Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1953

Vol. 140 No. 8

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 72.

Mr. Kyne

I find it difficult to accept the explanations given by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with this sub-section. I am satisfied that if it is our wish to continue county homes as such for the housing of the aged and infirm, as well as unmarried mothers and casuals who go there for a night or two or even for a period of 18months, as the Minister said, it would be more desirable that we should run the risk of rows being kicked up rather than include this sub-section to minimise such a risk. The Minister has very fairly indicated that it is hoped in a couple of years to rearrange our county homes and to have separate institutions for casuals and unmarried mothers. In that eventuality the county homes would become more or less county hospitals for the care of the aged and infirm. I think it would be most undesirable to have any legislative clause implying that these people would enter such homes subject to the risk of being charged in court with an offence and subject to the risk, should that offence be proved, of serious punishment. I agree that the number of occasions on which these offences might occur will probably be infinitesimal. For that very reason, indeed, I think it would be well to exclude this sub-section completely.

A few weeks ago the Taoiseach when replying to the confidence motion before this House, stated that people enjoyed pensions and the right to go into our county homes as a right because they in earlier life had as rate-payers contributed to the establishment of these institutions. If people have a right to enter such a home because they and their people before them have paid rates, then we should not include such a sub-section as this in health legislation here. The Minister promised to look into this matter in response to an appeal from Deputy Cowan. This amendment was tabled by Deputy Dr. Browne and we were satisfied that this sub-section should be wiped out. We are prepared to support Deputy Dr. Browne. I think the Minister should withdraw this odious sub-section.

Dr. Browne

I am glad to hear that this legislation is the last remaining piece of such legislation applicable to our health institutions up to now. I think that is a welcome improvement. This particular clause does not apply to hospital institutions, T.B. sanatoria and so on. I welcome that. I am afraid the assurance given by theMinister, though it was given quite bona fide,does not cover the aged person and would not be sufficient when it came to an interpretation of the law. Unless the old person is specifically mentioned, the Minister's assurance would not be binding on any subsequent local authority or official who wished to implement the provisions of this sub-section.

This is discriminatory legislation in relation to our county homes. These homes should be places of refuge for the old in their declining years. They should be places in which the old can live in dignity and with a feeling of self-respect, the right of any citizen in a democratic republic. If they have to enter our institutions with the threat of this sub-section hanging over their heads, that will sadly impair the dignity they should feel. The general attitude would be that they would be regarded as irresponsible, unruly and unmannerly people.

This is a retention of the old pauper type of legislation imposed on this nation in bygone years. While the other parts of this Bill represent a progressive attitude on health legislation, this sub-section represents a retrograde step, because there should not be sectional legislation in relation to the destitute aged. A very important principle is involved. The Minister may say that the purpose is to catch the blackguard. Examples have been given in which a vagrant in these county homes has assaulted a member of the staff. I sometimes wonder if the member of the staff does not deserve the assault. I am not suggesting they all do, but it is possible for people to be offensive on both sides and the offence need not always be on the side of the vagrant. There is no point in pursuing that particular line at the moment and I would not like to condemn all because of the weaknesses and failings of the few. Deputies have pointed out that there is no section of society without its drunks, its unruly and irresponsible hooligans and its blackguards. It has not been found necessary to legislate for them. It has not been found necessary to legislate for the hotels, the cinemas and so on. Consequently, since this sub-section is directed towards our county homes inwhich the majority of our aged poor find shelter in the declining years I must press my amendment.

Mr. MacBride

I think the Minister indicated earlier this afternoon that he was prepared to drop paragraph (c) of sub-section (6). I do not think the Minister seems to have appreciated the objection which is taken to the whole concept of this sub-section: that is, that there should be a separate type of criminal law set up in regard to the inmates of our county homes. It is an objection in principle.

The Minister says that probably the sub-section will not be resorted to. That may well be so, but why include it in the statute? There are many things that we might all wish to provide for in legislation, things that are never likely to occur, but it would be a tremendous waste of time to include sections in an Act of Parliament dealing with eventualities that are never likely to occur. Therefore we do not do it.

The fundamental objection is to the fact that a separate code of law is being created in respect of the inmates of county homes. You have the ordinary citizen whose conduct is subject to the Constitution and to the law of the land, and side by side you have this inferior type of citizen who is not entitled to the protection of the ordinary law, but is subject to a separate criminal code though that citizen has done nothing to deprive himself of his right of being regarded as equal before the law with every other citizen. His only offence is that he happens to be poor. That is the principle which is involved. I think the Minister should short circuit this discussion by agreeing to withdraw the whole sub-section.

Mr. Larkin

Frankly, I cannot understand how the Minister can persist in his decision to maintain this sub-section. Yesterday, he accepted an amendment to delete a sub-section to provide for task work. The approach made by a number of us to the two sub-sections is the same. If we provide places to which men and women can go when they find themselves indifficult circumstances, places to which they can go not as a charity but as a right due to the citizen, and if we are to regard them not as something next door to the criminal class, then I suggest our whole attitude has to be conditioned by that approach.

The Minister accepted arguments yesterday in regard to task work and agreed to withdraw that particular sub-section. The same mentality is behind this sub-section. As Deputy MacBride has pointed out, what in fact we are proposing to do here is to establish another code of law for those people in the same way as we have established a special military code of law. The arguments to support a military code of law were peculiar to the whole basis on which military courts are set up, but there can be no similar arguments in regard to these citizens who have to go to the county homes, whether they be old people or people in their adult years.

If these powers are necessary in the county homes, why are they not necessary in the night shelter in Back Lane? The whole argument of the Minister was directed to what he regards as the vagrant class. He said there was no intention of applying these powers to the elderly people in the county homes. I should like to point out that the same class of people have to have recourse to night lodgings in Dublin, the night shelter in Back Lane and to Iveagh House. I do not know why they should be called vagrants just because they are unfortunate enough to be out of work, have no home and have to depend on the goodwill of the community. If those who run lodging houses and night shelters in Dublin are able to conduct those places without special powers such as are being asked for here, why should we give such powers to the officials in charge of county homes? The fact that the officials in charge of the county homes are public officials gives them much greater standing and authority than that possessed by those who carry on these night shelters in Dublin. The latter are run by private individuals, ordinary men and women, who give their time free for social work of that kind. The ordinary employeesin charge of Iveagh House are able to manage it without any difficulty.

Captain Cowan

Does the Deputy know that the Minister proposes to delete paragraph (c) of sub-section (3)?

Mr. Larkin

I know that. What we are arguing against is the principle that is involved in this. We object to the carrying over of the workhouse atmosphere into any legislation passed by this House. The argument that there was such provision in previous Acts cannot justify the inclusion of a sub-section such as this in this Health Bill. It is no argument to say that this sub-section is necessary to deal with vagrants. I think that the term "vagrant" is just as objectionable as the term workhouse. If there are vagrants it is because we are not doing our job. It is well known that if you treat a criminal as a criminal he will be a criminal. If you treat an ordinary decent man as a vagrant then he will be one.

The point I am making is, why should these powers be necessary for a county home when they are not necessary in the same type of institution where men are provided with night shelter through the work and organising effort of people with a sense of social responsibility? What are the special circumstances which require that, because a man is merely guilty of contravening some regulation in a county home, he should be treated as having committed a criminal offence? I am not concerned as to whether the Minister is prepared to amend other sections or not. I feel that we should make a stand on this. I understand that the Minister has been a little bit impatient in listening to the discussion, except from one section of the House. He should remember that there are others in the House who are trying to make this a better Bill. We do not regard the Bill as a good Bill. We are giving such credit to the Minister as he is entitled to for the introduction of the Bill, but we think that it can be very much improved. Whatever improvements are made in the Bill, as aresult of our discussions, will be to the credit of the Minister. Whatever the final outcome of the Bill is the Minister will get the credit for that. There is, therefore, no use in the Minister getting impatient and telling us we are wasting a lot of time. We can waste a lot more time if that is the position that is going to be put to us.

We are not asking the Minister to accept any amendment except on the basis of the arguments supporting them. What we do object to is to be told that we are wasting time when we put forward arguments. The Minister was prepared to amend other sections because there were votes involved and because the suggestions came from certain quarters of the House. If we are to deal with the merits of the case, let us do so, and not have decisions made merely because a particular member of the House puts the suggestions forward. As far as we are concerned, we think the section should be taken out and we think the House should stand on that decision and let the Minister make up his mind one way or the other.

Mr. McGrath

I do not agree with the last speaker that the same type of people are dealt with in these lodging houses, such as Iveagh House, that he has been talking about, as are dealt with in the county homes. There are aged, destitute people living in the county homes who have to make their home there for the rest of their lives. It is only right that we should protect those people against the ordinary casuals, vagrants or whatever you like to call them. I do not know whether the Deputy is aware of it or not but in some institutions many casuals go in for a night's lodging and disturb the people who have to make the county home their home. We are anxious to make the county home as good as possible for these old people. This section is aimed at protecting those people more than anything else. I certainly think that the ordinary decent man who is destitute and down-and-out at the end of his days is entitled to protection from people who come in casually and kick up rows in the institution.

Captain Cowan

I thought, before the tea interval, that this matter had been entirely settled. Certain arguments were advanced to the Minister and the Minister said that he is prepared to agree that (b) and (c) should go and that (a) and (d) should be reconsidered, and that on the Report Stage an amendment would be introduced by him to deal with the position based on the arguments we have heard. I thought the matter was solved. It is a reasonable approach by the Minister, when points are put to him, that he would say: "All right. I am convinced about (b) and (c), and as far as (a) and (d) are concerned I am prepared to examine them and, on the basis of the arguments that have been addressed to me, to consider the whole position and I will introduce an amendment on the Report Stage." That was done because strong arguments were advanced to him from all sides of the House in regard to this matter.

The one thing that I am opposed to and that I do not want to see established is what I consider tyranny of what one might term the minor official class, the greatest tyranny that one can imagine. I do not know what Deputy Corish means by that.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

By what?

Captain Cowan

Perhaps I should not have heard it. When people think aloud they often can be heard.

Mr. Larkin

He said that you were starting to criticise the section again.

Captain Cowan

Yes. I have advanced all the criticism of the section already and I had an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. Kyne

That he would look into the matter.

Captain Cowan

The House had an assurance that he would look into the matter and would introduce an amendment on Report Stage which he thought would meet the views of the House.

Mr. Kyne

The view of the House is that the section should be removed.

Captain Cowan

Let us examine it. Whatever institution you run must be governed by rules. This House is governed by rules. Deputy MacBride belongs to an institution that is run by very strict rules.

Mr. MacBride

But you do not go to jail as a result of breaking the rules. You get put out.

Captain Cowan

You go to the very next thing which, in so far as a barrister, say, of Deputy MacBride's standing is concerned, is that he may be disbarred for a breach of the rules, which would be a very serious matter. Deputy Larkin belongs to an organisation—the trade unions—which have the very strictest rules.

Mr. Larkin

We have to deal with tough characters but we have to deal with them under the ordinary common law, the same as anyone else.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Larkin belongs to an organisation which is run by the very strictest of rules. I had an example the other day. A man, a member of a union, was sent out by his union to fill a vacancy that existed and was appointed. On that very same night there was a meeting of his branch of the union which decided that he was not to take that job.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan is widening the debate very much if he continues in that strain.

Captain Cowan

With all respect, this debate on matters of principle could not be widened any more than it is. With respect to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, when we are dealing with this matter we have to deal with it on a basis of common-sense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot discuss trade union activities or decisions on this amendment.

Captain Cowan

I am discussing the rules governing organisations and institutions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Relevant to the amendment?

Captain Cowan

Absolutely relevant to the amendment, just as relevant as anything that has been said.

Mr. Kyne

You are not obeying rules.

Captain Cowan

I am only saying that this man who was sent forward from his union to accept this job was ordered by his union that night to leave the job in accordance with rules. That man had a wife and five children to support. It was a very tragic thing as far as his wife and children were concerned but he had to obey the trade union rule because it was the trade union rule and he had to give up the job and go on unemployment assistance under the trade union rule. I had that case on Thursday of last week.

I am prepared for anarchism. I will discuss anarchism with anybody. Deputy MacBride has no objection to enforcing rules. In fact, he invented rules even in a political Party to get rid of some of the people that were supporting him.

Dr. Ryan

Ad hocrules.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is widening the debate on this amendment.

Captain Cowan

If I were an old decrepit person sent into a county home I would certainly not like to be sent into one that Deputy MacBride ruled over.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this amendment.

Captain Cowan

I hope he will never be put in that position of persecuting unfortunate old people. Let us be reasonable. Do we want this Bill to pass or not? I do not mind what Deputy MacBride may have done during the tea interval to create the position we are now discussing. Before the tea interval we had an assurance from the Minister that this matter would be looked into on the basis of the arguments that were addressed to him, that sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) of the section would be dropped and that sub-paragraphs (a)and (d) would be drafted in such a way that it would in no way interfere with the human dignity of any person who goes into an institution.

Are we going to accept that or are we not? Are we just going to play a bit of politics about it? That is what it boils down to. This is a Health Bill. At 5 o'clock this evening I asked the Minister to do that. He agreed to do it so that we could get on with the other sections. On Report Stage, if the amendment that the Minister brings in is not acceptable, we can, if we like, drop it but, when the Minister has said that, in view of the arguments, he will consider the matter, that he will prepare a section instead of the present one which he will put before the House, if we are to be reasonable or fair we have to consider that. The point is, can you run a county home without any rules at all?

Mr. Larkin

Nobody suggested that.

Captain Cowan

That is the point. If you make rules and a person breaks them, what are you going to do?

Mr. Larkin

Put him in jail.

Captain Cowan

That is not what happens. Supposing a person breaks a rule, are you going to ignore it or are you going to deal with it? I know some countries where they have very strict rules, very advanced socialist countries. I think they have very strict rules in Russia and they enforce them very strictly. I think that if we are to have an ordered society there must be some enforcement of rules, whether the rules of trade unions, the rules of a bar association or the rules of a political Party, and these are generally carried out.

One thing that Deputy Dr. Browne is very keen about and I am very keen about—Deputy Dr. Browne was the man who examined this and took objection to this section and put down an amendment—is that we want to see as far as the ordinary old people in county homes are concerned that they are not to be dealt with in any tyrannical manner, that as far as unmarried mothers are concerned they are not to be dealt with on any basis of tyranny,but that as far as other people in the county homes are concerned, they cannot be permitted just to make a shambles of the place if they want to. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. Having heard the arguments advanced, I think the Minister will produce an amendment which will receive the support of this House. The Minister stated that any rules that will be made under this section when it is amended will be submitted for the approval of this House; in other words, the amendment will be extended to that extent.

If we are to have a system of anarchy, very well. In our secondary schools it would be grand if there were no rules or authority, but there have to be rules and authority in secondary schools. There have to be rules and authority in primary schools. In the different trade unions and organisations to which we belong there must be some rules.

The vital thing I see in this section is that a man who requires shelter and is unable to provide it for himself must get the shelter. Therefore, the local authority must provide the shelter. With regard to the other institutions mentioned by Deputy Larkin, the Back Lane institution and different voluntary institutions, if a person acts in an offensive or objectionable way he is simply put outside the door and that is their discipline. Under this section the local authority is bound to provide shelter for a person who is unable to provide it for himself. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that we must obey certain rules. For instance, if the rules say that breakfast will be from 9 to 10 o'clock, I do not think anyone would agree that a person should be able to demand it at 11.30. Some of us might like to do that, but we find that even our wives enforce a pretty stiff discipline upon us. The same thing applies to the other meal hours.

The one thing I want to see is that there is no question of interference with the human dignity of an individual, and there is no interference with the human dignity of an individual if he subjects himself to reasonable rules approved of by the Parliament of this country in the year 1953. DeputyMacBride may find that there is something unreasonable in the rules of his own profession of law. But the rules are there and he accepts them. He does not find that they are as bad as might be imagined in theory. Deputy Larkin is in the same position in regard to members of trade unions who, in the general interest, have to submit to certain rules for the organisation and control of trade unions. The same thing applies to individuals who go to the university or to secondary or primary schools.

If the argument is for anarchy, let us say so. But if what Deputy Dr. Browne is attempting is to prevent any humiliation of individuals, then I think we can ensure that by agreeing to allow the Minister to consider the matter on the basis he has indicated, having heard the arguments from all sides of the House. If we want to get a good section which will help us to provide that, then we ought to agree to let the Minister have his second attempt at it.

It is very funny that the argument should have developed in the way it has developed on the part of people who are supporting the Bill, the Labour Party, the Independents and the Fianna Fáil Party. They are supporting the Bill and yet this argument has arisen. I saw no sign of impatience on the part of the Minister and I see no necessity for the type of threat made—that the Bill will be held up. Fine Gael have been doing very well in holding it up for some weeks.

General MacEoin

You are not doing badly now.

Captain Cowan

You can sit back very nicely and say that. Fine Gael will sit back and say: "You are doing all right". But when we agree on a point, then Fine Gael comes in to hold up the Bill. It seems to me that the sensible thing is to let the Minister consider what he would put in instead of what is there. On the arguments advanced to him, I think that the sort of section he will put in will be a section to which no Deputy can take exception, that it will not be a section that will lead to the humiliation of any human being. If it does not leadto humiliation, then the House could very well accept it.

The main thing, as I said earlier, is to prevent the creation of a tyranny by minor officials. It has been shown very clearly by what has been said that we will not stand for a tyranny by minor officials, that we will not pass any rules in this House that will result in that type of tyranny, and that we will not pass a section into law that will enable that sort of tyranny to be put into practice. Therefore, I think we ought to accept the assurance which the Minister has given to the House and then we will see what he will produce on the Report Stage. This is the month of July and the Government are determined, and it is one of my determinations, that this Bill will be passed in spite of any reactionary opposition there may be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

Captain Cowan

I want to make that clear.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made it clear that he is getting away from the amendment.

Captain Cowan

As far as the amendment is concerned, even if it is discussed until next September, this Bill has to be got through. The Minister says that he will look into this and I think we ought to accept that and go ahead with the other sections of the Bill.

Mr. Larkin

I would like to concentrate on two phrases used by Captain Cowan, one that there must be general agreement that at all costs we would avoid the humiliation of any human being. The second was that we should do nothing that would in any way injure the dignity of any human being. Those are two points on which I feel that no matter how reasonable the Minister may be, there is an issue involved on which we should make a stand. Deputy Cowan has pointed out that the Minister is prepared to withdraw paragraphs (b) and (c) and rephrase (a) and (d). All that is required is to rephrase the section and say:"every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similar institution who wilfully does any act ... commits an offence". Deputy Cowan says the Minister will bring the regulations back so that we can have a look at them. We have had a lot of experience of what we can——

Captain Cowan

I do not want to say I would accept an amendment phrased in that way. There are a number of things I would want to go into it.

Mr. Larkin

Agreed, but do you not see that so long as the amendment merely indicates that regulations can be made and the breach of these regulations is an offence, it will be against the principle for which we are fighting? Any unfortunate man who, because of his poverty, must have recourse to the county home knows that when he crosses the gates of the county home we have already branded him as a special type for whom special laws must be made, and the law is that the regulations are of such a character that if he breaks them it is an offence against the law.

If he breaks the laws of a trades union he is merely dealt with as a member of that organisation who has broken the rules, and ordinary action within the rules is taken against him, but he is not a transgressor against the law and he is not open either to a fine or the penalty of imprisonment.

Captain Cowan

I would prefer the fine or imprisonment to some of the professional penalties that are imposed.

Mr. Larkin

What the Deputy's views are in that regard are not very interesting at the moment. What I am concerned with is that a member of a trades union or a member of the legal profession voluntarily becomes a member of that organisation and accepts the rules and regulations, and if he breaks them, he is not proceeded against as a criminal, however harsh the penalty for breaking the rules may be. Perhaps, in the case of the legal profession, he is barred; maybe in the case of membership of a trades union, his membership is taken away and certainconsequences follow and that is the end of it. In this particular case we are saying that regulations and rules are necessary. Nobody objects to that, but what we see in addition is that because A or B or C are unfortunate enough to go into the county home we decide we are going to create a special set of laws for Pat Clancy or Pat Murphy and they operate when he crosses the gates of the county home; and he crosses the gates because of his poverty. That is my objection and I cannot see how the Minister can draft regulations that will avoid that difficulty in regard to principle, because if it merely states that when John Murphy walks down the corridor he should keep three feet from each side of the wall and, if he does not, he is guilty of a breach of the regulations and then he is guilty of an offence. That raises the whole question of principle.

There is grave concern for the aged people in county homes to see that they are not disturbed or interfered with. Everybody will agree with that, but whatever may be the difference, I personally feel that however strong the claim of the aged people to rest and contentment may be in their old age, we are not entitled to go to the other extreme and brand the man or woman who has also got to have recourse to the county home as some special type of individual who is outside the criminal law of the country and has to have a special set of laws made for him because he is going into a county home.

Captain Cowan

Have not motorists special laws made for them—or sports organisations?

Mr. Larkin

Granted, but the laws are not being made because of their poverty.

Mr. Kyne

He becomes a motorist of his own choice.

Mr. McGrath

A special law is being brought in to protect the destitute and the poor.

Mr. Larkin

And we are going to do it by manufacturing a special set oflaws to deal with the poor person who, because we in our wisdom or lack of wisdom are unable to prevent him from being poor, has to have recourse to those social aids. We agree there must be regulations and orders which everybody agrees are necessary to run any organisation. The only difference, we say, is you can break a rule or a regulation of a trades union, of a sports club, or of the bar association or anything else and all that will happen is that the penalty provided will be imposed.

Dr. Ryan

You would never get a job for the rest of your life.

Captain Cowan

Deputy MacBride and I fought for the principle of having everything decided by the courts.

Mr. Larkin

Provided we had plenty of money we could keep the courts going night and day.

Captain Cowan

No, we fought for ordinary individual members who might have no money at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Larkin.

Mr. Larkin

Because he is poor we have to establish a type of offence. Deputy Cowan is talking about being Socialists, but he started the fundamental thing in this.

Captain Cowan

I am sure that Deputy Larkin knows very well that there are very strict rules in Russia. Mr. Beria knows something about them.

Mr. Larkin

It is a good job you are not there. It is very interesting to see Deputy Cowan now using the same argument that he used against Deputy MacEntee. We who call ourselves Socialists do not regard poverty as a crime. That is what is being done here.

Mr. McGrath

We are protecting poverty.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Larkin should be allowed to make his case.

Mr. Larkin

How?

Mr. McGrath

Protecting poverty from the casual rowdy.

Mr. Larkin

Is every man that comes to the county home a casual rowdy?

Mr. McGrath

No.

Mr. Larkin

Then why do you say it? Are we not entitled to protect the man who is not a rowdy?

Dr. Ryan

He knows that it is all bunkum.

Mr. Larkin

No.

Dr. Ryan

It is just bunkum.

Mr. Larkin

Well, then you can deal with it your own way.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I would like to associate myself with the tribute which Dr. Browne has paid to the nursing sisters of religious orders, and I think that that might apply very well also to the lay nursing sisters, but there I part company with Dr. Browne on this issue and for the following reason. I happen to be a member of a public health authority and I visit the institution in my district occasionally and I know of many incidents which have occurred in that institution through what might be called undesirables, fairly able-bodied people who applied for a night's shelter. I myself, as one who issues tickets of admission, have refused to issue a ticket of admission to a fairly hefty man because he was under the influence of drink.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

So they can refuse admission?

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I did refuse because he was under the influence of drink. I feel that the people for whom the county homes are provided are people who have served this nation well in their day.

If poverty has overtaken them, that is no fault of theirs. It is our bounden duty to protect these old and infirm people and to see that they will be permitted to end their days in the county homes, at least in peace. That is all that is asked by the Minister in this amendment. The amendmentmay be harsh and there may be means of modifying it. I believe that it can be modified.

I, for one, have had experience of visiting institutions other than public institutions. One of them was the old ex-soldiers' home in Washington in the United States. There they had a system of strict regulations and rules governing the conduct of people who sought accommodation in that old soldiers' home. There is nothing wrong in my opinion—in fact, I believe it is our duty—in ensuring that these people in the county homes should be protected. I do not know what the exact layout of county homes outside my own county is, but I do know that in my county we have a form of county home, a form of hospital and a form of institution for unmarried mothers in which there are a number of young children. I do know that scenes take place late at night in that institution and that assistance had to be sought to prevent that sort of conduct. I do not think that Deputy Larkin is right in describing all these people as decent working people. Many of them are decent but a considerable number of them are not decent working people. Of course, when we reach that Utopia when there will be no want anywhere, all our troubles will come to an end, but I believe that, under existing conditions, it is necessary for the Minister to provide some protection for the inmates of these institutions and to see that people who have to go to the county home are allowed to remain there in peace and comfort for the rest of their days.

Mr. MacBride

I do not want to prolong the debate but I should like to clear up a misunderstanding, if the last Deputy is labouring under any misunderstanding. I do not think that Deputy Cowan is labouring under any misunderstanding. He understands the position fully but he is only concerned——

Captain Cowan

I should like the Deputy to speak a little louder.

Mr. MacBride

I was saying that no one really minds what Deputy Cowan says because we all know that he is mainly actuated by malice.

Captain Cowan

Against whom?

Mr. MacBride

Against me and various other persons. So far as the last Deputy who spoke is concerned, the only point I want to make is that nobody suggests that there should not be rules for the running of these institutions. Of course there have to be, but our complaint is that the Minister is asking us to implement a new code of criminal law.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

There is nothing criminal about it.

Mr. MacBride

That is where the Deputy is making a mistake. If a person is convicted under this section, he is convicted of a criminal offence. That is what we are trying to get the Minister to change. I think the Ministerwould not be losing any powers or weakening his position in any way if he agreed to delete the sub-section.

Dr. Ryan

We are being accused here by certain purists of being against the poor man. I only want to say that the greatest blackguard I knew was a big farmer in my county who sold his farm, drank all his money, went into the county home and created hell there. Is it suggested that we should allow a blackguard like that to come into the home at night and pull people out of bed? That is the sort of conduct we want to deal with.

Mr. MacBride

You could deal with him under the ordinary law.

Question—"That the sub-section stand part of the Bill"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Fanning, John.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gallagher, Colm.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Little, Patrick J.
• McCann, John.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Browne, Noel C.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• McQuillan, John.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.

Question declared carried.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 73:—

To delete sub-section (7) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(7) Where the Minister directs by Order that a specified class of persons shall not be sheltered or maintained under this section by or on behalf of a health authority in a specified institution, the authority shall not (except in cases of urgent necessity) shelter or maintain, or arrange for the shelter or maintenance of, any persons of that class in that institution.

In considering this clause some Deputies interpreted this sub-section as applying to all institutions. I do not think it could be legally so interpreted but, in order to allay any doubts or fears, I have had sub-section (7) redrafted to make it quite clear that it refers only to county homes.

Mr. MacBride

To what type of person will the section apply?

Dr. Ryan

It is intended, as soon as possible, to remove certain categories, such as unmarried mothers and mentally defective children, from the county homes. As soon as we can effect that an Order will be made that unmarried mothers and mentally defective children cannot be taken into county homes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 74 not moved.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The Minister last night agreed to accept an amendment tabled by Deputy Dr. Browne to delete sub-section (5), a sub-section requiring persons in an institution to perform such work as a local authority might consider suitable having regard to sex, age, strength, capacity and so forth. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether or not there is in any other Health Act or legislation dealing with county homes a provision, which has not been repealed, giving the right to local authorities to insist that inmates will work.

Dr. Ryan

No, I do not think so. That particular sub-section replaces, I think, Section 25, sub-section (1) of the 1939 Act. Now that the county homes are handed over to the health authorities, I think that cannot apply.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Would the Minister look into it between now and the Report Stage?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

I am not very clear as to what sub-section (4) means. The sub-section provides that the Minister may make regulations governing the giving of institutional assistance and may provide for requiring persons to contribute in specified cases towards the cost of providing them with such institutional assistance. Will the Minister say what that means?

Dr. Ryan

It means that, if a person has means, a certain amount can be claimed from him for his maintenance in the county home. It has been quite a common practice for years in the case of old age pensioners. A certain amount of the pension is taken for maintenance and the remainder is left to the pensioner.

Dr. Esmonde

Can the Minister say how much is taken from the old age pensioner and how much is left to him for his own use? Further, can he say whether there will be any alteration in that position?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think there is any hard and fast rule. I think the usual thing is to leave him about 7/6.

Dr. Esmonde

Supposing a person had some little private means of, say, 5/-, 6/- or 7/- a week, can the Minister say how much he would be allowed to retain?

Dr. Ryan

The usual thing is to allow these people to retain about 7/6.

Dr. Esmonde

And that 7/6 is clear?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Larkin

There is one small matter that I should like to raise. In Dublin, and I suppose in other partsof the country as well, we occasionally have cases where families are evicted, very often for no fault of their own. These families are compelled to seek shelter in St. Kevin's in Dublin and in the county homes in other parts of the country. It seems to be the practice that when that happens the family is separated. I have known of such cases myself where, owing to the housing difficulty, families have had to remain in St. Kevin's for as long as two years. Would the Minister see if it would be possible to ensure that in cases of that kind the members of the family should not be separated, but should be given accommodation in the institution?

Seeing that we all profess such a great regard for family life, it seems to me that it is regrettable that a family should be broken up in that way. The members of the family are separated when they have to stay in the institution for a period. The fact that families have to remain so long in these institutions is, as I say, due to the housing difficulty. If the Minister could do anything to remedy that situation it would be appreciated.

Dr. Ryan

I could not answer the Deputy off-hand as regards that particular instance. In my talks with local authorities about starting colonies for the old people, I have stressed that, as far as possible, they should have one for men, one for women and one for married couples, so that the married couples could live together. I could not say off-hand whether that could be done in an emergency case. Personally, I would like to see it provided for, if possible. I do not know whether it can be done or not.

Mr. Larkin

I realise that there would be great difficulties, but I put it to the Minister that if anything could be done to remedy the situation it would be desirable. In a number of cases that I have come across, I am aware that because of this separation the family, and particularly the mother, has been most anxious to leave the institution. If we could avoid this separation it certainly would be desirable.

Dr. Ryan

I will look into it.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

It is obvious that in an institution it would be extremely difficult to provide quarters for the husband, wife and children— that is, for the whole family—but I do not think it would be so difficult to provide accommodation for the mother and children.

Dr. Ryan

I think that is usually done.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

That would be a step in the right direction. I know that for many years it was the practice in St. Kevin's not to break up the family.

Mr. MacBride

In regard to sub-section (8), I take it that the sub-section will have to be amended consequent on the deletion of sub-section (5).

Dr. Ryan

That will have to come up on Report.

Mr. MacBride

It might be advisable, in case some people in the county homes might be willing and desirous to work, without being compelled to work, if the Minister were to reintroduce sub-section (8) as amended, deleting all references to sub-section (5).

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. MacBride

If the Minister is recasting that sub-section it might be desirable to amend the last five or six lines of it. As far as I can gather, the purpose of these five or six lines of the sub-section is to deprive a person who might sustain an injury while working of his contractual rights. Sub-section (8), as it stands, provides that: "where a person is required in pursuance of sub-section (5) to perform work." Well, sub-section (5) has been deleted. Sub-section (8) goes on to say that if he does such work he shall:—

"...be deemed, in relation to the doing thereof, to be for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934 and 1948, a workman in the employment of the healthauthority, but, save as aforesaid, neither such requisition nor the performance of the work by such person shall operate to create or imply the relation of master and servant or a contract of service between the health authority and such person."

I take it that the real purpose of that proviso is to protect the local authority against any claim that might be made on foot of negligence should a person be injured while doing such work by the negligence of the local authority. I may be wrong but that is my impression. I think that is probably the purpose of that proviso. I think on the whole the Minister should drop it. If, through the negligence of a local authority, a person who is doing work as an inmate of a county home sustains injuries, that person should be entitled to his common law remedy if he has one and it should not be taken away from him.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know.

Mr. MacBride

Would the Minister look into it?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. MacBride

I think it is a thing which should be looked into.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

I want to raise a point on sub-section (5).

Dr. Ryan

It has gone out.

Dr. Esmonde

But the Minister will be redrafting that.

Mr. MacBride

Oh, no.

Question agreed to.

SECTION 50.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 75:—

In sub-section (8), page 18, line 48, to delete "45" and substitute "47".

This is just to correct an error.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ryan

I move amendment No. 76:—

In sub-section (9), page 19, line 3, to insert "subject to such conditions as they think fit," before "contribute".

In this particular section, first of all, we had regard to a person who has a boarded-out child and who gets very fond of that child and would like to adopt it. Very often, of course, in such conditions, the foster parent is not very well off and is dependent to some extent on the income that he or she might get for the child in order to keep that child. I think, however, we should not allow that to interfere with the foster parent's affection for the child and we therefore provided that adoption might be carried out in that case but that the allowance might be continued even if adoption was carried out. The next thing that arose was that we got representations from those who are interested in adoption, that it is possible that it might work the other way, that an unscrupulous foster parent might adopt a child in order to have a sure continuance of the allowance. This amendment is to correct a mistake in that direction. Even though a foster parent would adopt a child, the foster parent might be subject to the condition of inspection the same as was there before the child was adopted.

I must say that I am rather doubtful about the whole thing. It is very, very difficult to keep an even balance, as it were, in this whole problem. Deputies will realise, of course, that if a person takes a boarded-out child that child can be taken from the person by the local authority if the child is not well treated, but it is quite possible that the foster parent may become very fond of the child and would like to adopt it and, if that is genuine, it is all well and good and if the foster parent is not too well off, let the local authority continue the allowance.

Then we have to guard against the other position that a foster parent might say: "The local authority can take this child from me any time they like but if I adopt it they cannot take it from me". We have to guardagainst that contingency for the sake of the child.

That is why I am putting in this amendment that where the local authority is continuing to pay an allowance when the child has been adopted they can make such conditions as they think fit. The only condition that I can see at the moment that they would make is that they would continue inspection. They cannot make a condition that they will take the child back again because the Adoption Act fixes that. The only condition that I could see that they could possibly make is that they could continue inspection and in that way try to safeguard the child if there was any doubt about it

Mr. MacBride

May I ask the Minister a question which will resolve any difficulties I have about the whole section? I do not know whether it is fair to ask the Minister or not. Does the section embody the views and recommendations of an extremely competent lady inspector in the Minister's Department who deals with boarded-out children?

Dr. Ryan

The inspector agrees, yes.

Mr. MacBride

Does it embody her views? There is no one more competent to deal with that matter than she is.

Dr. Ryan

The Adoption Board comes in independent of us altogether. They may sanction adoption without any reference to us.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister states that in the event of a person adopting a child the allowance may be continued.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

As a safeguard against an unscrupulous person adopting a child and to a certain extent victimising that child for the sake of obtaining the money, he proposes to continue the inspection?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

I appreciate the principle behind that, but I do not see that the Minister has any redress. What redress would the authority have? Take the case where a person is unscrupulous, what redress have they other than the stopping of the allowance?

Dr. Ryan

That is all.

Dr. Esmonde

The trouble is that it is the child that suffers then. You have to be very careful in a thing like this. I quite appreciate what the Minister is trying to do. Unscrupulous people who have a child and want to hang on to that child at all costs so that they can draw the allowance can adopt it. It subsequently transpires that they have done it for that particular purpose. The authority then comes on the scene and inspects and considers that the situation is not satisfactory. Then they stop the allowance. Who is going to suffer? The child will suffer. The Minister is handing away his authority.

Dr. Ryan

I quite agree that you cannot do very much when the adoption takes place except that the inspection may have some good effect on the parent. The parent may not be too hardened a criminal. He may be more kind to the child on account of the inspection.

Dr. Esmonde

I see that, but I do not think that we should let this go through too easily, without discussing it amongst ourselves. Who is going to decide, first of all, that the person is suitable to adopt the child?

Dr. Ryan

The Adoption Board decide that.

Dr. Esmonde

Could the Minister tell us who that board are?

Dr. Ryan

They are set up under the Adoption Act. The Adoption Board, in all probability, would ask for a report from the inspector under the Department of Health or the local authority. The inspector who was in touch with the family would have a fair idea of whether it would be safe to allow the adoption to take place ornot, but a mistake may be made. That is all.

Dr. Esmonde

I am thinking of the exploitation of a child. As a safeguard would it not be better to have a probationary period?

Dr. Ryan

They probably will have that.

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister not consider embodying that in the legislation?

Dr. Ryan

I could not do that. That is for the Adoption Board.

Mr. MacBride

Perhaps I can relieve some of Dr. Esmonde's difficulty. As I understand the position, at the moment, children boarded out are subject to inspection regularly and the question of adoption will only arise after the child has been boarded out for a period of time and, therefore, the Adoption Board will have the benefit of the report from the inspectors of the Department and the local authority before they act in the matter.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. MacBride

There is only one request I would make to the Minister— I agree entirely with him that it is quite a difficult problem. I have a great deal of personal experience in this type of case. I would appeal to the Minister not to hesitate to come back to the House if he finds that he requires an alteration in regard to this. He may find after a year's working that it does not work satisfactorily and he may want a different type of power. I know how easy it is to put a thing on the long finger.

Dr. Ryan

My difficulty is, once the adoption takes place what can you do? The only thing to do is, if you like, to exercise a certain amount of persuasion on the people to look after the child properly.

General MacEoin

The Minister is quite correct. Once the adoption takes place, I cannot see what he can do except to stop the contribution.But, as Deputy Dr. Esmonde stated, the child would suffer in that event.

Dr. Ryan

That is true.

General McEoin

Then the child becomes an unwanted child in that household. I do not know how the Minister can get over it. I cannot accept the point of view put forward by Deputy MacBride, that the Minister should not hesitate to come back for further powers at a later date. That would only come about after grave hardships had arisen. When the Adoption Board is going to make an order, I think the Minister should have some say in the matter and see that there would be a probationary period of one, two or three years. I think that he should have some influence on the board's decision so that the child would be fairly protected in the event of any hardship arising.

Dr. Ryan

We had some discussion with the Adoption Board and I think that will be done; at least, the adoption will not take place without consultation with the local authority or the Department.

Mr. MacBride

And with the inspectors of the Department?

Dr. Ryan

Through the inspectors.

Dr. Esmonde

I suggest to the Minister that when a child is boarded out with foster-parents a certain period should be allowed to lapse before the question of adoption is considered. I am looking at it from this angle. Assuming that the foster-parents have not the best intentions and are simply looking for the money, they may have a child for a very short period and may be able to hoodwink even such an astute person as the inspector. I suggest, therefore, that a certain period should be allowed to elapse before adoption would be considered. I do not know whether that is the position at present and I should like the Minister to make a statement with regard to it. It seems to me that if we pass this legislation a position may arise that a person may have a child for a year or 18 months. It would be quite easy in that short period to create theimpression that the home is a very good one for the particular child and the Adoption Board might receive such a report from the inspector. As Deputy MacEoin has pointed out, the damage will then be done. I do not think it meets the case that the Minister should come back to the House to look for further legislation.

The boarding-out of children is a very serious problem. We have all the deepest sympathy with children with no parents who have to be boarded-out and I think we should protect them in every way. Subject to the Minister discussing the matter with the Adoption Board and with his officials, I suggest that a certain time limit should be fixed before he permits the adoption to become an accomplished fact.

Mr. MacBride

I would be influenced in regard to this by the fact that the officers dealing with this problem in the Minister's Department apparently feel that this is an improvement on the situation as it exists now. They are better qualified to advise on the realities of the situation than we are and, if they feel they require this section, I think they should have it.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to make it clear that the local authorities are very particular about the people with whom they board out children. They always select very reputable people. You may take it that you are dealing with very decent people, but there may be a wrong done now and again. It is to guard against that we are putting in this amendment. The Adoption Board has power to fix a probation period of two years, and I think they will be likely to use that power in cases of this kind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me with regard to some particular cases I have in mind. As Deputy Dr. Esmonde said, we all have sympathy with children who have no parents. I think wewould also have sympathy with children whose names are not known. I should like the Minister to enlighten me if he can in regard to two cases of boarded-out children whose foster-parents can get no particulars as to their birth or as to at least one of their parents. Is there any legislation under which the Minister can compel the person by whom the child was given to the foster-parents to disclose some information at least about the birth of the child? I know of two cases where the person who handed over the child would not disclose even its age. In one case the boy is now about 19 years of age, and the time is coming when he will need a birth certificate of some kind for national health insurance, or unemployment assistance, or matters of that kind. The foster-mother discovers now that she cannot get such a certificate and has only a rough idea as to the boy's age. Both these foster-parents have difficulty with regard to the question of adoption. because the Adoption Board requires a fair amount of information before they will permit adoption. These two people have tried unsuccessfully since the passing of the Adoption Act to get the required information.

There is another question which I am sure that the Minister will consider. A large number of the boarded-out children were born in county homes or other institutions and I am sure the Minister will think it desirable that in the description of the place of birth on the certificate, instead of "county home" the particular name of the institution should be put in, such as St. Kevin's or St. John's.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Does not the short certificate avoid all that?

Brendán Mac Fheórais

The short certificate would save a certain amount of embarrassment to illegitimate children, but as far as I know it would give the actual description where the birth was registered, which would in all cases be the county home in Limerick or the county home in Cavan and so on. What I would like the Minister to do would be to have the description or the name given to theseinstitutions by the local authority in serted instead of "county home".

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy raised two points which I am afraid do not strictly come under this. I think the Deputy was talking about nursed-out children and not boarded-out children. These are given out by voluntary organisations and I am afraid I have not much control over them. However, I will inquire into the position. The short certificate is designed to give the necessary information without creating any embarrassment. I think that is all right, but I will look into it again just to make sure.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 51.

Dr. Browne

I move amendment No. 77:—

To add to the section the following:—

Provided always that the person with whom such child is boarded out shall have the right of appeal to a district justice in the area in which such person resides.

I put down this amendment, but from the last remark which the Minister has made, it appears that he may not be able to do very much to help. My concern relates probably to nursed-out children. My problem is this: I know of many households to whom children are boarded out at a very young age of, say, two or three. I know many of the people in my own area at home, and they have developed a tremendous affection for their children and the children have developed an affection for their new parents. The most desirable thing, of course, in this whole mechanism is that the child would have a foster-home. It has happened on a number of occasions that the child has grown up in that home, is given the atmosphere of the family, the advantages of family life, dependency on the mother and father and the general feeling that they belong to the family even though the father and mother may have children of their own. It is quite remarkable the way these childrenare assimilated into the family and become one of the family circle. In my view it is most desirable, and much more advantageous than attempting to bring these children up in schools away from the family circle. But at certain stages, it appears the child can be taken away from the family at the age of, say, eight, nine or ten. At some age, the child can be taken back by the people who have put it out—it may be a school or voluntary organisation such as the Minister referred to a few minutes ago. It seems to me that unless there is a very good reason at the back of it, that wrenching-away of the child from what it has come to believe is its normal home and family life could do irreparable damage to the whole mental make-up of that child. Its whole security could be injured. It has had two phases of unhappiness, the first, say, up to the age of two, probably in the county home, or at any rate, away from the family influence, in which a small child would have all the benefits of the care and attention of a foster-mother and father.

The second phase comes just when the child was regaining its self-confidence and self-reliance when it is again taken away and returned to one of these voluntary bodies who put out these nursed-out children to families in different areas of the country. In a number of cases, I know that the families have conceived a tremendous regard for the children and treat them as their own natural children in every way. There have been cases of which I know in which the children have been taken back to the city school or whatever it may be for some reason or other—I was never terribly clear on the reason, because the educational facilities were there in the schools. The children can be removed from the family and taken away to the neighbouring city or town. It appears that the foster-parents have no appeal against this decision and apparently they are completely helpless. The Minister, I understand, is helpless, and cannot be of any assistance, and the foster-parents have got to submit to the taking away of the child from the family circle. It does some damage to the foster-parents. In some cases I know, many of them have been veryagitated by it. That would not concern me very much but I do think it does very considerable damage to the child because I believe that the child should be brought up, if at all possible, as a member of a family rather than in an institution or an industrial school or whatever it may be. No matter how kind, thoughtful or careful the staff may be, they can never replace the interest of the family even though it is a foster-family. Would it be possible to give the right of appeal to foster-parents so that the cases could be considered on the merits and so that the individual foster-parents would have power to have their cases stated in open court and a decision made by somebody like a district justice, or an appeal to the Minister or somebody so that if possible the damage which I honestly believe is done to these children by the interruption of their normal development could be avoided? It appears to me at present that there is no power or right of appeal for the foster-parents, and if they could state their case it might transpire that the district justice would, in the interests of the child, decide that the child should stay in the home in which it has been so contented and happy and in which the parents have looked after it so well. This is a question which also occurs in different circumstances where there are broken homes, but I wonder in this matter would it be possible to give some right of appeal to the foster-parents, to make a case for the retention of the children in the interests of the children?

Dr. Ryan

I have no objection to accepting the principle of this amendment at all, but I think it would need to be redrafted because we would have to make provision for the procedure of the appeal. I am advised by the draftsman that we would have to make some provision for the custody of the children during the time of the appeal. Anyway it would require redrafting, and if the Deputy would agree to withdraw it, I would promise to bring it in later.

Dr. Browne

It will not apply to legally adopted children.

Dr. Ryan

Only to boarded-out children.

Mr. Allen

I thought the Deputy was concerned with nursed-out children and nursed-out children would not come under this at all.

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid they are dealt with in another Act.

Mr. MacBride

The section deals only with boarded-out children.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 51 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MacBride

I appreciate fully the purpose of the section and the motive that has prompted the Minister to introduce it, but I am worried a little bit by sub-sections (4) and (5). I wish we could try to get away from the kind of policeman mentality we seem to have in drafting legislation. This tendency of always being inclined to impose a penalty and to create an offence is unwise if we can avoid it. There is a point that occurs to me, and I wonder if the Minister has considered it. The section deals with children who are boarded-out by a local authority. A child may be boarded-out by a local authority under a number of different circumstances. The child may be one who has been abandoned; it may be an illegitimate child whose parents are not prepared to look after it; it may be an orphan; it may be a child that has been abandoned by its parents. The section as drafted seems to confer on the local authority absolute rights of disposal over the child irrespective of the child's wishes—that may be understandable if the child is under 16— and also irrespective apparently of the wishes of the parents of the child. I think the Minister should include some safeguard in the section providing for a situation where the parents may come along at some later stage and say: "Well, we are now able to look after the child; we want the child back; we do not agree with the proposals that the local authority is making for the future training or care ofthe child." The section requires a good deal of examination from that point of view.

Sub-section (4) creates an offence on the part of the guardian of the child, as we may call the person with whom the child is boarded-out, if the guardian refuses to deliver up custody of the child boarded-out with him or her. The next sub-section provides that where a person is convicted of refusing to deliver up the child to the local authority, at the same time the court shall make an order for the removal of the child from his custody to the custody of the health authority. I think that is a bit drastic. The Minister would, I think, require to redraft these sub-sections and also to make some provision to enable the parents of the child, if they turn up, to have some say in the matter and to enable the parents to regain custody of the child against the local authority or against the custodian of the child under the local authority. There are quite a number of cases of parents who, may be after ten years or so, find that they want the child themselves. Take the case of an illegitimate child. There are many cases where the parents of such a child get married after five or ten years, set up a home and are prepared to look after the child. I think some provision should be made in the section to enable them to have a say in the matter.

Frankly, I do not like sub-section (5) at all. I am afraid that the sub-section gives absolute power to the local authority to go into court and say: "Take that child from its present custodian and we will put him some place else." Nobody has any say in the matter, apparently, except the local authority. The local authority may be animated with the best intentions for the child's future. I do not want to say a word in criticism of local authorities, but I have come across a number of cases myself where members of local authorities have been canvassed by farmers who wanted boarded-out children, not because of their affection for these children but because it meant cheap labour for them.

I have known of cases of members of county councils being actively canvassedto secure boarded-out children. I am not saying that these farmers did not treat the children quite well when they had them and probably got quite fond of them at a later stage, but I say that you cannot rely entirely on the good sense or judgment of the local authority in the matter. I do not know that the average county council is a good body to decide questions of that kind. I would have more confidence in the inspectors of the Departments. I think in most cases-probably the Minister would be able to tell us definitely-the care of boarded-out children in country districts is relegated to the relieving officer of the area. I am saying this subject to correction. In some cases it is the rate collector who looks after them. The relieving officer may be a very good relieving officer or the rate collector may be a very good rate collector, but he is not necessarily the type of person whose advice and views would be sound in regard to the future of such a child, particularly if there are local interests at work in regard to securing these children for a farmer. I think the Minister should re-examine these sub-sections and consider inserting provisos to protect the rights of the parents.

Dr. Esmonde

In the last section, Section 50, we were dealing with boarded-out children, and the idea appeared to be, in the case of the unwanted child, that the local authority should, in the event of a child not having a home, try to get a home for him and give him a family atmosphere. This section appears to be in direct contradiction to the preceding section. I think it is reasonable to assume that in the majority of instances boarded-out children are handed over to their foster-parents at a very early age. The foster-parents will get very fond of the child. The child will go into their house and to all intents and purposes, it is a home for that child. It will never have known any other home. It seems, however, that the State mind predominates again in this section. I am entirely against such a mentality. In the previous section we were out to give a young nameless child a home, but in this section we seem to be trying to nullify that.

There may be occasions on which it may be necessary to remove the child. But here the point is that in this connection you are handing over to a State official, to the health authority which will probably be the county manager or the person to whom he delegates the power, the right to remove that child from its home. The Minister will appreciate that it is reasonable to assume that the child may pass into a home at a tender age. He will regard the people with whom he is living as his parents—the only father and mother he has ever known and the only people he has ever cared for. A State official can come along and say it is for the betterment of the child that the child should be removed. Consider the agony of the child. Consider the agony of the people who reared it and looked after it. Boarded-out children are boarded with carefully selected people, people who can be trusted to look after the child. The State decides that a particular child should be put into some institution or school. That would be all right if it were done in agreement with the foster-parents, but this section stipulates that the local authority has the power to break all contracts.

Now, we are legislating for the future and all Deputies are agreed that we want to do the best we can for these children. The position under this section will be that one may remove the child without any reference to the parents and dump it somewhere else. That is not fair to either the child or the foster-parents. I see no sense in this section. It nullifies the previous section which seemed to be a pretty sound one. Under that section we were endeavouring to put children into homes so that they would become part and parcel of those homes and derive from them all the rights and privileges that we here enjoy. Under this section the Minister proposes to wipe that out altogether. It does not make sense to me. I think the Minister should either withdraw it or modify it drastically.

Dr. Ryan

If the section was withdrawn and a local authority was told that a boarded-out child was badlytreated, nothing could be done and there would be no redress. The purpose of this section is to enable a local authority to remove a child that is not properly treated or looked after. Deputies must realise that one cannot qualify these things all the time because that is the way in which one creates legal difficulties. I am accepting Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment that if the local authority removes a child on the plea that the child is badly treated and if the parent goes to court and the court is satisfied the local authority is wrong, then the parent can keep the child.

Mr. MacBride

That is the foster-parent. Would the Minister cover the point I have made with regard to the natural parents of the child? I think some safeguard is required.

Dr. Ryan

I think the natural parents can always get the child back.

Mr. MacBride

That is the law without this section.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think this section alters the law.

Mr. MacBride

The section is absolute without any qualification. It provides that where a court convicts a foster-parent the court then makes an order for the disposal of the child to the health authority. That is the only thing the court can do. The foster-parents may object to giving up the child. A prosecution is brought. The foster-parent is fined or sent to jail and the effect of that order is to dispose of the body of the child as if it was a chattel. I do not think that is wise. I think there should be some provision giving the parents of the child the right to intervene at that stage.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know anything about fundamental law but surely no law we could make here could interfere with the parents' rights to a child. If a parent wants his own child back, we cannot prevent that.

Mr. MacBride

We make the law.

Dr. Ryan

The law does not override fundamental rights.

Mr. MacBride

It overrides everything except the Constitution. That is why I think the position should be safeguarded.

Dr. Ryan

We will have it examined.

General MacEoin

It is a well-known fact that jealousy can arise in connection with boarded-out children and I have known cases where local authorities made orders taking children away from their foster-parents and giving them to others. The Minister's acceptance of Deputy Dr. Browne's amendment leaves the foster-parent now with the right to go to court and make a case to have the child restored. The objection I see to this section is that it is mandatory on the district justice to remove the child from the foster-parents if the foster-parents refuse to surrender the child in the first instance. Jealousy or other causes may induce a local authority to make an order for the removal of a child. That order can be circumvented by the foster-parents making application for legal adoption. If they move quickly enough they may circumvent the local authority. But they may not move quickly enough and they will then find themselves before the district justice charged with refusing to comply with an order of the local authority. All the local authority has to do to prove the case against the defendants is produce the resolution for the removal of the child plus the evidence of the person authorised to take the child. Even though the Minister now proposes to give the right of appeal to the district justice, the child will be removed in the meantime and the home will be broken up temporarily at any rate. I am aware of great hardships arising in that connection. I am also aware of grave hardships arising from the maltreatment of foster-children and in that case I agree that there should be authority to remove the children. The Minister says the parents have an overriding right in relation to legal adoption. That is not so.

Dr. Ryan

Once it is adopted, no. They have in the case of boarded-out children.

General MacEoin

That was one of the main arguments against legal adoption: it took away from the parent something the State had no right to take away.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

You had three years on this. Give it up now.

General MacEoin

Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll can say all he wants to say later. I am stating the fundamental law. The Legal Adoption Act takes away that right and it is only in the case of boarded-out children that the right still remains. There is no law that anybody can make to prevent a parent getting the custody of a boarded-out child. I would like the Minister to have some power to ensure that if foster-parents appeal against a decision, that it is not the local authority making the order in the first instance that will hear that appeal. The local authority will already have come to a decision and they would not be the best authority to reconsider the matter in the event of an appeal and to adjudicate as to whether they were right or wrong in their decision. This is, notwithstanding that, an extension of State power. I think the Minister, himself, should be the reviewing authority so that the foster-parents can appeal to him. The Minister can send down his inspectors. We know they are of high standing. They can take statements from the local officers. I regret to say that, even the best of them, can be misled by the information they get.

Dr. Esmonde

Sub-section (3) provides that:—

"Where a child is removed by a health authority from the custody of a person with whom the child has been boarded out, employed or placed in a trade, calling, or business, any contract between the authority and such person in respect of the child shall terminate immediately upon the removal."

A child is boarded out with foster-parents, but apparently we cannot prevent the Minister or the local authority from having the right to take the child away whenever they want to do so. It is then sent to a trade, calling or business. But where is thechild to go to? Is it to go back to the local institution or be boarded out again subsequently with the foster-parents from whom it had been taken away?

Dr. Ryan

The practice at the moment is that the child is brought back to the institution if the treatment is so bad that it should be removed urgently. It is then placed, as soon as possible, with another foster-parent. I think that is the usual procedure.

Dr. Esmonde

It states in the sub-section that the contract is broken. I take it that the child does not go back to the same home again?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Dr. Esmonde

The State or the local authority propose to take the child away for the purpose of training him.

Dr. Ryan

That is a different matter. What this sub-section deals with is this. If a child has to be removed from foster-parents or from a school or from a trade, then the child will be placed somewhere else.

Dr. Esmonde

The sub-section says that, if the child is removed from the people it is boarded out with, the contract is terminated. The child may be happy with the foster-parents. If it is removed from them for the purpose of teaching it a trade, will it be entitled to go back to them on holidays, or where is it to go?

Dr. Ryan

That point does not arise on this sub-section which deals with the case of a child being removed from foster-parents or from a trade, or from a school. When that happens, then it says immediately the contract is terminated. The question which the Deputy seems to want to put is whether a child, if removed from foster-parents in order to be sent to a school or to be trained to some calling, may be allowed to go back to the foster-parents on holidays. The answer is yes, if the foster-parents are satisfactory.

Dr. Esmonde

I think that the hypothetical case which I have put comes within the section.

Dr. Ryan

I do not think so.

Dr. Esmonde

But why should the contract be broken?

Dr. Ryan

The point, as far as this sub-section is concerned, is that, if the local authority finds that the school is unsatisfactory or the foster-parents unsatisfactory and takes the child away, the contract is broken so as to prevent the school going against the local authority afterwards for damages for breach of contract.

Dr. Esmonde

It does not seem to safeguard what we are trying to legislate for. I may be very stupid, but it seems to me that we are enacting legislation here which will break up the home of the child.

Dr. Ryan

No, I do not think so.

Dr. Esmonde

I am afraid that I cannot read it any other way.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 52.

Question proposed: "That Section 52 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Ryan

There are certain things in Part 1 of the Children's Act 1908. At the moment they are being administered by the public assistance authority. When this Bill becomes an Act it is proposed that they will be administered by the health authority. These things are: (1) that if a person takes a nurse child that person must notify the local authority that he or she is doing that; (2) the local authority must appoint inspectors to visit the houses where infants are kept; (3) the local authority may put certain persons on the black list who will not be permitted to keep such children; (4) the local authority may fix the number of infants that will be permitted in any particular house, and (5) the local authority or the district justice may order the removal of a child kept in unsuitable premises or by an unsuitable person.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 53.

Question proposed: "That Section 53 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Esmonde

Would the Minister tell us something about this section?

Dr. Ryan

We have had something about this already on one of the Financial Resolutions. The Rag Flock Act passed in 1911 was repealed. A provision in it was re-enacted in 1947 giving the Minister power to prescribe standards of rag flocks and to prohibit the use of rag flock which was below the prescribed standard.

Section 67 of the Health Act, 1947, re-enacted the Rag Flock Act and extended its provisions to other types of materials used in filling and transferred the responsibility to enforce them from the sanitary to the local authorities.

There has been a good deal of agitation, more particularly from the trade union organisation, with regard to this subject for some years back. As a matter of fact, the Trade Union Congress passed a resolution in 1946 asking for more stringent regulation and inspection of these filling materials used in furniture and so on, and this is an attempt to bring the matter up to date. I do not think the section is a very difficult section to follow, even though it is fairly long. It deals with these filling materials generally.

Dr. Esmonde

This section means that anybody who is manufacturing anything with rag flock, and so forth, such as mattresses, will be licensed in future for the protection of the public, to see that they are using clean materials.

Dr. Ryan

Licensing provisions may be introduced under this section.

Dr. Esmonde

It is the Minister who will issue the licences?

Dr. Ryan

The Minister could authorise the local authority to do it or he could do it himself.

Dr. Esmonde

At present people can manufacture these articles without a licence?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

I take it that the section is for the purpose of protecting the public?

Dr. Ryan

They have to comply with certain regulations at the moment.

Dr. Esmonde

I appreciate that. The section is replacing something that existed previously. It is empowering the Minister, if he considers that anybody is manufacturing articles such as this in an unsatisfactory way or that the materials they are using are not satisfactory, to refuse permission to carry on that trade. Is that right?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Dr. Esmonde

At present anybody is free to manufacture mattresses without a licence?

Dr. Ryan

Without a licence but subject to regulations.

Dr. Esmonde

It is not clear to me. Have the Minister's inspectors the right to enter and inspect?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

If an inspector reports to the Minister that a firm manufacturing this particular article is not satisfactory, the Minister can close down that firm? Has he the power to do that under the regulations?

Dr. Ryan

Not at present. He can only prosecute at present.

Dr. Esmonde

I want the Minister to clarify it for me. At present there are certain regulations by which manufacturers have to abide. If they are unsatisfactory, what is the first procedure on the part of the Minister?

Dr. Ryan

He can prosecute under the regulations. The regulations lay down standards of cleanliness and so on and if these regulations are contravened, a prosecution can take place. It is difficult, because the person can carry on without stoppage, having paid the fine. It is a very important matter. It is better that we should have the licensing provisions so that the businesscan be closed down if they do not toe the line.

There is another provision being brought in for the first time, that is, the marking of materials used in filling, so that the first manufacturer of these filling materials will be held liable. It can be traced back. If they are found in premises where mattresses are being filled and if found to be unsatisfactory the mark will enable the inspector to trace them back to their origin.

Dr. Esmonde

I am not objecting to this in any way. I am merely seeking information. If somebody is manufacturing these articles and they are not satisfactory, they will be prosecuted?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

If a person is prosecuted he cannot carry on his business again until he gets a licence? Is that the position? If an inspector reports that a firm is not carrying on the trade satisfactorily, that firm can be prosecuted?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

In the event of prosecution the firm will not be allowed to resume business unless they get a licence? Is that the position?

Dr. Ryan

No. At present they are carrying on under regulations. They can be prosecuted but not closed down. It is conceivable that a person might be prosecuted several times and still carry on under the present legislation. We are introducing a licensing system. Then a person cannot carry on unlicensed and, if prosecuted, the court can order the licence to be withdrawn and that ends him.

Dr. Esmonde

What is puzzling me is that there is not a licence in existence already.

Dr. Ryan

Not now.

Dr. Esmonde

When will the licence be issued? The Minister has said that they can be prosecuted several times and will it then be decided not to issue the licence to carry on?

Dr. Ryan

I was making a distinction between the present law and the law when this is passed. Under the present law there is no licence and a person may be prosecuted several times for contravening the regulations with regard to cleanliness and still carry on. When this Act is passed we will have licensing provisions. Then we will be in a stronger position because, if a person is prosecuted, perhaps not for the first time but the second time, the court will probably say: "I will withdraw your licence."

Dr. Esmonde

I have it from the Minister now that when this Act is passed there will be licensing conditions?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Anybody who is manufacturing these articles will be manufacturing under a licence?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Anyone at all who is doing it?

Dr. Ryan

In the case of these mattress manufacturers, and so on.

Dr. Esmonde

Without a prosecution?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Anyone who is in the trade, who has a perfectly clean record, has to have a licence?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Will the Minister state what the licence will be and how many firms will be affected?

Dr. Ryan

I could not say how many firms.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Is it not an easy solution to make the health inspector responsible? That is the solution to the problem.

Dr. Ryan

Maybe. I don't know. I imagine the licence fee will be £2 or £3. I do not know how many are in the business.

Mr. Kyne

I take it that the main objective of this section is to prevent the carrying of disease by the use of old clothing and that type of material as filling. I am in agreement with the section if that is the object. There is one point on which I would like information from the Minister. Why has he not taken power to do something about the sale of old clothing, the same type of material as this, only in more complete form, that is hawked around the streets on fair days by dealers?

I asked a parliamentary question in connection with the dangers that can arise from this old clothing some months ago and the Minister's answer was that the medical officer of health had power to deal with it. We all know that, whether he has power to deal with it or not, there is no attempt made to deal with it. At every fair all over Ireland old clothing is sold indiscriminately. There is no certification of disinfection. Old clothing is collected indiscriminately for jumble sales. Disease can be spread, and is spread, due to these careless methods.

The Minister should include a section dealing with that. In other countries they have a system under which when second-hand clothing is sold it has to bear a label of some sort certifying that it has been disinfected and made safe. Surely we should pay attention to that. This is the only section on which it is appropriate to bring it to the notice of the Minister. The Labour Party would welcome some restriction with regard to this. We do not want to prevent the sale of second-hand clothing, but we want to protect the health of the people who buy these things. There is also the fact that some material is made from old clothing shredded into small fragments. I should like if the Minister would tell us if he has any ideas in regard to that.

General Mulcahy

Sub-section (9) states:—

"A person who contravenes a regulation under this section or who wilfully obstructs the execution of a regulation under this section shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summaryconviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £100 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

That is the punishment sub-section. The Minister has indicated that this regulation is for the purpose of setting a standard with regard to cleanliness and providing for machinery that will enable him to establish that standard by inspection. If that is so, it appears to me that this punishment sub-section is rather strangely arranged. The section provides for the licensing of premises and for the conditions under which a licence will be given or can be retained. It also provides for the imposition of charges. If the purpose of the section is the establishment of a standard and the controlling of that standard, the provisions with regard to licences and fees seem to be rather elaborate, as well as the provision with regard to punishment.

When the Financial Resolution in relation to this section was under consideration the question was fairly widely discussed that there was a danger that, not only was there power to arrange standards and to see that these standards were maintained, but that there was a rather systematic and elaborate machinery for controlling the industry, that it was extending the control by way of licence to the organisation of the industry with regard to either the raw material or the subsequent manufacture of articles from the raw material. I should like to ask the Minister specifically whether in dealing with this matter under the powers that have been available already there has been any indication that, for the purpose of maintaining standards, it is desirable to set out on the wider proposition of controlling the industry either in the collection of the raw material, the processing of the raw material, or the final manufacture of articles in respect of which the raw material is used.

Dr. Ryan

There is some attempt made to go back to the processing by having the materials marked with a special mark. If the inspector findsthat certain materials in a factory are not up to standard he can trace where they came from. An attempt is being made in that way to trace the materials back to their origin. I think that is as far as we can go at the moment.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has not faced up to the question I am putting to him. He is now providing for licences and for the imposition of charges for licences.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has indicated that he has tried to arrange for the tracing of materials. I am asking whether in dealing with the matter up to the present there has been any suggestion that it is desirable to extend control of the industry apart from requiring standards, whether in the difficulties that have been met in maintaining standards up to the present there has been any suggestion that at any point in the industry there is a desire to control it. Is it proposed that steps will be taken to put any particular people out of business in order that there may be an organisation of the industry which will be more convenient and more satisfactory from the administrative point of view in regard to testing standards?

Dr. Browne

It is interesting to know that the Fine Gael Party have the view that the imposition of a penalty on manufacturers for using faulty material is objectionable, while the imposition of 21 days' imprisonment on an old person who is an inmate of a county home does not seem to arouse any indignation whatever in their manly breasts.

General Mulcahy

I should like to get a little more information from the Minister as to the difficulties I mentioned. Has there been any difficulty in getting the standards maintained that would suggest that, in order to convenience the administration on the health side, it is necessary to step in and control the industry at any stage?

Dr. Ryan

The factories making mattresses have been inspected for some years back and on occasionsthe manufacturers, as an excuse, have asked what they could do when they were offered the material. We are making an attempt in this section to trace the material back to its origin. If we find any person is not doing his business properly in connection with the collecting, assembling, packing, and so on, we can deal with that person. That is all I can say. It is an attempt to trace back from the manufacturers as for as we can.

Dr. Esmonde

This would seem to cover a very wide area; it would practically go back to the rag merchant.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

Could the Minister give us any idea how many people would be concerned in this business, starting with the rag merchants and going on to the assemblers and the manufacturers?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know.

Dr. Esmonde

Could the Minister give us any idea?

Dr. Ryan

I could not.

Captain Cowan

I think the only one concerned is yourself, Deputy.

Dr. Esmonde

I happen to be concerned and I am a duly elected Deputy of this House. I listened the whole afternoon to the other speakers over there and I never said a word all the time and then when I get up to ask a question they all lose their rags. That is what happens. You can laugh. You lose your rags on every occasion. Could the Minister indicate how many manufacturers? We are going to have a lot of new licences and we are entitled to a little information.

Dr. Ryan

As far as I can estimate, a couple of dozen manufacturers.

Dr. Esmonde

There will be a considerable number of people involved altogether?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Dr. Esmonde

It will run into hundreds, will it not?

Dr. Ryan

Oh, no. I do not think so.

Captain Cowan

We may have air mattresses after a while.

General Mulcahy

I rather become suspicious when I find Deputies Browne, ffrench-O'Carroll, Cowan and McQuillan becoming rather excited because we ask a few questions with regard to this question.

Dr. Browne

Because you did not ask any questions on the other sections.

General Mulcahy

No. I feel there were very excellent questions asked.

Dr. Browne

To which you gave no support.

General Mulcahy

Why does any Deputy in this House at this late hour of the day look to the Fine Gael Party for any support in attempting to change a Bill that is based on such a rotten foundation as this Bill is? Surely we have made ourselves and our attitude perfectly clear here. We are watching the proposals in this Bill. We are listening to the discussions on it and we are seeing what kind of a job can be made out of this Bill with the assistance that the Deputies I spoke of and the assistance that the Labour Patry there can give.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing Section 53, Deputy.

General Mulcahy

And I am trying to find out to what extent the powers that are taken under Section 53 give power for the regimentation of those people who are engaged in handling flock and filling material and carrying on the manufacture of furniture in respect of which these materials are used.

Mr. McGrath

Windbags.

General Mulcahy

If some of the windbags were disinfected here and some of the wind that is put into them got a bit of a filtering beforehand, the atmosphere might not be as clouded as it is. I would like to ask any of the Deputies who have shown an interest in our approach to thisstantial discussion on the Financial particular section can they give us any more enlightenment than the Minister. After all, there was a sub-Resolution when the Minister proposed to make a charge for the issue of licences in connection with the carrying on of this business, and the Minister appears just to say they have found some defects, from the standard of health point of view, in some of the manufactured goods that have been inspected in some of the manufacturers' places, and that they have difficulty in tracing where the objectionable material came from. Now that is just a statement made, but in view of the serious doubts and fears that were expressed when we were dealing with the Financial Resolution that an attempt was being made here to affect the employment of people and the economic interests of people engaged in the manufacture of furniture and any preparation of filling, the Minister ought to have adopted some way or other to satisfy our fears on what is an important point.

We have had very considerable experience, even in the advanced 20th century, and at the enlightened hands of some people who belong to the 20th century of what can be done by machinery and licences and fees in putting people out of industries that they are legitimately entitled to enter into. We have had very considerable experience of the way in which the type of social and economic organisation that Fianna Fáil wished to build up with these powers could be used to put people out of industry and to make those people that are left in the possession of the concentrated industry, pillars of the type of political power and arrangement that the Fianna Fáil Party stood for.

Mr. Allen

For instance?

General Mulcahy

The Deputy could go out to-day, if he was engaged in the clothing manufacturing industry and had not enough material to keep his workers employed, and buy a quota of material from somebody who never employed anybody in his life.

Dr. Ryan

Do not be going on with that stuff now. It is just propaganda— Fine Gael propaganda.

General Mulcahy

I know that is perfectly true.

Dr. Ryan

It is not true.

General Mulcahy

It is true.

Dr. Ryan

It is just lies. Fine Gael lies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must come to amendment No. 53.

Mr. McGrath

You are dealing with slander.

General Mulcahy

Deputy McGrath got the answer he was looking for.

Dr. Ryan

Fine Gael lies.

Mr. Allen

Slander.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Mulcahy come to Section 53?

Dr. Ryan

Fine Gael should be disinfected.

General Mulcahy

We have not reached the days yet when we have to pay licence fees to exist.

Dr. Ryan

You should be disinfected to stop this dirt.

General Mulcahy

I am trying to ask a simple question as to what the experience of the Minister is that would suggest he should take powers that appear to be required more for the control of industry than for the establishment and maintenance of standards. I would like to have from some of the Deputies that have intervened in such a hurtful way in this matter—could they give us some of their professional and general experience or any information as to the dangerous diseases that have been spread or objectionable abuses that have been found to exist that would require the issue of licences and the imposition of fees to such an extent that the industry could be controlled rather than the standard be maintained?

Dr. Ryan

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, it is an extraordinary thing when we are dealing peacefully here with health matters that some front bencher from Fine Gael comes in with filthy, dirty allegations and nothing else. We cannot do our business here. They cannot stop it. Every day they come out with it.

Mr. Allen

They are washing their dirty linen.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. We spent four days discussing a small amendment because Fine Gael wanted a certain committee to meet with the Press present so that they could go on with their propaganda. Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Mulcahy filled four volumes of the Official Report advocating that the Press be present so that they could go on with that kind of talk.

Captain Cowan

I think the Minister should circulate those volumes in Wexford.

Dr. Ryan

I think we should. But we can never get down to business in a decent way as long as this kind of business goes on. Deputy Mulcahy got away from the point but who was it that asked us to do this? It was the Trade Union Congress that put it to me in 1946. They said that the congress considered that the uncontrolled use of dirty materials—they were not referring to Fine Gael—in both new and second-hand upholstery and in bedding filling was a danger to the health of the public. They said the congress was therefore of the considered opinion that after due inquiry legislation should be enacted setting down standards of cleanliness for all such materials.

When the Trade Union Congress met and considered the matter, I think they were dealing honestly with the situation they were up against. I do not think they had any ulterior or special motive in passing that resolution. They sent it along to the Government of the time and it was put on the file to be dealt with whenever the Health Bill might be introduced. This particular clause, as a matter of fact, appeared in the Health Bill of 1950, which was approved by DeputyMulcahy, a Minister of the then Government, and, I suppose, approved of because he saw the political use that could be made of it. He has pointed out to us the political use that can be made of licences and registrations. I am sure that Deputy Mulcahy approved of this clause in 1950, rubbed his hands and said: "Now we can get our friends into this business and wipe out our opponents because that is the way to use legislation of this kind." Deputy Mulcahy approved of this in 1950. So did Deputy MacBride.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is talking about standards.

Dr. Ryan

They approved of this clause on the full understanding, as Deputy Mulcahy has just said, that the political Party in power can use it to wipe out their opponents in business and do their friends a good turn. Is it not an extraordinary thing that Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy MacBride approved of the Bill for that purpose?

General Mulcahy

Would the Minister read the clause?

Dr. Ryan

The clause extends to two pages and every Deputy has it in front of him. Deputy Mulcahy told everybody in this House the object a Government Party would have in inserting a clause of this kind in a Bill. He pointed out that it was put in for a particular purpose—to preserve their friends in business and to wipe out their opponents. Now we know why Deputy Mulcahy approved of the Bill in 1950—in order to help his friends in the Fine Gael Party and wipe out his Fianna Fáil opponents. We are not doing it with that object. We are doing it because the Trade Union Congress asked us to deal with this matter, and we brought in this clause to deal with rag flock. I pointed out already to Deputy Dr. Esmonde that we can license a person who is manufacturing mattresses or upholstery and, if we find that he has contravened the regulations more than once or twice, we can apply to have his licence withdrawn. We can also go back to the assemblers of the flock. You cannot register a ragman; I do not know if the ragman exists in this country still.

A Deputy

He does.

Dr. Ryan

If he does, we can only go back and register the premises to which the ragman delivers his goods. That is, we can register the premises where the flock is assembled, where the rags are turned up and passed on to the manufacturers. As I have said, the assembly premises should be compelled to put a mark on the material so that when an inspector goes into the manufacturing premises and finds that a particular filling material is not up to standard he knows where it came from. He then pays a visit to the assembler to find out whether the assembler is carrying on under proper conditions or not. In order to protect the public we want to see that upholstery and mattresses are filled with materials of a proper standard and which are clean, whether the business is carried on by a Fine Gael supporter or a Fianna Fáil supporter. If Fine Gael were in power it would not matter whether they were clean or not. That is the difference. We stand for cleanliness. Deputy Mulcahy stands for political trickery.

Dr. Esmonde

I think it quite reasonable that we on the Fine Gael Benches should be allowed to take a particular stand on this section.

Dr. Ryan

To stand for their own friends.

Dr. Esmonde

I do not see any reason why the Minister should use strong language. This is a long section which deals with the question of licences. This country is full of licences and quotas and the people are very keen on this question of licences and quotas. We are sent here by the people to discuss these things and I take a very poor view of the Minister standing up and giving expression to a lot of political propaganda, pure and simple, and nothing else. We are quite entitled to discuss these sections and, as I said before in this debate, we intend to do so. No obstruction on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party or those who support the Fianna Fáil Party will stop us doing so. Section 53 dealswith licences and Deputy Mulcahy was quite entitled to ask the question which he did ask without being insulted, as I submit he was, by the Minister. When he asked that question, the whole Fianna Fáil Party and those who support the Fianna Fáil Party flared up but the Deputy achieved his object because he got a reply from the Minister. The only way we can get a reply from the Minister is to keep on asking questions. The Minister lost his temper but he has nobody to blame but himself as we cannot get any information out of the Minister except by asking these questions.

A Deputy

You are still drifting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I should like to hear the Deputy on Section 53.

Dr. Esmonde

Sub-section (2) paragraph (h) says that regulations under this section may provide for conditions governing the grant, retention or renewal of licences or registrations. I was asking the Minister, before this pleasant little interlude, whether there were any licences in existence already. Paragraph (h) would seem to indicate that there are some licences in existence since it says that the regulations may provide for conditions governing the retention or renewal of licences. I understood from the Minister that there were no licences in existence. Can it be that there are some licences in existence and that possibly these licences may not be suitable for the Deputies opposite or, to put it the other way around, that there may beother people looking for licences as well? I was not a bit suspicious when the discussion on this section started, but when I see people getting annoyed I cannot help feeling somewhat suspicious. When we get up we are subjected to a good deal of noisy interruption but we listened to Deputy Cowan speaking for a considerable period——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 53.

Dr. Esmonde

On Section 53 I was asking the Minister would he tell us if there are any licences already in existence?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Dr. Esmonde

What does "retention" then mean? How can you retain something if it does not already exist? I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.