I would just like to make a few observation with regard to these amendments. I want to be fairly clear on what Deputy Larkin and Deputy MacBride have in mind. There are various things that crop up under this Bill and under the Infectious Diseases Maintenance Allowances Regulations that are already there. The only case I know of where the Minister has that function, or the duty, if you like, of hearing appeals is under the Infectious Diseases Maintenance Regulations.
It gives me a fair indication of whathearing all appeals under this Bill will amount to. The number of appeals is fairly large and in that particular case the investigations are troublesome and very minute. We have to send out forms to be filled in with regard to means and many other things, and nearly always two or three letters pass before the case can be properly summed up in the Department of Health. There are, I believe, three senior officials working on that business alone and minor staff as well. I do not think any Minister for Health would have time to give attention to any more appeals than are there at the moment. In fact, it is hard for a Minister for Health to find time to give adequate consideration to these appeals, as things stand. As far as I am concerned myself, wherever the official puts up to me that the appeal should be allowed I waste very little time, but where the appeal is turned down I feel I must take time, as I have the obligation of hearing the appeal.
We have experience enough from the Infectious Diseases Regulations to know that it would not be possible for a Minister for Health to have all the appeals referred to him. We have to start on that assumption. There are various classes under the Infectious Diseases Regulations. Under a certain clause in this Bill, with which we dealt yesterday, dealing with incapacity of any kind, there will be a scheme coming along giving a special allowance to a person who suffers from any incapacity and has only a certain amount of means, whatever amount may be defined, and who is over 16 years of age. If we had the same experience there as we have under the Infectious Diseases Regulations, there would be a big crop of diseases, many more than any Minister could deal with.
Under this Bill, as we have it already, there will be matters in dispute, as to whether a person is entitled to free hospital treatment or not, whether he should pay £2 a week or not; there will be the case of a person who says: "I am over the means all right, but for special reasons I must get help". There are these various categories and classes of cases where a dispute may arise and where, if wehave any sort of appeal machinery, the appeals will have to be heard by somebody or other. I say definitely that the Minister is not in a position to do it, as he would never have the time to do it and unless he can do it conscientiously he should not undertake it. Therefore, I am afraid the Minister is ruled out.
I quite agree with what Deputy MacBride said, apart from that altogether, that when we bring in a scheme of this kind a citizen should be entitled to it or not; that no political influence should get it for him if he is not entitled to it and no political influence should be necessary if he is entitled to it. It would be a great thing in our social welfare and our health provisions if that idea of influence were removed. Some people have it and I am afraid some T.D.s give the impression that political influence could be used. It would be a great thing if that could be done away with. My own experience is that, as time goes on, there is less and less of that being used. In the social welfare side I feel that very little of it is being used. People are beginning to know what they are entitled to and do not want a T.D. or anyone else. They are able to look after themselves, or they have friends able to look after them. There is no such thing as influence, or at least very little of it, now being used of the type used ten, 12 or 15 years ago. It is a great thing that that has been ended. I am with Deputy MacBride, and I am sure other Deputies are, too, that we should do away with it completely in the health services also.
Coming to the suggestion of Deputy MacBride that it should be referred to the district justice, I do not know what Deputy MacBride has in mind, as his suggested amendment does not tell us exactly what it would cover. As far as I can read the amendment which he suggests, the district justice could decide only as to whether a person was really entitled legally to the benefit and did not get it. I doubt if it is necessary to put in an amendment of that kind. I am not a lawyer, but I am asking Deputy MacBride that. If a person has a legal right, surely hecan go to court without an amendment?