand up and fight for the rights of these people who have no money, no influence and no position.

I am glad that Deputy Dr. Browne referred to Deputy Allen's attack on me. I only hope Deputy Dr. Browne did not intend to suggest that I was in any way drawing back because of Deputy Allen's attack from the position I have adopted not only in this House but in actual practice. Throughout the length and breadth of the County Waterford it is known that my house is ever open for the man on the road and I have become unpopular with officials in the County Waterford on this account and please God I will not seek their grace if it is to the detriment of the man of no money and what is more important to me—the man who has no vote in my constituency. No matter what the Minister says under this Act if my mother or any of our mothers had the misfortune to go into a county home and did not like the soup and refused or neglected to eat it she could then be charged—I do not say convicted— with insubordination and hauled before the District Justice. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated it would be a waste of time, that even where such people were guilty, it would be hardly possible to secure a conviction at all. If that is so, is there any need at all for this section if it is not going to get convictions? We all know that if you give powers and delegate wide powers to officials you might get one unscrupulous official who will take advantage of the power.

I am not quite satisfied, in spite of some statement made by someone, that just because a certain section or community is in charge of a county home, there will not be injustice. I am not at all satisfied with that. I am afraid I would keep a watch on all county homes run by anyone because you will always get people with strange ideas who will do strange things.

I believe that the statement of the Minister in connection with keeping people awake is not in actual fact quite correct. Taking our own county home, people who come in singing or quarrelsome are lodged in a separate ward and while there might be some minor commotion certainly there is nothing so serious that it will keep the old people in all the wards awake all night. I will suggest again—I made this suggestion to the Reverend Mother and when I made it and it was acted upon there was no trouble—that there was nothing to prevent the Reverend Mother from ringing up the police and bringing them out as a hotel or publican might do. The police have come in and have taken back into prison the people causing the trouble. Surely that law is there and if it can be acted on in Dungarvan in County Waterford surely it can also be acted on in Mullingar or anywhere else.

I say there is no reason for this section and I would see grave injustice in it. Not only do we not want to be connected with the old Victorian laws but surely while this section is there how can we induce or advocate to old people that they ought to take advantage of the county homes that we have provided? We hope to make the county homes something better than they are for old people. Surely while that section is hanging over us, all our aims will be defeated by the section itself.

Dr. Ryan

This is a repeated piece of legislation except in one respect. That is that in the Public Assistance Act of 1939 this section refers to all institutions including hospitals. Now in the new Act it only applies to county homes.

Mr. MacBride

What is the purpose of the words "similar institutions" in the second line?

Dr. Ryan

Similar to county homes. The point was that we considered it was no longer necessary to apply it to hospitals, sanatoria and so on because in such institutions people are sent in by some doctor to have treatment applied and it is presumed that therewill be no trouble as far as they are concerned. It was considered necessary to have these powers until these institutions are divided up and old people are put into a place for themselves and casuals provided for in a separate institution. If we had reached that stage, it would possibly be unnecessary to have these powers or, if necessary, they certainly need only apply to institutions where casauls would be housed. I do not think that anybody ever had the slightest idea that this clause should apply to old people who are in the county homes permanently, not as casuals. That has been the law for many years but anybody listening to the debate here might well become frightened that when this Bill is passed they will be reading every day in the paper of people being brought before the district justice and getting three weeks' imprisonment for misbehaviour. Is it not extraordinary that nothing like that has happened for the last 20 or 30 years? Yet the law was there and applied not only to county homes but to county hospitals. I never read of such a case in the papers but the fact that the law was there gave people in charge of county homes an assurance that they had authority to deal with anybody who might create trouble.

I always wonder how Deputies can take such a pessimistic view of the future in matters of this kind and conveniently forget the past—how they conveniently forget that for years and years this power has been there. I do not know how Deputies can conjure up such a gruesome picture of the future of people who will come before the District Courts and of the extravagant sentences they are going to get. I do not see how we can run these institutions without having some power there. There are voluntary institutions in existence that provide a night's lodging for destitute people but they need not accept them if they do not wish to do so. They are purely voluntary and if a person creates any trouble after admission, they can throw him out and nothing can be said to them. Here we are dealing with county homes which are bound to accept these destitute people if theyare unable to get lodging elsewhere or are unable to pay for it. I think if they are in that position, they must at least be provided with power to deal with these people if they do not want to behave themselves. I do not want to be unreasonable. Deputy Cowan made a suggestion in analysing this section which perhaps on examination would at least warrant a closer investigation of this whole clause. For instance so far as paragraph (c) is concerned, I do not mind whether that goes out or not because I do not see very much meaning in it. If a person is insubordinate, I am very sure that if the Reverend Mother in charge of a county home brings that man before a district justice and says: "This man was insubordinate," she will not get very far, so we might as well leave out that clause. As my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary says, our experience when we read in the papers about people being brought before the district justices is that they are not very ready in regard to inflicting sentences. You would want to have a very good case before they will inflict a sentence and I am quite sure that on their present form, if you bring a man before them and say: "This man was insubordinate," the district justice will merely say: "dismiss" or "probation". In regard to paragraph (b) Deputy Cowan has suggested that the words "drunk or incapable of conducting himself" are rather difficult to interpret and that we might substitute words such as "drunk and disorderly".

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want proceedings to be taken unless a man is disorderly. If a man drinks too much, comes in and sleeps it off, we can leave it at that. They can give him his pension in the morning and let him off. If he is not disorderly, it will not be necessary to take any action against him. I think however that in regard to paragraphs (a) and (d) it will be necessary to have some clause to cover them together. If an institution makes rules of various kinds, let us say to the effect that a man must be in bed at10 or 11 o'clock, he must keep the rules and therefore we must have some clause to cover paragraphs (a) and (d), in regard to the observance of the rules of an institution. Everybody knows that if a person is a little bit off the mark, if he sits up in bed at night smoking a cigarette after lights have been put out, a district justice is not going to give him three weeks in jail. But if he is grossly violating the rules, if he gets out of bed at night and is walking around and singing, it might be necessary to take serious notice of such conduct. I think therefore we shall have to insert something in the section to the effect that an inmate must keep the rules of the institution. The rules will be laid down by regulation and this House will have an opportunity of examining what the rules are. If Deputies think they are in any way unreasonable, they can deal with that.

There is one other point I wish to make. Deputy Kyne said there was not very much in the point that I made that these people might keep old people in the institution awake because the old people were remote from them. Perhaps they are kept remote from them in the county home which Deputy Kyne knows but that does not always happen. Every county home cannot make provision to have them kept a long distance away. Sometimes they are very close to these people. I do not want to be accused of being unsympathetic to itinerants. As a matter of fact, when I was young and had more opportunity of talking to these people, I knew many of them in the country. I found they were most interesting and that some of them were very clever. Far from being unsympathetic to these people I was very sympathetic to them and very friendly with them.

Mr. Kyne

It was only in your capacity as Minister, that I accused you of that.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy knows that no matter how good a society you have, whether it be in the Labour Party or Fianna Fáil, you will always have a few difficult persons to deal with. Itis only to be expected that where people drift into an institution of this kind, you are likely to have some people who must be dealt with sternly. So far as I am concerned, I do not want to be unreasonable. I quite agree with what Deputy Dr. Browne said that most of the speakers—I am not looking to my right now—were honest in the way they approached the subject. I am willing to redraft this section to meet the views expressed.

Mr. Kyne

There is just this point that I should like to be explained as I am not quite clear about it. Does the Minister assure me that it is compulsory for a relieving officer to issue a ticket? Supposing a drunken itinerant comes along, is the relieving officer not in a position to say to himself: "In my opinion that man has had sufficient money to make himself drunk."

Dr. Ryan

He may say that, but look at sub-section (2). If he is unable to provide shelter for himself the relieving officer must give it to him.

Mr. Kyne

But is not the question as to whether or not he is able to provide shelter a question of which the relieving officer is the judge?

Dr. Ryan

That is so.

Mr. Kyne

If the relieving officer says you had enough money to get drunk and you should have enough money to pay for yourself in a lodging house or hotel and I will give you no ticket——

Dr. Ryan

If the money is gone on drink and he has no money he must be allowed in.

Mr. Kyne

There is no question of the relieving officer searching or anything like that. I have known cases in which the relieving officer has said: "In my opinion you are not a suitable person".

Progress reported! Committee to sit again.