Yesterday evening Deputy James Larkin took care in a very considered statement to try to convince the House that his decision with regard to the Health Bill and the amendments before the House arose from the advice tendered to the Minister by the National Health Council. He sought to give the impression that it was that and only that which converted the Labour Party to that particular attitude. I have before me a copy of the minutes of the National Health Council in regard to the occasion on which the Minister's request was being considered by them. It contains a lot of very elucidating and interesting matter. Perhaps I should deal, first of all, with one paragraph which shows to me anyway a rather peculiar attitude of mind with reference to what has been stated to be the reason why the Labour Party is now adopting this attitude.
Health Bill, 1954—Committee (Resumed).
I should like to point out to the Deputy—this is a matter for the Chair, of course—that the minutes and proceedings of the council are privileged and private documents. In a question addressed to me, I think a fortnight ago, I had to inform the House that I did not feel at liberty to disclose matters dealt with in the minutes of that body. Can the Deputy assure the Chair and the House that he has the permission of the National Health Council to use their minutes?
I do not think I should be put in that position. I am dealing with a very definite categorical statement by the Labour Party.
I am interested in the principle.
I want to show the House that in the particular discussion between the National Health Council——
I assume this has reference to amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 2 deals specifically with Section 16 of the main Bill on the maternity side.
The Act of 1953.
The Health Council were informed that the Labour Party, which had supported the Bill, had lately agreed, though very reluctantly, that its commencement must be deferred.
On a point of order. I think that it is not in order to have the proceedings and minutes of a body which, by statute, has its records protected, discussed in this manner by a Deputy of the House.
In the first place, the National Health Council is a body set up to deal with certain matters of public interest and by no stretch of the imagination can their proceedings be held to be private and privileged.
The Deputy might read Section 41 (15).
A resolution was published——
——at the direction of the National Health Council. Section 41 (15) of the Health Act of 1953 contains a statutory provision that every meeting of the National Health Council shall be held in private. The Deputy is now proposing to refer in public in this House to the minutes of a meeting which, under statute, must be held in private.
A private meeting of this National Health Council is private in so far as the public are not to be admitted to it but there is no suggestion that the conclusions they come to are private.
In fact, their conclusions have been published.
I understood the Deputy to refer to the minutes.
The reason the Minister does not want this document to go on the records of the House is that he knows that statements made by him to them were not based on true facts and the Labour Party's attitude here is put in question on these minutes. The Minister does not want, as far as he can avoid it, any reference to what took place between himself and that body except what he says took place. The Minister referred to his meeting with these people——
The Deputy is aware that the amendment refers specifically to medical care in respect of motherhood?
So does this document. I want to bring in that section of it. The whole document relates specifically to that particular part of the Act. The Minister made the case here that we had not sufficient bed accommodation to implement Section 16. That was not the case he made to the National Health Council.
The Chair does not propose to construe an Act of Parliament. As far as I know, the Chair has never adopted the attitude that it is competent to construe an Act of Parliament.
I am asking whether it is in order for the Deputy to quote what he says—and I am sure it is so—are the minutes of a body which, under Section 41 (15) of the Health Act of 1953, must hold its meetings in private? It is quite a different matter to refer to conclusions reached or to acts done by the National Health Council. Surely, to disclose the minutes of their proceedings is a breach of the provision of the Health Act, 1953, and should be ruled out?
I cannot see under what Standing Order I can rule it out. The Deputy is quoting from a document which he says embodies the minutes of the council. I do not know on what ground I can rule it out.
If it does not appeal to the Deputy's sense of fair play, apparently there is no redress.
It is important that Deputy Briscoe should make his remarks relevant to the amendment.
I can only do so by pointing out that the Minister——
Can the Deputy assure me, in advance, that this is relevant to the amendment because I do not want it read first?
I shall bring in the extract of absolute relevancy first.
Very well.
There is a paragraph in this document which reads:—
"Mr. O'Connell reminded the council that they had already passed a resolution recommending the postponement of the operation of the Maternity and Child Health Services Regulations. Some members had thought at the time that the Institutional and Specialist Services Regulations should also be covered by this resolution but it was decided then to deal only with the matter before the meeting, viz., the Maternity and Child Health Services Regulations."
They all arise on Section 16, to which this amendment refers.
Does that mean that the meeting discussed only Maternity and Child Health Services Regulations?
Oh no, Sir, but it was the burden of their discussion.
I cannot allow the Deputy to read everything in the minutes. He may read only what is relevant.
Only what is relevant —and I will be subject to the control of the Chair at every step.
What about the canons of fair play? A privileged document is being read. It is privileged under the Act.
Mr. Lemass
Read the section which states it is privileged. I have never heard such nonsense before. Extracts from minutes are frequently read out here.
It is a scandal.
Mr. Lemass
The Minister is trying to stop this by a bluff.
Deputy Lemass is the biggest bluff in Ireland.
Mr. Lemass
If I am, then the Minister is trying to emulate me.
The Chair does not propose to construe an Act of Parliament. It has never presumed to do that. The Chair can only rule out a document on grounds of irrelevancy. Deputy Briscoe assures me that the document is relevant. He has read an extract from it which seems to establish its relevancy. I am putting it to Deputy Briscoe is what he proposes reading relevant to the amendment before the House?
Yes, Sir. The Minister, when he was talking on the Second Stage of this Bill, used in a very effective manner the advice he is purported to have received from the National Health Council. He left every member of the House—and I take it, the public who read the proceedings of the House in the public Press— under the impression that the Health Council advised him that the Health Act could not be implemented for a variety of reasons, including which were the specific figures and reasons he gave with regard to bed accommodation and medical treatment under the maternity side of the Bill, Section 16. I repeat what I said yesterday that, as a governor of one of the leading Dublin maternity hospitals, this explanation by the Minister came to me as a great surprise. I have some little knowledge of the situation as it confronts us here in Dublin. I gave the Minister answers to the figures he gave—answers which he did not think it worth his while to deal with.
When I challenged the Labour Deputies for their support of our amendment, amendment No. 2, the answer they gave us was that they were in an embarrassing position because when the body which Deputy Dr. Ryan had set up—with all the inferences that could be drawn from the manner in which he was supposed to have set it up—advised the Minister that this section could not be implemented what could they do except be reasonable and postpone it or leave it for a later date? But they did not explain to the House that the exact position was that the Labour Party, in the first places, agreed with the Minister to the deferring of this section of the Act as distinct from the whole Act and that he then went to the Health Council and requested a resolution from them which would enable him to bring about this deferring and, by wielding the stick at them that the Labour Party had already agreed to this, very reluctantly——
That is untrue.
It is on the minutes.
It is not on the minutes and it is untrue.
Excuse me. I am going to read from this extracts which are relevant, and I take it that, in accordance with the procedure of the House, the whole document will be embodied in the verbatim report.
The Deputy has stated something which has never been done.
Only what is read to the House will be in the verbatim report.
Mr. Lemas
Well, the Deputy can lay it on the Table of the House.
He has no authority to lay it on the Table of the House. He will bring into discussion what is relevant and not bring in what is not relevant. It is for the Chair to say that it is relevant.
Exactly. I propose to carry on my observations in strict accordance with your ruling.
Not in accordance with such things as facts.
I am not going to allow the Minister for Health to suggest that what I am doing here is in any way indecent.
It is, completely.
Would the Minister attempt to point out in what way it is indecent?
It is, and a breach of privilege.
The Deputy is going to deal with the amendment before the House?
I am trying to deal with the amendment and I am not allowed by the Minister for Health. I have accepted your ruling but the Minister suggests that it precludes the document.
It is a confidential document.
It was not given to the members as a confidential document any more than a document which is given to me from a public board of which I am a member which is circulated as the minutes of a meeting whether I was there or not. This is a document circulated to the members, each and every one of them.
The Deputy will please come to the point in respect to the amendment.
I will. I was saying that the Minister advised or informed the Health Council that his proposal to defer amongst other things the operation of this section of the Act was done with the knowledge and with the reluctant consent of the Labour Party.
That is a lie.
I must ask the Minister to withdraw that expression.
I withdraw it. It is an untruth.
I want the Minister for Health to withdraw that.
The Minister withdrew the expression "lie".
"The chairman of the council reminded..."—I am reading an extract from the minutes——
On a point of order. Deputy Briscoe purports to read extracts from the alleged minutes of the National Health Council. I am not disputing his right to quote from a document, but I would like to know if the alleged minutes have been adopted by the National Health Council or if they have only been circulated?
That is a matter I cannot decide.
I submit to you, Sir——
What is the submission?
I submit that if they have not been adopted as minutes by the National Health Council in fact they are not minutes at all and should not be called minutes.
Deputy Briscoe purports to read a document which he says is the minutes of the Health Council.
The resolution published was not adopted.
Deputy Briscoe.
"The chairman reminded the council that the repeal of the Act was not proposed. The previous Minister, he said, had originally intended to bring in the Act on the 1st April and had subsequently deferred it to the 1st August. The new Minister was merely asking the advice of the council on the question of a further deferment and he had given them the relevant information on the position. The council had had this matter under consideration only for a period of nine weeks. Originally it had been thought that it would be possible to bring the Act into operation by separate areas..."
The relevancy of this seems to be very far removed.
I am coming to this.
I hope that the Deputy will not proceed to read matters that are irrelevant, but that he will refer only to the relevant portion of the minutes.
I am reading this portion that refers to the mother and child service.
There is nothing about mother and child in that. This is fair—I will pass to the Chair the passage the Deputy is reading, if the Deputy agrees. I here and now say that there is not a word about any matter relevant to the amendment.
The Chair does not propose to act as a referee on whether the Deputy is reading the document correctly or not.
This is only done for the purpose of producing a secret document.
Deputy Briscoe is reading from a document which he assures me is the minutes of the proceedings of the council. The Chair has no means of checking that and does not propose to do any checking on it. I can only rule on a matter of relevancy. I am asking the Deputy to keep to the paragraphs which are relevant to the amendment before the House, and not to preface it with matters that are not relevant.
Has this document been certified as the minutes?
Neither was the resolution as published by the Minister.
I only asked a question. I did not ask the Deputy.
I am giving a partial answer.
I am asking the Chair is this a certified minute?
Statements by every Deputy in this House are taken as made in good faith. If a Deputy says that a matter is so the Chair assumes that it is so.
Statements, and quotations from a document, are two completely different matters.
The decision is based on the Deputy's statement that he is reading what he says he is reading.
So far as we know they could be the minutes of the Ballyhooly debating society.
What about the resolution?
Deputy Briscoe on the amendment.
I do not know whether you are seriously considering the point raised by Deputy Morrissey as to the authenticity of the document.
I have already decided on that and it may not be reopened.
I was going to prove it.
It will do to waste time, I suppose, anyhow. That is the sole purpose.
Deputy Morrissey was not very much in the House for the last few days. If he had been he would know if we were wasting time or not.
I have spent the last nine years in considering health proposals and perhaps now we could come to the amendment.
Deputy Briscoe on the amendment.
I will have to come back again to get my line of thought after this variety of interruptions and points of order and suggestions. The Minister has attempted to make clear to the House from his point of view the reason why he cannot accept the amendment, or, alternatively, he is not prepared to agree that Section 16 of the 1953 Health Act should be left in the working part of the Bill. If he did that this amendment could be withdrawn, but he has done neither of these things. He will neither accept the amendment nor say that he is prepared to allow Section 16 to remain, on the ground that the maternity side could not be implemented, due to bed shortage, due to inability to offer facilities. On the Second Stage I said, and there is an amendment by Deputy McQuillan which will be later discussed to the same effect, that if there are places or areas in which sections of the Bill can be operated, why not allow that to happen, and exclude or defer only those places where they cannot be operated? Now discussion has shown from these minutes that members of the Health Council put the question "are there any areas in which..."—
What areas? We are dealing with the specific position with respect to the mother and child service.
"Are there any areas in which this particular section can be operated?" I think that is relevant.
Very well.
There is no answer to that, and I am saying here on behalf of the City of Dublin, and challenging any other elected representative of the City of Dublin whether on a local authority or in the Dáil to deny the fact, that Section 16 can be implemented in full in the City of Dublin. I can see no reason therefore why the people to whom these benefits will go should have them denied them by having this section postponed, or deferred, as there seems to be in the Labour minds a difference and a distinction between postponing and deferring. What it is I cannot make out, but I am using both words. Why there should be a deferring of the operation of this section in the City of Dublin is beyond my comprehension.
The people to whom the benefits would flow are being denied. Who are these people? They are the assistance classes, being met in any event under the 1939 Act, and the insured persons who are in receipt of wages below a certain level who qualify for the assistance part of the health scheme. But the people in Dublin—and the greater number are in Dublin—whose earnings are over a certain amount but are less than £600 a year are disqualified by the deferring of this section. The insured workers who are being transferred from the Social Welfare Department to the Health Department are going to get nothing different from what they got before, except that there is this remission of the suggested charge in the principal Act. They are going to get no increased benefit and their families are going to be debarred. The wife and the newly born baby of those who are out of the assistance group are to be cut out and to get no assistance.
The Minister asked me yesterday in a very angry state of mind how we anticipated operating Section 16 in Dublin City and I will now tell him. We have a very large service attached to the maternity side in Dublin Corporation and there is the provision of milk for children. We carry out that provision in a humane way, but, once this section has been postponed, a great number of the mothers who would not qualify for assistance but who are under the £600 a year figure and who get milk for their children will now find that this will have to be stopped because, if it is continued, the city representatives will be surcharged. It is going to be a very difficult thing to stop us giving some assistance to those who are now debarred from assistance by the failure to put section 16 into operation.
It is quite clear that the Minister had made up his mind that this Act, and particularly the sections dealing with the maternity side, was to be deferred. When Deputy James Larkin says he is influenced by the decision of the National Health Council, it is only fair that he should know that the council were influenced by being told that the Labour Party had already, although reluctantly, agreed to the deferring of these sections, so that we get a situation in which we have two groups deciding to say "no" with regard to its operation, one group saying out loud: "The other party said it could be done and has agreed" and the other saying: "We say it should not be done because the other party has agreed it should not be done." Not a scintilla of evidence is adduced to show the Labour Party or the National Health Council that the hospitals are not able to carry out Section 16, and that is the point on which I am challenging those who are supporting this deferment Bill and opposing its amendment—on what grounds is our amendment now to be opposed? I have made it clear that the National Health Council did not come to a decision on any evidence except a message from the Minister, which message contained a reference to agreement having been reached with the Labour Party.
That is untrue.
I suppose I will have to read more of this document.
What the Deputy has said is untrue.
The chairman who had met the Minister indicated to the council that, because of what the Minister had told him, he had no alternative but to call that meeting and put this resolution before it.
If the Minister says that no message was sent by him to the council, the Deputy should accept the Minister's statement.
Surely then the chairman, in his report to the council, was inventing a conversation with the Minister.
I am not concerned with the chairman. The practice is that, if a member of the House denies he made a statement, his denial is accepted by the other Deputy. The Deputy should accept the Minister's statement in its entirety. The Minister has said that he did not send any message or any message of the nature referred to by the Deputy. That should be accepted.
"The Minister, who attended the meeting ..."—I suppose that is true?
And you have in front of you a full record of what I said.
And I am going to read it.
So that what you have stated here is contrary to what is there before you.
I am relating this specifically to the bed accommodation and the facilities provided by Section 16. This document states:
"The Minister said that his purpose in attending the meeting was to meet the members of the council and to put before them the problems which were facing him, as Minister for Health, in connection with the Health Act 1953. He had made himself fully informed of the events which had taken place in relation to the Act and of the recommendations made by the council to the former Minister on the regulations. He had made a survey of the position and had found that no proper steps had been taken to secure from those who would be concerned in the working of the Act the co-operation necessary for the services to be provided."
That paragraph is a statement by the Minister to this council and I say it was not in accordance with the facts.
I say it is.
I say that there is sufficient bed accommodation, that the authorities who are to work it are prepared and willing to do so; and that no question has arisen as between the Minister and those connected with the maternity side as to inadequacy of beds or no arrangements made.
"The Minister said he could not regard as satisfactory the manner in which the regulations were made or the failure on the part of the former Minister to discuss the regulations fully beforehand with interested bodies. He must express considerable anxiety as to the position likely to obtain on and after 1st August next, if the regulations were permitted to come into force. He did not wish to discuss policy at the meeting but hoped that the council would consider his position among themselves and advise him as to what he should do. In his view, the rights of the sick poor and insured persons might be endangered because numerous other classes would have an equal right as from 1st August to free treatment and existing facilities were inadequate to meet this demand."
In respect of the maternity side, that is incorrect.
It is perfectly correct.
It goes on:—
"His chief concern was to see that no person would suffer as a result of the operation of these regulations and he feared that, unless some action was taken by him in the near future on the advice of the council, the sick poor might suffer by being unable to get the benefits which they are receiving at present."
In other words, it is suggested that the bringing into operation of Section 16 is going to deprive those who are already in benefit under the assistance side of it.
"The Minister said he did not wish to discuss the reason why certain of the regulations were made in a hasty manner. They could be amended later, if necessary. It was on the commencement date that he was anxious to have the council's advice now.
What he had said was not based on any element of politics, the Minister continued. Whatever broad differences there had been in the consideration of health policies in the past few years, it was agreed that the position of the sick poor should not be endangered."
These are the assistance people.
"He hoped that the council would be in a position to assist him by its advice in preserving the rights of the sick poor and the needy. He would be glad if the council would let him have their views as to the best course he could adopt. The council's advice would be given full and serious consideration."
Then the Minister left the meeting. There is the statement.
A very excellent statement.
It may be but it is not an accurate one.
It certainly is not in accordance with what the Deputy said I had said.
I am coming to that. The Minister, in the broad outline, wanted deferment of certain sections, among which was Section 16. He did not deal with them separately in this statement but bulked them all together. He indicated his concern for the sick poor, the sick poor for whom Fianna Fáil brought in the 1939 Act and which has been operated ever since.
Fianna Fáil made a lot of them sick and a lot of them poor.
Therefore, I take it, when this Bill is passed, Fine Gael and the Coalition will make a lot of them well?
Suppose we discuss the amendment.
The Deputy is finding it difficult.
I am doing my best to discuss the amendment. From experience I know Deputy Morrissey will keep me on the relevancy rails.
He would have a job.
The Minister made a statement to the National Health Council to the effect that he wanted their advice and he gave them an idea of the advice he wanted. He wanted them to enable him to defer the Act or certain sections which included Section 16. He gave them to understand that his predecessor had made a complete mess of affairs, that it could not be properly operated because of his predecessor's negligence, and so forth, and that if August 1st was the date on which Section 16, amongst others, should come in, then the sick poor were going to get it in the neck.
Section 16 is not a "sesame" that will make every remark relevant.
One of the reasons the Minister gave to this House, as well as to the National Council, for opposing this amendment is that the facilities are not there and that if Section 16 is retained in the Bill it will have its impact on those who are already taken care of under the 1939 Act.
The Deputy said that several times.
I am trying to elaborate on it. I am trying to impress on the House, if I can, and in particular on the Labour Deputies, that there is no foundation whatever for that approach as far as the maternity side is concerned. That will be continued by Section 16.
Is that Deputy Briscoe's assurance to the Irish nation?
I do not know what is meant by that. I am not assuring the Irish nation of anything. I am assuring this House that as far as Dublin City is concerned the accommodation is there.
And in Cork.
The Deputy should visit Holles Street.
Deputy McGrath said he can give a similar assurance for Cork.
Deputy McGrath would give an assurance for anything.
I take it Deputy McGrath as Lord Mayor of Cork would not make that interjection and leave himself open to——
Deputy McGrath can speak for himself. Will the Deputy please deal with the amendment?
I am grateful for the Deputy's assurance that besides Dublin, Cork is in a position to carry out Section 16.
Will the Deputy deal with the amendment?
When the Minister left the chairman said:—
"He had discussed the position with the Minister who had convinced him of the necessity of calling an early meeting of the council to consider the matter."
Therefore, the discussion between the Minister and the chairman was for the purpose of calling a meeting of the council to consider a new date, a deferred date:
"A determined effort must be made to settle things by the 1st August. Certain existing legislation (the Public Assistance Act) will go out of operation on that date with the result——"
This again is the passage the Deputy started to read and it is not relevant to the amendment. It does not concern the amendment in the slightest particular.
I say it does.
I can only decide when the passage is read. When, therefore, the Deputy has achieved his object.
"...persons in the lower income group would be in danger of not receiving service needed by them."
The Deputy knows well that is referring to broad policy decided on Second Reading.
It is a Second Reading speech.
Is it to be suggested that because there are three different sections——
I suggest the Deputy is not being fair to the Chair.
The Chair does not need any protection from the Minister against me.
The Chair needs protection from more Deputies than you.
The Chair is able to mind its own business without that interjection.
I have made a protest that the Deputy knows he is doing something unfair and wrong.
I am doing nothing unfair or wrong. I am doing what is correct.
I asked the Deputy to read only matters that are relevant.
I assure you what I am reading is strictly relevant.
The Chair can only rule on that matter when the passage is read but the Deputy will have then achieved his object by having read what he wishes to read. I would ask the Deputy to read only the portions which are relevant; otherwise I will have to ask the Deputy to discontinue reading. I am not going to be put in the position of allowing the Deputy to read matters which I may discover afterwards are not relevant.
Mr. Lemass
You are stopping the Deputy from reading matters which are relevant because the Minister says so.
I am not. I gave him a good deal of latitude.
I say Section 16 of the Act to which this amendment refers is one of the very specific and important items of the Health Act which it is now proposed to defer. In securing the advice of the council to bring about that deferment the Minister had to make a case to them and the case that was made according to what the chairman now says is that certain facilities were not there and that certain other beneficiaries under other Acts would be adversely affected.
The Deputy has said that many times.
I am repeating it because I have been pulled up in the middle of a sentence which says:—
"The Minister was concerned about this aspect of the matter and any advice tendered by the council would be readily received by him. The change of Government had meant that the necessary preliminary steps had not been taken to implement the services under the Act and that valuable time had been lost."
I maintain that the necessary steps had been taken in connection with the maternity side. Discussions had taken place between the branches of the public health concerns that would be involved in the implementation of the maternity side. In order to copperfasten his point of view and to remove any possible doubt in the minds of the members of the National Health Council he said to the chairman and the chairman quotes him as saying:—
"...the Labour Party had supported the Health Bill in the Oireachtas and that it was not on any political grounds that it was suggested that the commencement of the Act should now be deferred."
Is that relevant?
That is of general application to the entire Act. I want the Deputy to come to the mother and child scheme.
Very well. I am asking is it a fact that the Labour Deputies, particularly Deputy Larkin, are supporting the opposition to this amendment on the grounds that they believe that there is anything physical to be overcome in order to implement it? I say there is no obstacle to be overcome except technical agreements about fees and so forth. The beds are there; the hospitals are willing to operate the scheme; they have never said they would not. Now that I put that to the House, I am asking the Deputies of the Labour Party to reconsider their attitude.
Deputy Larkin said that what convinced him—and I believe him—in supporting this deferment was the attitude of the National Health Council. He believed they knew the reasons, good and sufficient reasons, why they were agreeing to and recommending this and advising the Minister to arrange a deferment. I have now shown him that nothing of the kind took place. The deferment of Section 16 of the 1953 Act which is proposed in this Bill now, and to which this amendment is directed, as an opposition to taking out Section 16 from the 1953 Act, was all brought about by the Labour Deputies probably being informed that the facilities and the finances were not there, by the Health Council being informed in the same way, by Deputy Larkin being told that the Health Council wanted this deferment and he was not going to oppose the publicspirited persons who comprise the membership of that council, who probably came to this conclusion on evidence; and they, on the other hand, having been coerced into the acceptance of giving advice on deferment because the Labour Party had already agreed to it.
Deputy Briscoe has said the same thing in half a dozen different ways.
There are some thousands of people in my constituency who would benefit very considerably as from the 1st August, to the betterment of their health, if this section is implemented; and by deferring it there are many thousands, some of whom were referred to yesterday——
Why did you not say that when Deputy Dr. Ryan was Minister?
There was no need.
A Deputy
There will be no need now.
The Health Act was introduced by Deputy Ryan—and Deputy Larkin ought to know that, for six solid, dreary months——
We are not discussing anything in general: we are discussing a particular phase.
I am asked why.
The Deputy need not answer. He may defer that to some other time, if he wishes.
Next week or next month.
I hope someone will understand what I have read by way of extract from this document and propose that it be recorded in the minutes of the House. Or perhaps the Minister might agree—seeing that he had a copy of the minutes there, too, and was carefully reading them while I was quoting, for fear I would indulge in some trick by leaving some important word out——
A most necessary proceeding.
Deputy MacBride——
If the Deputy has finished——
Perhaps the Minister will put this document on the Table of the House. It is not a joke to me or many other people. It is a joke, of course, to Deputy MacBride.
That is his contribution to the Health Bill.
The joke is on you, though.
The Deputy from Galway is quite right—the joke is on me, and on thousands of other people, including a great number in his own constituency.
I asked the Deputy yesterday to answer a question about Galway and he failed to do it.
The Deputy should not interrupt. If he wishes to make a contribution, he can do so later. Deputy Briscoe, on the amendment.
He dealt with another question—the crowded corridors.
It is a fact.
I have taken the line I have taken in support of this amendment because I consider there is absolutely no ground whatever for deferring Section 16. I would like the Minister to say to us, in answer to these questions, is it not a fact what I said yesterday—that the maternity hospitals are prepared to operate Section 16 and never, in all their communications and discussions, suggested that lack of facilities or of accommodation or of the persons to implement it, was a difficulty. Why then deny it to the people? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us who has told him? It is not the Labour Party, they have not told him that, because they voted for the Act in 1953. The National Health Council has not told him that.
The Deputy is repeating himself. If he has nothing more to say, I must ask him to resume his seat.
I want to ask the Minister categorical questions. I say there are no grounds whatever——
The Deputy said that half a dozen times, at least.
He is treating the Chair with absolute contempt. He is paying no attention whatever to the Chair.
The Deputy may take it from me that there is nothing further from my mind than to treat the Chair with contempt.
The Deputy is doing worse; he is ignoring the Chair.
If Deputy Briscoe has no more to say——
There is a limit.
We know Deputy Morrissey is not concerned about the Chair.
If those opposite had been sent back here themselves, they know very well the Act would not be in operation on the 1st August. They would have deferred it themselves.
Has the Deputy finished?
No. I do not know whether the Chair will admit that, if a person is very serious in a matter and is trying to concentrate on bringing facts and arguments forward, with the interventions and the suggestions of a jocular nature designed deliberately to try to put you off your track, he is bound to bring himself under the notice of the Chair by repeating something he has already started by way of argument, and he has to go back again to begin it.
The Chair cannot express any sympathy with the Deputy on that account.
I am not looking for sympathy, I am looking for tolerance and I hope the Chair will be tolerant, in view of this. May I ask the Minister could he give any reason whatever for deferring Section 16? Can Deputy Larkin give any reason for agreeing to it? I say categorically and positively that there is no ground whatever known to me——
The Deputy will please resume his seat. He has said that several times.
Very well.
I do not want to travel over what I said on this amendment yesterday because, as I said, it was the only contribution I intended to make. I rise now only to deal with two points. First of all, I want to protest against the action of Deputy Briscoe. He could not be ruled out by the Chair, because it was in accordance with the rules of this House.
The Minister is protesting against the Chair.
I said the Deputy could not be ruled out, because it was in accordance with the rules of this House; but the Deputy has gone around the place canoodling apparently with someone, to enable him to produce here the minutes of a meeting which by our statute must be held in private, by a statute passed through this House at the suggestion of Deputy Dr. Ryan. Is there to be any limit to breaches of privilege of that kind?
Mr. Lemass
It is not a breach of privilege.
Deputy Lemass will not bluff me. I am speaking with all responsibility in saying that it is a breach of privilege.
Mr. Lemass
I am raising a point of order. The Minister has described Deputy Briscoe's action as a breach of privilege. I submit, Sir, that you permitted him to read that document and that the description "breach of privilege" is completely unjustified by the circumstances. The minutes of meetings of public bodies and public authorities of various kinds which are held in private are frequently quoted here and have been quoted amongst others by Ministers; and there is ample precedent for the practice the Deputy followed.
The body was set up by statute and it was provided that its meetings would be in private.
Mr. Lemass
The minutes were public but the meetings were held in private—like the meetings of a county council.
What is the use of having the proceedings in private if the minutes are published?
I want to tell the House, and I hope that Deputy Lemass will listen, that last week I was asked a parliamentary question here and the Deputy who asked the question obviously wanted to find out how many times a particular member of the National Health Council who had made himself noticeable by letters to the Press had bothered to attend meetings of the council. I replied to that question by informing the Deputy that that information could only come from the minutes of the National Health Council; that their proceedings were private and that, while I had the right under statute, I and no one else, I did not feel I had the right to break that secrecy. The reason why I adopted that attitude was because in Section 41 of the Health Act it is specifically provided—and the provision was made by Deputy Dr. Ryan for obvious reasons —that every meeting of the National Health Council shall be held in private. Nevertheless Deputy Briscoe comes in here armed with minutes which contain, or should contain, the full record of what took place at a private meeting and reads out inaccurately——
Inaccurately?
——portions of these minutes here.
On a point of correction. Everything I read from this document was being read by the Minister and I deny that I read even one word inaccurately.
I do not propose to be deflected by the Deputy. Four times I had to correct the Deputy on what was in those minutes as a record of what I had said.
I said "Minister" when I should have said "Chairman" at one stage.
The Deputy knew what he was saying. He was deliberately saying that I told the National Health Council to say something. I never told them to say anything. I regard Deputy Briscoe's conduct as a breach of privilege.
The only other matter I want to raise in relation to Deputy Briscoe, who has been throwing his hands around here like a windmill, issuing challenges, and suggesting all sorts of things, is that he talked about the maternity services and, apparently, the House is to accept his assurance that Holles Street is not crowded; that all the doctors and nurses are willing to work the scheme; that every maternity hospital has been consulted and has agreed; that there is no shortage of beds in Dublin or, on the assurance of Deputy McGrath, in Cork, although 50 beds will shortly be provided there. That is the kind of contribution we have had from Deputy Briscoe.
Last night he and Deputy Dr. Ryan stated that some letter had been written on behalf of the three maternity hospitals suggesting that they were willing to implement these provisions. Deputy Dr. Ryan, and his aide-de-camp was of course very glad to follow him, clearly stated that that letter arrived in the Department of Health, as Deputy Dr. Ryan said: "Just at the time I knew I would be no longer Minister for Health between the middle of May and the end of May." He said: "I did not reply to it"; he left it to his successor to do that because he did not want to queer the pitch of his successor. Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Briscoe went on to suggest that this letter, coming from the three maternity hospitals, contained clear evidence of agreement to work this scheme.
The suggestion, therefore, was that when I became Minister, sitting propped up on my desk was a letter addressed to Deputy Dr. Ryan giving me every indication that the maternity hospitals would come in to work the scheme. As I told the House last night, I had not heard of any such letter. Indeed, if it had been written, and written so recently, I am quite certain that the officials of my Department, realising my concern over the problem that faced me, would have been the very first to bring that letter to my notice. They did not do so. I did not know of the letter. I have since made inquiries. I hope Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Dr. Ryan are listening: one letter written on behalf of the National Maternity Hospital, the Coombe and the Rotunda was sent to the Department of Health on the 24th February, 1954; not in the middle of May; not when my predecessor knew he was going to cease to be Minister for Health.
They were only a few months wrong.
That letter was sent on 24th February before he made the regulations and long before 1st April when, if that letter contained any evidence of agreement, he could have made that agreement. I will not read the entire letter because I do not propose to make it a practice in relation to negotiations I shall have to carry on to have matters divulged here, but I will make it available to any Deputy who wants to see it privately.
Mr. Lemass
There is a rule that if a Minister reads a document, the whole of it must be published.
If it is asked for.
Not unless it is an official document.
Mr. Lemass
That is the rule of this House. I am asking the Chair to rule on this matter before the Minister reads the letter.
The practice is that, if an official document is being read and the whole of the document is asked for, all the document has to be read or the reading of it discontinued. The point is: is it an official document? It is a letter from the hospitals; and that is not an official document.
Mr. Lemass
A letter sent to the Minister, as Minister, is on an official file and is an official document.
If it was a paper by the Minister it would be an official document; but this is a letter sent from outside to the Minister and, therefore, it is not an official document.
Mr. Lemass
I suggest it is an official document when it goes on an official file.
If anybody chooses to write a letter to a Minister on any matter that letter is not an official document; and this letter is not an official document.
May I suggest this is an attempt on the part of Deputy Lemass purely for the purpose of intimidating?
Whatever the object is, I am ruling that this letter is not an official document in the meaning of the rulings.
And Deputy Lemass is badly caught out again.
Any citizen of the State may address a letter to a Minister, but that does not make it an official document.
Mr. Lemass
In my opinion, the Chair's ruling counts as a precedent here and I would like if the Chair would define an official document.
A personal letter is not an official document.
An official document is a document made by or on the authority of a Minister of State in respect of the operations of his Department.
Mr. Lemass
I submit a letter sent to a Minister, as such, and incorporated in the official files of his Department for departmental record purposes is an official document and cannot be held to be anything else.
It is not an official document. Any citizen may write a letter to a Minister, or his Department, in relation to home assistance, national health insurance, or anything else and that does not become an official document simply because it is addressed to a Minister.
Mr. Lemass
I submit the Minister cannot quote from the letter without publishing the whole of it here in the House.
The Minister can quote from the document. The Deputy can challenge the ruling.
Mr. Lemass
I challenge it.
The Deputy can challenge that in the regular fashion.
The Deputy took a personal letter off the files in the Department and used it at an election meeting.
Mr. Lemass
You forgot to take it off the files.
I did not know who was coming after me.
Order!
The letter which I propose to quote from, and it is the only letter from the maternity hospitals received by my predecessor, is dated the 24th February, 1954. I shall read the first three paragraphs of the letter:—
"Since receipt of the memoranda, under cover of your letter of the 16th December last and your further letter dated 18th January last, there have been two meetings of representatives of the three maternity hospitals in Dublin to consider the tentative proposals embodied in those communications as far as they concern the maternity hospitals. Attached hereto is a list of the representatives at the meetings.
The object of the meetings was to examine the proposals together and to make recommendations that might assist the respective hospitals' boards and thereby expedite eventual decisions by them. Nothing taking place at these meetings was in any way to bind any of the boards of the hospitals.
Being unanimously of opinion that the proposals as they stand would not be recommended to the hospitals' boards for acceptance, the representatives resolved unanimously to address a letter to the Department of Health, setting out a number of points on which the Minister's observations would be welcomed, to enable further consideration to be given to his proposals."
The letter then goes on to discuss various matters which I do not think are relevant, and I can assure the House that they are not, to this debate, and which I do not think should be divulged here.
Will the Minister say if they set out the points?
This is the only letter received by my predecessor, and received by him on the 24th February. That letter conveys the information that the boards of the three hospitals were unanimously of opinion that his proposals could not be accepted. My predecessor, and this is not in accordance with his statement last night, did reply to that letter. I do not know whether he queered my pitch or not but he did reply on the 15th April, 1954. He dealt with certain matters that the maternity hospitals' letter had referred to and there has been no further approach or reply since the 15th April from the maternity hospitals.
Those are the facts. I want to know from Deputy Dr. Ryan under what circumstances could he and Deputy Briscoe have come in here last night talking about the letter which they said was written just prior to my going to the Custom House as Minister for Health, and suggesting that the maternity hospitals were giving evidence that they were agreeable to work these proposals in accordance with regulations. What was the sense in talking in that way? Was it because of Deputy Dr. Ryan's faulty memory, as he said yesterday? Was it because of the accepted prompt from Deputy Briscoe? Is it not extraordinary, having made so much point about this yesterday and not having mentioned it on the Second Reading, that he mentioned it yesterday for the first time? It was a point that was cooked up over the week-end but it was badly cooked and it stinks.
I want to challenge Deputy Dr. Ryan to refer to any letter received by him as Minister for Health just before he left office conveying the information that any of the maternity hospitals in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere was willing to work this scheme. There is no such letter. I am surprised that Deputy Dr. Ryan did not know that there was no such letter. Those who, like Deputy Briscoe, come in here and challenge my honour as they were doing last night can keep their challenges.
I have put every fact I know of before the House in this debate. I have not tried to suppress anything. Despite the views of some Deputies over there, I have put them all before the House but I dislike very much it being suggested, whether deliberately or unintentionally, that I was concealing from the House a letter which I had never heard of, and which, I have now discovered, would have been a material weapon to assist the contention that I was making in this debate.
On this question of the availability of maternity beds in Dublin, last night in the course of the debate Deputy Briscoe went to great length to draw me on this matter. I am not drawn unless I want to be drawn. He pressed me very hard to ask the Minister to produce the letter. The Minister has now read it. I do not know whether it is the letter or not that Deputy Briscoe referred to. If it is not the letter, will Deputy Briscoe now produce the letter that he referred to because he has had ample opportunity of enabling us to get this point cleared?
Deputy Briscoe, a few moments ago, made great play with giving the House assurances that he was satisfied and was positive that the services under Section 16 could be provided in Dublin. Listening to the way in which Deputy Briscoe handled the incident regarding the National Health Council I am more and more reluctant to place any particular credence in what he has been saying in regard to that particular matter. We have now got to the definite point that, at great length last night, we had great play on this particular letter. Can we get it straight, is this the letter to which Deputy Briscoe was referring that the Minister has read out? If it is not the letter, can the letter be now made available, and let us see what the hospitals say?
Are you satisfied that the letter has been made available?
I do not know. You know.
I say it is not.
If this is not the letter, will you then explain why it is that up to now, with all the access that you undoubtedly have, you have not been able to get a copy of the letter from the hospitals to read here this afternoon?
I hope to have it here later this afternoon.
I naturally accept the Minister's account of what happened. I said here yesterday that my recollection with regard to dates is very bad. I must say that I made a big slip in saying February instead of May. My recollection in connection with the letter is that I do not remember saying any more. I certainly did not accuse the Minister of trying to suppress the letter.
Deputy Briscoe did.
I did not.
I take no offence at what the Deputy said. He prefaced it by saying that his recollection was not good.
The suggestion I made was that if the files were looked up that, in my opinion, there was a basis there, and that the Minister might be prepared to accept it as a basis for negotiation. My recollection is still the same. I have to admit that I cannot rely on my recollection as well as I should, but my recollection in regard to dates is all wrong, and must be mixed up in regard to the answer.
The answer was sent on the 15th April and the regulations were not made until the 15th May.
I was talking about the election time.
On a point of explanation. Does the Deputy agree that this is the letter to which reference is made?
I accept that.
Does Deputy Briscoe?
I called on Deputy Dr. Ryan. Let Deputies make statements consecutively and have no interruptions.
I wish Deputy Dr. Ryan and Deputy Briscoe would get together on this matter.
On a point of order. The Minister was challenged as to whether a certain letter existed or not. He has produced the letter. Deputy Briscoe has just now said that that was not the letter, that there was another letter that he would have here to-night, he hoped. Is that charge being stood over? It is a grave charge against a Minister.
That is not a point of order. A point of order is something the Chair can deal with. The Chair cannot deal with that.
It is a point of truth.
The charge made by Deputy Briscoe, which I understand is being stood over by Deputy Dr. Ryan, is that in fact the Minister is suppressing a vital piece of evidence relevant to the issues under discussion in the House, and deliberately suppressing it.
The trouble is that Deputy MacBride comes in here and hears a discussion across the House arising from something which happened when he was not here. I am still charging the Minister.
With suppressing the letter?
What I said, Sir, was, yesterday I challenged the Minister to produce that letter to which I alluded.
And suggested I was concealing it.
I said that if the Minister did not produce it, I would take it that he was withholding it—call it suppressing, if you like. I also said, when challenged, that I would do my best to get that letter. The Minister has read the introduction to a letter, three paragraphs. He has not read the letter. I am hoping to get the letter this evening and I will read the balance.
Is it that letter?
This letter, yes.
There is a copy of the letter available to the Deputy.
Deputy Briscoe suggested there was another letter.
I did not suggest that.
Order!
I am not going to allow Deputy MacBride to get away with these political tricks here. The Minister understands that it was to this letter I was referring yesterday.
I do no such thing. A charge was against me.
Deputy Briscoe made a dishonest charge against the Minister.
Deputy Briscoe will resume his seat. I am putting the amendment.
Before you put the amendment, Sir, may I make this point? I have not spoken in this debate. When this matter of the letter was being dealt with by Deputy Larkin, Deputy Dr. Ryan, without question, accepted this as the letter. Deputy Briscoe did not.
I do.
He said he hoped to be in a position to produce a copy of the letter to which he himself was referring, which was not this letter.
A copy of this letter, because it has not been read in full.
If the Deputy wants to mend his hand——
I am not mending my hand at all.
The Deputy has been caught out.
I have not been caught out.
And rather shamefully exposed.
When the letter comes, we will see. The Deputy is a great judge of shameful conduct.
I am calling on Deputy McQuillan, if Deputy Morrissey has concluded his remarks.
No, Sir. If Deputy Briscoe is allowed 35 minutes, I might be allowed five.
You can have 45.
Does Deputy Briscoe now agree that there was only the one letter, that is, the letter which Deputy Dr. Ryan does admit is the letter? Does he now admit that that is the letter or does the Deputy still suggest that there was a letter of the middle of May?
I never used the date at all.
It was I said that.
I asked the Minister the date.
Does Deputy Briscoe still allege that there was a second letter?
No, I never did. I am saying that this is the letter but it has not yet been read.
Can we have an assurance that the Deputy will not take another turn before the end of this debate on that?
The Deputy is a great man for taking turns.
I took a bad one when I came over here.
You were kicked out of the Labour Party.
I was, mind you. Fianna Fáil have kicked out a few faithful followers in the Seanad so far.
We have done very well.
Senators are not relevant on this debate.
Fine Gael only got one of the five.
We will talk about kicking people out after long and faithful service.
I have called on Deputy McQuillan and he should be allowed to speak.
We have Cogan in.
I hope you think he is worth the price you had to pay.
This amendment and the section to which it refers deal with the most important part of the Health Act, 1953. If we examine Section 16 of the 1953 Health Act we will find embodied in that section many of the benefits which had been outlined in this House and outside this House for the last four or five years by Deputies of a certain Party. Very few people realise the significance of Section 16 of the 1953 Act and the significance of the section in the 1954 Bill that the Minister has now introduced which, if accepted by this House, will enable him to postpone bringing into operation the many benefits that would become available to people under Section 16 of the 1953 Act.
Section 16 of the 1953 Act could be described as the mother and child scheme and I need not remind the members of this House of the furore that was caused when certain individuals suggested that the mother and child scheme was contrary to this, that and the other. Every possible attempt has been made by people outside this House to ensure that a mother and child scheme without a means test would not come into operation. If this section of the 1954 Bill is accepted by the House, these people outside will have won the day.
As far as Section 16 is concerned and the benefits that would be available under it, several local authorities are prepared to implement that section of the 1953 Act. Again I say to the Minister that the local authority in Roscommon is prepared to implement that section and that we have the necessary beds available.
We had a discussion here by the various Deputies in connection with the fact that no agreement has been reached with the medical profession, no agreement has been reached with the nurses, to work this section. They might have gone down the list and said that no agreement was made with domestic staffs and porters in the hospitals to implement the section.
We will have to make up our minds one way or the other as far as the I.M.A. is concerned. If the Minister finds that he will not get the co-operation from this body, there are plenty of other doctors available outside the I.M.A. If the I.M.A. want to represent themselves as a trade union in their demand for special facilities and fees, let them declare themselves as such but if a trade union acted in the irresponsible manner in which the I.M.A. are acting, a state of emergency would be declared in this country. There is nothing here but talk about consulting the medical profession on every single aspect of this Bill.
No. On some things.
The Minister will remember, and he will agree with me, that when the Local Authorities (Works) Act was being brought into operation the engineers in the various local authorities were not consulted to the extent of saying "Would you mind working the Local Authorities (Works) Act?" They were told it was Government policy and it was their duty to ensure that the Local Authorities (Works) Act was implemented. There was not an engineer in the country anxious to work it. They did not want the extra work involved. Neither did the officials. Neither did the county managers. But they work it and there is no fuss to-day. I am not going to deal with this advisory committee except to say this. The Minister referred to the fact that there were certain people on it associated with the local authority such as the county managers and it is only natural that officials and county managers would be cautious in suggesting to the Minister that a new service be brought into operation because it means more work for these people. Is it not human nature to suggest postponing a new service as long as possible?
I know perfectly well there is a lot of work involved in implementing and setting in operation Section 16 and the amendment that has been put in by Deputy Dr. Ryan. Officials, county managers and county secretaries do not like extra work and consequently they will be very cautious in advising the Minister as to whether the time is ripe to implement certain sections such as the section we are referring to here.
Last night the Minister made this astonishing statement that any person in Roscommon who was depending on a farm of £10 valuation gets full hospital, medical and other services. I presume that the word "free" was left out of the copy which I took. The Minister went to the trouble of consulting with the local authority in Roscommon in connection with the method they adopt of implementing the Public Assistance Act, 1939——
I do not think this is relevant to this amendment. Could you not deal with it on the next one?
In so far as the treatment under the mother and child scheme is concerned the husband has to pay.
It might be more appropriate on the next amendment.
I think it can be brought in in this way, that a farmer on a valuation of £10 who has a wife going to hospital to have a baby must pay for the care of his wife and child in the hospital. So far as the local authority in Roscommon is concerned if a farmer has a valuation of £10 and he happens to take a few acres of conacre it is taken into consideration and he does not get the free treatment. If the Minister looks at the report which he got from the local authority in Roscommon he will see it stated that every case is considered on its merits.
Correct.
What is wrong with that?
I am in the same unfortunate position as Deputy Burke of Roscommon or Deputy Beirne of Roscommon of having to bring a sheaf of hospital bills into the county manager and asking him will he deal with that, or will he reduce the other. The county manager takes the bills and——
What is wrong with that?
I think it is a degrading system.
On whom?
On the small farmer, whom the Minister represents as well as I do, and most Deputies in this House have stated from time to time that the means test even in the case of old age pensions should disappear.
The Deputy said that because each case is considered on its merits that is wrong.
Every case in Roscommon is considered on its merits.
What is wrong with that?
The man on £10 valuation should not be charged.
The £10 valuator should not be charged.
Deputy McQuillan is in possession.
That is a different question.
It is not a bit different.
I am dealing with the farmers of £10 valuation or under. Each case of a farmer of £10 valuation or less, is dealt with on its merits. In other words, unless that farmer is in a position to make an appeal to me as a public representative he will have to pay but if he is lucky enough to come to me or any other member of the council and make representations which are passed on to the county manager, then the home assistance officer is sent out to see when did the hens last lay.
I have as much experience of that as the Deputy has and I have never seen anything unjust or unfair done.
The Minister was a member of a local authority I presume——
He was not.
——and I happen to be a member of a local authority myself and I can assure the Minister that what I am saying will be borne out by Deputy Beirne, who is chairman of the council.
I am sure that happens everywhere.
The Minister, I am sure, will agree with me it is time we got away from that. That is my point. The section the Minister is bringing in now is ensuring that that will be kept in operation for I do not know how long. I am suggesting to him we are in a position in Roscommon to implement Section 16 of the Health Act for the maternity benefits so that the small farmers will not have to go to see the county manager with their caps in their hands and ask him would he reduce hospital bills for their wives after maternity cases. I suppose it all depends on the way we look at it——
Roscommon are not in that position.
You do not know the first thing about it.
I can tell you all about it.
I would like to hear the Deputy on his feet to tell me something about it because I have not heard him yet.
The Minister suggested that no agreement had been made with the nurses and that no agreement had been made with the doctors. I think he will find that as far as the nurses are concerned they themselves are only too anxious to help in the implementation of the Health Act. I think, too, he will find on examination that although the I.M.A. suggest that they represent all the doctors of this country in actual fact they do not.
If the Deputy wants to be helpful I would suggest he should not pursue that line.
The I.M.A. have their spokesmen——
The Deputy says he is anxious to see these services in operation and the best thing he can do is to discontinue what he is about to say.
I have seen the dispensary doctors in my own constituency—and I believe the same can be said of them all over the country—and they are the finest set of men that could be got.
And all for the Act, every one of them.
All these men are there, but they do not come out. They have not the opportunities that the I.M.A. have of expressing their views, and the small group whose representatives get up in Killarney or elsewhere pretend to act for the medical profession as a whole.
The good Samaritans.
I want to appeal to the Minister to allow those local authorities who state that they are in a position to implement Section 16 of the Health Act to do so. The Minister has said—and I accept this from the Minister himself—that he is anxious to see the Act implemented in full but that he wants it to come in step by step. He should, therefore, allow those local authorities who are prepared to implement Section 16 of the Act to take that step. Do not held them back and keep them marking time for the areas which are not up to scratch.
May I ask the Minister a question? If the Bill is passed without any amendment to Section 2, is it not possible to say in relation to Section 22 that if any local authority is in a position to operate these services, the Minister has still power to allow them to go ahead in any particular local authority area?
That is so. If the amendment to Section 22 as proposed in the Bill becomes law, of course it is possible for me, and if I wished I would have the power to provide for different services in different areas in accordance with local facilities, and so on. As I indicated on Second Reading, I hope to have a survey of all the facilities and arrangements throughout the country in regional conferences, though I must say, as a matter of honesty, that I should be loth to have a lack of uniformity in different areas. However, that is quite apart from Deputy Larkin's question.
The Minister, speaking yesterday, made a point about Dublin hospitals but a number of other Deputies have stated that the local authorities down the country are in a position to operate Section 16 of the Act. Now that the Minister has got that assurance from representatives of local authorities both in the City of Dublin and the country, is he prepared to accept it that they are in a position to operate Section 16 and to give them an opportunity of doing so? The Minister will find it hard to convince the people that Deputy Dr. Ryan, when he was Minister, would be guilty of making an Order to bring the Act into operation on the 16th August unless he was fully convinced that the Act could then be operated. Deputy Dr. Ryan has years of experience of public life behind him and he would not jeopardise his political career by making the Order unless he was confident that that Order could be brought into operation on the 1st August. Again, local authorities throughout the country have given him an assurance that they will be able to operate Section 16 of the Act, but the Minister, in replying yesterday, referred only to Dublin hospitals. Members of the Dublin Corporation have also stated that they are in a position to do this job.
Have a care now.
Can we not expect a responsible Deputy to maintain a high state of decorum in this House?
Was the Deputy listening to Deputy Briscoe last night in regard to the letter and the Health Council?
On a point of order. Deputy Larkin, by way of interjection, is suggesting that I made a statement last night which was not based on fact or was not true. I deny that. What I said last night was that there was a letter in existence which I challenged the Minister to read. The Minister read an extract from it this morning but he has not read the letter. I have told the Deputy that I shall get a copy of the letter and if he wants it I shall read it.
I am waiting.
The Deputy, not I, will then have the red face.
Deputy Burke.
I must say that I have always tried to be fair in my criticisms in this House, even to my opponents but there is an air of complete insincerity from the other side of the House. They have completely failed to convince us in regard to the point which they raised about the 1953 Act. Every time they got on their feet, from the chief spokesman down, to support this amending Bill, they only made their case worse than it was. I have tried to discover whether they had any arguments at all to sustain the case which they put forward and I am now firmly convinced that they can put forward no argument whatever to sustain this amending Bill.
We are discussing amendment No. 2.
I have only to repeat that the local authorities are prepared to operate Section 16 and that assurance has been given by responsible members of these local authorities. The Minister dealt only with Dublin hospitals and did not refer to country hospitals at all. Deputy Dr. Ryan would certainly not stultify his political integrity by making the Order unless he was firmly convinced that the Act could be worked on the date on which he proposed to bring these services into operation.
I want to protest against a certain section of the people being deprived of the benefits of the Health Act when the services are available for them. Deputy Larkin seems to be satisfied, and tried to convince Deputy McQuillan, that Section 22 authorises the Minister to do so-and-so if he wants to. Surely Deputy Larkin cannot have changed around so completely in a few months? Anybody remembering his attitude last year towards the Health Act will recall the way in which he differed from the Minister's Party at that time in their attitude to the Act. He is now apparently quite satisfied to leave it to the Minister that he has authority to work these particular services under Section 22. Is that not a terrible somersault for Deputy Larkin?
I am not at all satisfied.
You were quite satisfied that the Health Act should be enacted with all possible speed and that it was badly wanted. Now you will not even ask the Minister to name a date. You will not even ask him to say whether he will implement these services within six months, nine months or 12 months. The Deputy is quite satisfied to permit Section 16 and other sections to be abandoned. He is quite satisfied that the Minister and his Party, who so bitterly opposed the passage of the Health Act through this House, will implement certain services. I think that is a complete somersault.
The word "postponement" has been used in relation to the Health Act but if Deputies wanted to be honest, they should have used the word "abandonment". It is obvious to me from many statements I have heard that the Health Act is being abandoned.
On a point of order. In order that we may have some finality. I do suggest that a Second Reading speech on an amendment should not be permitted. The Deputy is referring to what he pleases to call the abandonment of the Health Act. That is a wide discussion. It might have been of assistance on the Second Stage.
The Deputy must relate his remarks to the amendment.
The abandonment of Section 16 means, in reality, the abandoning——
We are on the amendment. There is no question of abandonment. I must insist on this point of order. The amendment proposed is a particular amendment that where a health authority makes available services to a woman of the class mentioned in Section 16 due provision shall be made for her. There is nothing else in the amendment but that. There is nothing about abandoning any section or anything like that.
Unless this sub-section of the Act is retained, in my opinion, we will have many a long day to wait until the services proposed under the section in question will be given to the people. We know the Minister is pretty hard-hearted. I suppose that is the reason why he was asked to do this particular job. It requires a hardhearted man, a man of iron, to deprive certain people of certain medical treatment and facilities to which they would be entitled were this section not being pressed forward by the present Minister. We know now from the many statements we have read that it is the mentality of the Fine Gael Party that this Bill should never have been introduced.
The Bill is not under discussion. We are discussing amendment No. 2.
The Deputy has no idea of what the amendment is.
We are not in the Four Courts now. The Minister instead of addressing the jury is before the jury himself—the jury of the Irish people. I assure him that if the people get a chance again they will don the black cap and sentence the present Minister to political extinction for ever.
That is not relevant to the amendment.
It has been argued here by the Minister that facilities are not available and that that is the reason for this particular section. I should like to ask the Minister what steps, if any, he took to ascertain the truth. Did the Minister ascertain from any responsible official in South Tipperary as to whether facilities were or were not available for the persons to whom this particular section refers?
We are not discussing the section but the amendment.
In South Tipperary we have two first-class county medical hospitals. One is a county surgical hospital and the other a county medical hospital, together with many other reasonably well-fitted district hospitals. There is no reason in the world for depriving people of the medical services they would get if this sub-section of the Act is retained.
The Deputy is referring to medical services. This particular amendment refers merely to services for women in respect of motherhood. The Deputy has probably heard of that human event. It has nothing to do with the broader questions arising in relation to other sections. The amendment deals with a particular form of service and with nothing else.
The amendment deals with a certain class of people receiving medical, surgical, midwifery or specialist services.
In respect of motherhood.
That is medical, surely.
The argument of the Minister up to now is that facilities were not available and that that is the reason for the postponement. He cannot have it both ways. My argument is that these services should be and must be available to the poorer sections of the community. Everybody, including the Minister, knows full well that any person with plenty of money in his pocket can get the particular services without being put on any waiting list or without there being any further arguments about it. Why the I.M.A. or any other particular organisation in this country should hold up any people to ransom is beyond me. I am quite satisfied that the opportunities are there for the particular people in question to get the particular services and any excuse the Minister might make will not, in my opinion, convince the people that that is the reason. While Deputy Larkin pretended he was satisfied, I do not think he is. I have enough confidence in Deputy Larkin to hope that he will make certain that Section 16 of the Act will be implemented within a reasonable time at least. The Minister should accept this sub-section. I am satisfied it is workable and further that it will allay many hardships in respect of people who cannot afford to pay for the specialist services provided in that particular section of the Act.
There is one point I want to put to the Minister. The Minister says that he will have a survey under Section 22. Will it be an independent survey? Are we going to go to those rabid people who, in their vindictiveness, condemned this Act out of the public life of this country altogether? I want to say, through the Chair, to Deputy Larkin that every democratic force in the country said that the Larkins would not let us down on this Bill, anyway. I want to put this to Deputy Larkin. Does he stand for this kind of partial survey or does he want an impartial survey about the operation of the Act? He surely is experienced enough to know that there are certain forces in this country who do not want any section whatsoever of this Act in operation. They are not only conservative but Tory in outlook.
I think that we on this side of the House have been sidetracked by this question of availability. I was surprised at the Labour Party stressing and swallowing hook, line and sinker the arguments on availability. In my opinion, Deputy Larkin only pretended to ignore the much more serious issues which we are up against in the country. On the question of relevancy, the arguments we used on the Bill in general can be channelled to Section 16. Therefore, if I use the word "Bill" inadvertently in place of "the amendment" I do not have to change a word of my argument. It has been stated here that the corridors of the hospitals down the country have been crowded. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they have. That proves that the administration of these hospitals has made every effort to ensure that every urgent case is dealt with. The difficulty we have found ourselves up against is that people who should not be asked to pay have, in fact, been compelled to pay and if we got the 1953 Act these people would get a square deal. We are surprised that the Labour Party are withholding that square deal from them. Deputy Larkin or any other Labour Party man has no reply to that.
Why did you Minister—Deputy Dr. Ryan—not give it to them?
He did arrange to give it to them. It was coming on the 1st August. Deputy Larkin is now postponing it.
Deputy Larkin would defend anything on that side.
Deputy Larkin can accept my word that we have had cases of widows offering to assign their widows' pension to pay hospital bills which they were compelled to incur.
On a point of order. How does this arise under Section 16? The Deputy referred to widows. That does not come under this amendment which deals with medical services to women in respect of motherhood.
The Minister's point of order is technically correct, but I did preface my remarks——
I am raising it as a point of order.
——by the statement that if I inadvertently used the word "Bill" or anything of that sort, my argument was still relevant to Section 16. It is the same line of reasoning the whole way.
On a point of order.
The Minister has raised so many points of order that, in fact, he is becoming disorderly.
Technical interruptions.
The question of widows does not arise on this amendment.
I raised this point of order because each Deputy who has spoken in the past half-hour or so has been making a Second Reading speech on this amendment, and that is not in accordance with the Rules of Order. I ask your assistance, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to ensure that Deputy Bartley and every other Deputy who speaks will speak to the amendment.
You did it on the 1953 Act. You held up this House for nine months on that Act.
We can record the fact that no part of any piece of legislation that has gone through this House has been subjected to more ministerial points of order than this amendment. I think that in itself is an indication——
——of how disorderly you are.
——of the strength of the case which we are making. I regret that the Labour Party, who did so much to prod on Deputy Dr. Ryan to produce better benefits in the 1953 Act than the Bill originally contained——
We did not prod him enough.
——should now reverse engines so completely and for the flimiest of reasons—the availability of services. We want Deputy Larkin and the Labour Party to ensure that the services that are available and that have been available in the recent past will not become a blister on the backs of the poor. I want to assure Deputy Larkin, who represents the organised workers, that there are unorganised workers who cannot be gathered together in halls and harangued and who cannot stand shoulder to shoulder to present a united front to assert their rights. I have in mind the people who are scattered in the remote villages and districts of the country. These people have to depend upon the rights that their public representatives win for them. These mothers are being denied by this section the full benefits which the 1953 Health Act provided for them. We feel that the Minister should allow the facilities that do exist to operate without the added worry that the people who avail themselves of them will be burdened by a debt which they have to meet by borrowing.
I have come across a case within the past fortnight—a maternity case, I should say, lest again I be pulled up on the question of relevancy—of a woman who actually had no means and had to borrow the money to pay her doctor's bills. Will anybody tell me that experiences of that nature do not justify the Fianna Fáil side of the House in protesting most vehemently against the Labour Party, who should be in the forefront defending people so circumstanced?
This section is unwarranted and cannot be justified. As we pointed out last week, the Minister is quite consistent. He does not want to give these maternity benefits free to the classes for whom they were provided because certain ethical objections have been advanced to them. We know that the one major ethical objection which the Medical Association have has nothing at all to do with medical education but has everything to do with freedom from charge to those people in these classes. If Deputy Dr. Ryan had been prepared to eliminate that freedom from charge he would have heard very little about ethical objections on the grounds of medical education or otherwise. We have a very solid case for opposing this change and we do it in the interests of the poor who are not organised, who are not insured, who are scattered in the remotest parts of the country and who cannot, therefore, organise themselves. We will not let their penalisation in this way go without protest.
I think that the main objection to this amendment by Deputy Dr. Ryan is lack of accommodation. In Sligo we have good hospital accommodation. A new hospital has been built there and the contract for a clinic has been given out.
In connection with this section, I think hospital accommodation is not at all the main thing that is required: it is doctors. In Sligo, too, we have advanced to the extent that we have appointed specialists even on a regional basis in order to meet this Bill. All these things were put there by Deputy Dr. Ryan when he was Minister and he is attacked now by Fine Gael and the Labour Party as an excuse for their change of face. That, in my opinion, is the real trouble. In Sligo we have all these things ready. We have hospitals and we have the specialists. I cannot understand what objection any man could have to allowing this to be put in motion. As Deputy Bartley said, the only objection one can see to it is the charge.
In connection with the charge we have made in our rates and the arrangements to meet this charge for this year, we are not allowed to do it because it refers to the small farmer and the unorganised labourer as Deputy Bartley so well pointed out. There is no objection at all to taking the insured worker and putting his portion of the charge in on the rates. We hear no objection to that, but we do hear objection to catering for the small farmer and the unorganised worker who are more in need of it. There is no part of the Health Act for which I hear greater demand than this part dealing with maternity benefits.
What people are most asking for is to have freedom of choice of their doctors, and I think that is a thing long overdue. I cannot understand why any Minister should oppose that or stop it from coming into force. The attitude of the Labour Party is remarkable when we remember some of the speeches made here regarding that part of the Act. I remember Deputy Larkin pointing out that the doctors had no right to put their will on the people any more than any other trade council or labour council. The change that has taken place since he made that speech is surprising. Something is accountable for it, but it is very difficult to understand. Personally I am quite satisfied that they have no intention of putting any of the Act in force. Their attitude here and on the county council is a clear indication of that.
A few weeks ago the formation of a consultative council came up at Sligo County Council and they were quite clear about it. They said that they were satisfied that the Minister did not intend to implement the Act, and so they asked for an adjournment of the formation of this council. It is, therefore, clear that these people had their minds made up long ago as to what they were going to do, and it is not to bring in the Health Act. The present Bill is getting in the thin edge of the wedge, and if the Labour Party are going to fall for that we cannot help it. We believe that the people want these services, and while we are able to raise our voices we will tell these people that. The Labour Party will find out at a later date that we were justified when we told them that they were being used for the purpose of smashing the Act.
The really vital sections of the 1953 Act are being postponed or perhaps abandoned or repealed. This is the most vital of all of the sections which it is proposed to abandon or repeal. If the Minister wanted to make a case that it was necessary to have facilities he should go and prove it, and specify in what areas the necessary facilities are not available. As far as County Galway is concerned, I know that there is a fine maternity hospital there which is considered to be more than adequate for the requirements. In proof of that, we had over here last year a body of American doctors who were experts, and they gave the highest credit to the facilities obtainable there, and to the specialist service. In my opinion, this is drawing a red herring across the track altogether. It is just a subterfuge in order to jettison the Health Act, 1953, particularly its most vital sections.
We are interested in the people who find it difficult or impossible to pay. As Deputy Bartley said they have in many instances to borrow the money in order to pay the fees demanded of them. We do not want to have that position obtaining any longer. As I said on the Second Reading, I long for the day when an Act like the 1953 Act would be the law of this land, when the people such as those in the middle-income groups would no longer have to suffer the humiliation and degradation of having to come to their local representatives and make a full disclosure of their position and circumstances at home, and ask them to go to the county manager and beg of him to remit altogether, or else considerably reduce, the fees demanded of them. We want to see an end to that, and in very quick time.
It is very difficult to understand why people who claim to represent the labour elements in this country, and particularly the small farmers and the people in the middle-income section, should make a complete somersault as they have done in respect of the Bill and in respect of the 1953 Health Act. I am not an obstructionist in any way. I never was. But I would be prepared, because of the vital importance of this, to hold the Government here until next October and even force them to bring in the closure in order to show up this thing in its proper light to the people, and particularly to show up the hollowness of the sincerity of the Labour Party when they talk about great health services, comprehensive health services, a free for all scheme, and all the rest of it. I think their attitude in this House on this occasion is most disgraceful and certainly will not redound to their credit.
I wonder did Deputies Beegan, McGrath, Bartley and Davern consult the leader of their Party on the advice they are giving the Labour Party?
We will consult the people.
I am not talking about the people. I am talking about Deputy de Valera. I would just like to recall to them something which I hope they will mark and consider what it means.
The Deputy knows despite all the propaganda that we are not a Party of yesmen.
Do not kid me.
We have freedom of judgment.
We should try to be serious on the subject. We are not discussing the domestic affairs of the Fianna Fáil Party, though that would be very interesting.
Deputy Larkin on the amendment.
You know that you are only there because you are a lot of yesmen. He decides what to do and you are told. But it is very interesting to note the advice and the suggestions made that the Labour Party, and Deputy Larkin in particular, apparently, should use whatever position we have in this House, whatever pressure we have, to ensure that the Fine Gael Party are kept in line on the Health Bill. I think that is the advice.
Yes.
Might I recall that on the occassion of the election of the Taoiseach Deputy de Valera spoke, and he pointed out that one of the objections he had to what he would call coalition government in the present circumstances was that the Labour Party, representing only 13 per cent. of this House, would be in a position to put pressure on the Government, pressure which he thought was not desirable; and he went out of his way—remember this is the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party—to assure the Fine Gael Party that if the Labour Party sought to do that they could look with assurance to the Fianna Fáil Party to be supported against that pressure?
Undesirable pressure. There is the operative word.
Undesirable pressure on a question of percentages. Let us be quite clear, irrespective of what Deputy de Valera or the Fianna Fáil Party are going to advise the Labour Party to do, whatever position we have in this House we are going to use. It will not be out of any regard for Fianna Fáil, and we are not going to have particular regard for Fine Gael if they do not keep up to the line when we think it necessary. May I point out that when I say that I am saying it in relation to a public commitment made by the Minister? I do not know whether he is going to live up to it or not, but he has made a commitment in regard to the Health Bill and the Health Act. I take it that, having made that commitment, he naturally would expect that not merely from the Labour Party but from Fianna Fáil and people like Deputy McQuillan, there will be pressure brought to bear on him to see that he carries it out. He is sufficiently experienced in public life to know very well that a commitment entered into publicly in the House is not going to be forgotten. I am not speaking out of turn when I say to the Minister that, so far as his commitment to implement the Health Act in full and as soon as possible is concerned, there will be pressure on him. He knows that.
The Health Act of 1953 was passed by Fianna Fáil with the support of the Labour Party. Our weakness, quite frankly, was that we thought that when Deputy Dr. Ryan, as Minister, got the Act through, he would have been just as active in getting preparations made to implement it. Unfortunately, we made a mistake and we the best part of four days listening to the manoeuvrings of Deputy Dr. Ryan, Deputy Briscoe and a number of others in an atmosphere which is not very conducive to good health legislation and which is not a tribute to the Fianna Fáil Party. Before this Bill came into the House, it had been turned into a political cockpit by Deputy Dr. Ryan outside the House. Before he had even heard the case and regardless of what was the case to be made for postponement Fianna Fáil had decided that it was going to be a political wrangle on the floor of the House and we had some very edifying contributions yesterday and this evening from members of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Leave the Labour Party alone. We can look after ourselves and we did so when Fianna Fáil and when the interParty Government were in power. We have—probably more than any section in the House—an understanding of and a regard for the necessity of having proper health facilities for our people, and we have had the experience of sitting on the opposite benches and making appeals for our people to a Fianna Fáil Government and seeing them turned down. Do not think that any sudden change of heart on the part of Fianna Fáil is going to have very much effect on us. We have had a long experience and we look after ourselves and after our own policy and we will apply it. Let Fianna Fáil Deputies look after themselves, and, in future, when they pass legislation, let them remember that there is also an obligation on them to be ready to put it into application. Their record in the months which have passed since the Act went through in October last year is not a very edifying record for a Minister for Health in Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Larkin still continues to talk with his tongue in his cheek. He had over three years, during which he played a dominant part in a Coalition, to implement the health legislation and what did he do? He let all the years pass by and he twitted Deputy Dr. Ryan some time ago with allowing all the time since last October to pass without making the necessary preparations. We do not admit that the necessary preparations were not made and we do not admit that the facilities contained in the 1953 Act cannot be implemented on 1st August. We do agree with Deputy Larkin that he is playing his own Labour hand and we have a pretty shrewd idea of what the big strategic idea behind it is. We do know, however, that he is throwing the uninsured and the unorganised to the dogs and accepting the Minister's statement that the Act will be implemented when he thinks it can be implemented and when certain ethical objections have been removed.
Deputy Larkin understands the significance of that as well as I do. He knows that one of the ethical objections is freedom from charge and he has accepted that. We do not. We believe that the people in these groups should be free of charge, but Deputy Larkin by his action now has reversed engines. He backed up Deputy Dr. Ryan when he was Minister, but now he has reversed engines—turned a complete somersault—and says, in effect, that these people are not entitled to freedom from charge. These are the people we are defending here. It is we who are consistent and I say that the Minister also is consistent. The only people who are not consistent in this matter are Deputy Larkin and the Labour Party. The Minister always said he would not have it and he is carrying out and implementing his viewpoint. We, too, are consistent. Deputy Larkin is the only one who has changed.
Deputy James Larkin has charged the Fianna Fáil Party with taking no steps to implement this legislation. A great many pieces of legislation in the years in which Fianna Fáil were in office went through the House and became Acts of the House and in every single instance Fianna Fáil implemented them. If Deputy Larkin and his group had thought fit, on the day on which the Taoiseach was elected, to put Fianna Fáil over there instead of over here, there is not the slightest doubt that the Health Act would have been implemented on 1st August and Deputy Dr. Ryan, as Minister, would have been the man responsible for implementing it. Deputy Larkin had every confidence until the results of the general election became known that the Act was to come into operation and there was no doubt whatever in the mind of any member of his Party about Deputy Dr. Ryan as Minister for Health, Deputy de Valera as Taoiseach or about the Fianna Fáil Government. He now changes his mind. Fianna Fáil are very suspicious and they have good reason to be suspicious with regard to this Bill.
Amendment No. 2 is before the House.
I am merely answering Deputy Larkin's charge that Fianna Fáil had no intention of implementing the Act on 1st August and I suggest that I am entitled——
I understood that Deputy Larkin was relating his remarks to the classes referred to in the amendment.
His remarks would have been more appropriate on the Second Reading, but, the Deputy having made these remarks, I suggest that you will allow me to suggest to Deputy Larkin that had Fianna Fáil and Deputy Dr. Ryan as Minister been on the opposite side, they would have implemented the Act and Deputy Larkin would have been the man to press to have it implemented. He would not, I am certain, have agreed to a Bill to postpone its implementation. I challenge him on that point.
Why should I, when you had 12 months to do the job?
What is the period the Minister is getting to implement it?— an unlimited period. He would not say last week——
Eight weeks.
He could have had this Bill last Thursday as an Act of the Oireachtas, if——
Your ruling is not being observed, Sir.
He was asked to name a date—three months, six months or 12 months—and he could not give any date.
That does not arise on the amendment.
This amendment is a vital amendment. It proposes, in effect, that certain classes which the Health Act was meant to cover will get services under that Act. Deputy Larkin would not have believed it, if Deputy Dr. Ryan was on the opposite side and said he was not prepared and wanted further time to implement the Act. He would not have accepted that and would not have given further time, but he is prepared to do it now because the group with whom he is associated have told him that it is necessary to do it. If, in the future, Deputy Larkin goes out and tries to persuade the people of this country that Fianna Fáil, in their years of government, passed any piece of legislation they did not implement he will find very few to believe him.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Johnny.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
I move amendment No. 3:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
( ) In any case where any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Health Act, 1953, are at any time on or after the 1st day of August, 1954, receiving institutional or specialist services made available by a health authority then notwithstanding any regulations made pursuant to this section in every such case the provisions of subsections (3) to (10) inclusive of Section 15 of the Health Act, 1953, shall apply.
I feel that to argue this amendment properly I would have to repeat a lot of the arguments I used before. I do not want to impose on your patience, so I will just formally move the amendment.
Tá
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Johnny.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In line 36, page 2, to delete "less".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
May I draw the Minister's attention to line 31? I think there is a typographical error there; the word should be "on".
That is a typographical error.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Health Act, 1953, shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954, in respect of the area of every local authority which states that it is in a position to operate the sections referred to.
I feel that this amendment for a new section in the Bill will commend itself to the Minister, to the Parties that support the present Government and to Opposition Deputies. When a Deputy tables an amendment here he should make himself familiar with the position arising in his own constituency in relation to the manner in which such a proposed amendment may affect the people living in that constituency.
I am satisfied that the local authority in Roscommon is prepared to operate Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the 1953 Health Act. It is only fair to suggest to the Minister that, in relation to every local authority which stipulates it is in a position to implement those sections of the 1953 Act, there is no reason why they should be told they cannot implement those sections until the local authority beside them has made the necessary arrangements and provided the necessary facilities. If we reach the stage that progressive local authorities have to wait for those that lag behind, that will be very unfair and it is bound to cause considerable annoyance and dissatisfaction amongst the members of local authorities who have shown a progressive outlook. It is no incentive to a local authority that has shown a progressive outlook to find it is relegated into the same class as a local authority that has failed in its duty or is lacking in its efforts to make the necessary facilities available.
On 7th July, at column 1402 of Volume 146 of the Official Report, I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, and I said that the local authority in Roscommon was prepared to work it, and so were other local authorities. Further on, I asked:
"Why cannot the Minister, for a start, authorise the local authorities which are willing and able to work that Act to go ahead?"
I went on to say:
"If the Minister is in a position to bring a Bill into this House to change an Act, surely he can bring in another Bill that will allow those areas that are now in a position to work it to do so."
The Minister intervened to say: "This Bill will do that." If that is the case, then there is no need for my amendment.
There is not.
I want to get this clear as far as Section 2 of the present Bill is concerned. It amends Section 22 of the Health Act of 1953 by the insertion of a new sub-section which states that:—
"Regulations under this section may, in particular, provide for services being made available for a particular class of persons only (including, as respects Sections 15 and 16 of this Act, a class which is a subclass of any of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 15)."
If my amendment can be covered by regulations under Section 22, then I should like the Minister, when replying, to assure the House that the local authorities which are in a position to implement the sections referred to will be allowed to do so. I say that because many of us have doubts with regard to that. I cannot speak for other areas. I know there are Deputies here who also are members of local authorities, and they can speak for their areas.
In connection with the local authority of which I happen to be a member, I want to point out that every effort has been made in recent years to make available first-class bed services, and that whatever criticism the Minister may have to level at those in higher categories he certainly cannot criticise some local authorities for the steps which they have taken to implement sections of the 1953 Act. Our local authority has provided a first-class clinic. It is properly and fully equipped. Specialists have been appointed and are there to carry out their duties. Specialists have also been appointed in connection with orthopædic, radiography and psychiatry services. These services are all available through the local authority in Roscommon, as well as specialist services for the ear, nose and throat. I mentioned before that, as regards gynæcology, the county surgeon in Roscommon has completed a refresher course in London in order to be fully up-to-date. Other aspects in connection with obstetries can be dealt with by the county physician.
The question of accommodation has been mentioned. Some Labour Deputies have expressed the view that they feel that not enough beds are available to meet the demand, especially in connection with Section 16 of the 1953 Act. I want to assure them that under the local authority in Roscommon we have sufficient beds. Within the last two months we have provided 14 extra beds, and on the basis of 25 users for each bed per year, that means that 350 extra are being provided for maternity cases. The beds are provided and the specialists are available.
The subject of pathology is at present being dealt with by our local authority. It has taken steps to provide training for a student and it is expected that in the autumn the student will be ready to take up duty in Roscommon. Facilities are being provided at the present moment—they are attached to the county hospital— to enable this student who, we hope, will qualify to carry out her duties there in respect of the ordinary day-to-day routine examinations of specimens. Other aspects of medical treatment are also being made available. As regards, for instance, cardiac trouble, the services of a first class specialist are available in Castlerea. We have reached the happy position that under the local authority in Roscommon, specialist and hospital services are available for those who need them.
As regards dispensaries, two new ones were completed recently by the local authority. Contracts have been given out for five more. In addition, sites have been acquired and plans are being prepared at present for four other dispensaries.
I think I have put a reasonable case for my amendment to the House, and that the Minister should accept it and allow those local authorities which have shown initiative and drive and are anxious to implement the 1953 Act to go ahead as soon as possible. In speaking on this, I am perfectly independent of everyone in the House. I want to put the matter to the Minister in this way, that if he accepts the amendment, which is a reasonable one —there is nothing technical about it and it can be understood by the ordinary public outside—he is going to take away a very strong lever from the Opposition. He is going to leave himself and the present Government in this happy position, that the Opposition will not be able to go down the country and say: "Oh, well, Fine Gael opposed the 1953 Health Act all through and they are after codding Labour." That is the case they are going to make, and it is bound to bring the question of health services back again into the cockpit of politics. By accepting the amendment, I think the Minister has a great chance of relieving the feelings of the public and of removing the disquiet that exists at the moment—disquiet to the effect that the services in the 1953 Act will never come into operation for the classes that most of us here are anxious to help, the small farmers and groups of labourers.
The Opposition have already stated that they would be satisfied if the Minister was prepared to name a date as to when he would go ahead in the future in regard to the provision of services. The Minister has stated that he is not going to tie himself to any particular date. I think that is a reasonable suggestion to this extent, that, if he is going to base the implementation of the 1953 Act on whether all local authorities are able to carry it out, he cannot give a date to the House. He could, however, allow those local authorities that are able to implement the 1953 Act, or the sections of it to which I have referred, to do so as soon as they have made the necessary arrangements. That is all I am asking the Minister to do. I am offering the amendment in that spirit to the Minister, and I feel sure that he will accept it.
If the Minister would intervene now and explain what Section 2 of his amending Bill really means in relation to Section 22 of the 1953 Act and to the amendment, the position might be clarified for us.
I was about to say to the Deputy that the Deputy is in effect asking me to exercise a power which I already possess. He is urging on me considerations which would be apt in relation to whatever departmental policy I might follow. His amendment, in so far as it seeks to give me this power, is an unnecessary amendment. I already have the power. I may refer Deputies to the relevant section of the main Act, that is, Section 22. Under the Act of 1953, no service could be provided by any health authority anywhere to anyone except in accordance with regulations to be made by the Minister. If the Minister refrained from making any regulations, then no services at all could be provided. If the Minister refrained from making certain regulations then the services in respect of which regulations were not made could not be provided by any health authority anywhere.
In fact, my predecessor made seven sets of regulations relating to many of the services set out in the Health Act. In relation to five of these services no practical difficulties have arisen. In relation to two of them practical difficulties have arisen. There are some services under the Act in respect of which at the moment regulations have not been made and, were that position continued, of course, no services could be provided.
Under the regulation-making section, that is Section 22, the Minister is empowered to make regulations applicable to every health authority—that is in fact what has been done—or every health authority of a particular class. The Minister could, for instance, say: "I will make regulations applicable to all rural areas. I will exclude Dublin City and Cork City, and so on." That in fact has not been done but the power is there.
Thirdly, the Minister is empowered to make regulations applicable to a particular health authority. The Minister is empowered to make regulations in relation to the County Roscommon only or, perhaps, the County Roscommon and some other counties only and the regulations shall deal with the manner in which and the extent to which they are to make available these services.
So that, in fact, the power which the Deputy has urged that I should exercise is already exercisable by me. It is quite another matter as to whether I will exercise that power or not. That is a matter of policy and is not relevant to the discussion on this Bill. While, again, it is not strictly relevant to Deputy McQuillan's amendment, Deputy Briscoe referred to Section 2 of the Bill.
Yes.
I must not have made myself clear on the Second Reading. The whole reason for the Bill is under Section 22. Anyone reading Section 22 would say: "The Minister can make a regulation in respect of health authorities or particular health authorities or just one or two health authorities, as to the manner in which and the extent to which the services are to apply on August 1st." In other words, the Minister can say, one would imagine, reading Section 22: "I am satisfied that I can provide now for, say, the sick poor, small farmers, insured workers, but I am not satisfied that I can provide for more classes. Therefore, for the moment, I will direct every health authority that the extent to which they are to provide services shall be merely in relation to certain classes."
That, I think, may have been the intention behind the section originally but, unfortunately, I have been advised that that in fact is not the effect of the section, that the effect of the section is that I must provide all the services for everybody or none of the services for anybody in relation to the health authority in respect of which I make the regulations. This is only in relation to Deputy Briscoe's query. For that reason, the Bill became necessary to empower me, in addition to discriminating between health authorities and particular health authorities, to deal with different parts and different groups in the classes intended to be benefited.
As I said at the beginning the Deputy's amendment is not necessary but I do not want the Deputy to take from anything I said that I agree that the power should be exercised because there are very sound reasons, on policy grounds, why it would not be desirable to have our people enjoying different things in different counties. I do not think that, on examination, any Deputy would think that that would be a desirable state of affairs.
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and his approach to the amendment by Deputy McQuillan but I am afraid that, as far as I am concerned, there is a very distinct difference. Deputy McQuillan's amendment seeks to have by law the right of a local authority that can implement any section or all the sections for any class or all classes, when they feel they are in a position and want to do it, to operate the sections referred to and to have a call on the State for whatever provision the State must make in respect of the particular services. The Minister, quite rightly, has said that, under Section 22, he can do all the things referred to in the amendment but he frankly says: "I do not want Deputy McQuillan's amendment to be passed because then it would be the law of the land. From the point of view of policy, I do not want to have a situation arising where certain health services might be operating in a particular area and not in others." The burden of the approach to that is, which is the better of the two? If a number of local authorities are not concerned about the development of health services or, for any other reason, withhold them from their people, is that a good and sufficient reason for withholding the health services from all others in the country, particularly the people in the areas where their representatives want to give them the benefits of these health services?
There is a very big difference. Deputy McQuillan's amendment seeks to make it mandatory on the Government, if, say, County Roscommon feels that it is willing to make its contribution to whatever costs fall on the shoulders of the Roscommon people, that the services should be made available and that the services should be made available for the people not included in the Act as amended by this Bill, and that the people of Roscommon should have a perfect right to go ahead and operate the sections.
I feel the same about Dublin. I do not see why, if for any reason the area of my good colleague from Cork, Deputy McGrath, did not want to implement certain sections of the Health Bill, why we should be precluded in Dublin from doing so; or conversely why Cork City should not be allowed to give their people certain additional benefits in health services even if Dublin were not prepared to do likewise.
The Minister says he has received advice—I do not know where that advice comes from. I am very confused about the sources of advice. I do not think that advice has come from the local authorities——
Let there be an end to this. I do not want any misunderstanding about this. I said that I was advised that the legal effect of the section was not what it appeared to be. Obviously when the Minister says that he has been advised, the advice comes from the Attorney-General.
I did not hear the Minister mention the source of the advice. I heard him say he had been advised and I should be forgiven for when a person trained in the law says he has been advised he probably means legally advised while the lay person may not take that meaning——
The Minister for Health is not trained in the law.
I thought the Minister was. Even when a lawyer becomes Minister for Health——
Do not let us get involved in this.
No, Sir, but I am concerned about the practical application of this. I say it is not fair to say to Deputy McQuillan or to say to the House that everything you want in your amendment is already there and enshrined in Section 22 of the 1953 Act, because it is not there. There is a big difference—a very wide difference. Section 22, if this Bill goes through, will mean that the Minister may take into account all the circumstances, even the circumstances where, say, out of 26 local authorities, 25 may be willing to implement the Health Act but one may not, and because of the one not being able to do it, or willing to do it, the Minister says: "In the interests of having uniform policy and a policy universally applied I am not going to sanction operations in the other 25 areas."
Does the Deputy seriously think that would be my approach?
Let us split the difference and say 13 and 12.
That is quite a difference.
Well, I was taking it to the extreme of absurdity. If there were 13 out of the 25 who were in favour and 12 who were not, or if 12 were in favour and 13 were not, taking into account all the circumstances attaching to each particular specific local area, or if there is only one local authority and that, let us say, Roscommon, we should give them the right to have this made statutory; if they want to implement the services provided in the 1953 Health Act they should be permitted to do so.
The question of time arises. If we are going to consider the time that the Minister may regard from the point of view of policy as a good time, he will have to take into account all the arguments he has used generally, such as facilities, agreements with doctors and nurses, all the provisions concerned, chemists and so forth, and if he still has not reached agreement with any one of these, or any section of one of these, he can still say that it is not good policy to implement the measure for any one of the sections or for any one of the classes. There is a class I am particularly concerned about, and that is the class referred to in Section 17, which is also caught up with this amendment. Section 17 deals specifically with infants.
That is not affected.
Why is it not affected? The amendment specifically refers to 15, 16 and 17.
So far as the service is concerned it is not affected.
I can only say this: I have a certain amount of—if you like— ordinary sense and understanding and when the sense I possess is, I think, average——
Horse-sense.
——horse sense, yes— and I am afraid that if Section 17 is affected in the same way by the Minister's Bill as is Section 16——
So far as service is concerned each of those sections goes into operation on the 1st August.
Then why is Section 17 brought in in the amendment?
If the Deputy looks at Section 2 he will see what the Minister is referring to. Only 15 and 16 are referred to in Section 2.
But the Deputy has specified in his amendment Sections 15, 16 and 17.
Section 22 covers 14 to 21.
All these sections become law on the 1st August.
Is the Minister telling us now that Section 17 is not in any way affected by this Bill and will be carried through as envisaged in the main Act of 1953?
The section becomes law on the 1st August as does Sections 16 and 15 and the other sections mentioned but I will have power to make regulations in respect of the people who would benefit under these sections.
That is the very point.
They go into operation only with certain groups.
So far as going into operation is concerned they are there on the 1st August and whatever regulations I have then made, people covered by these regulations will then benefit. By the 10th August possibly other groups will come in——
"Possibly"—that is the trouble.
——in accordance with arrangements then made.
Section 17 affects the infants of the classes of people that this Bill generally excludes from the 1953 Act. Is not that the position— that persons above the assistance classes and below the £600 a year level come under this Bill and cannot get the medical assistance enshrined previously in the 1953 Act? Deputy McQuillan's amendment, as he said—and I think he agrees with me—seeks to get the right that if a particular local authority wants to deal with infants of these inbetween classes they should be entitled to do so by law.
If the Deputy is thinking of Dublin he need have no fears.
Deputy McQuillan is thinking of Roscommon.
There is not an infant welfare service in Roscommon, and I hope to see it will be there.
This business of "hoping to see" and "as soon as possible" is what we want to get over.
May I remind Deputies that you do not provide a welfare service by putting it in an Act of Parliament? I hope to take steps to see that the service will be, there.
There is an infants' section in Dublin——
Yes, and a very good one, too.
Yes, a very good one. That was what I was referring to last night. The Minister was rather shocked then when I suggested that we might be surcharged because we will be breaking a law in operating that service unless the Minister makes regulations to permit Dublin City to carry on.
That was going on long before the Health Act.
But it will be immediately a breach of what the Minister says is his determined idea of policy— having the Act universally applied. The Minister says we need have no fears in Dublin and says at the same time that as far as Roscommon is concerned they have not got an infant welfare service. But Roscommon might have it. They might have one in a couple of weeks' time or a couple of months' time.
They will have it.
They might have one by their own efforts in a short space of time and with no longer delay than if it were provided by direction of the Minister. There are other areas where such a service is in my opinion essential.
Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
I wonder could I appeal to Deputies to consider which of these two propositions is the better? The Minister says that he has power under Section 22 to do what Deputy McQuillan's amendment wishes to be done, if he so desires. Deputy McQuillan's amendment suggests that it should become mandatory to introduce the health services if and when the local authority wishes them to be introduced. I should like to ask Deputy Larkin which is the better situation in his opinion. Is it better, if and when a local authority is able, willing and ready to implement certain sections of the Act which it is proposed to defer under the Bill, that it should be left to the Minister or to the local authority itself to decide? The electors of that area in certain circumstances may have elected certain representatives in a majority specifically for the purpose of implementing those sections of the Health Act that are now being deferred.
That is a simple proposition. I think there can be no doubt that any person, particularly a person in the position of a member of a local authority, would say that it would be far better to have the situation cleared up in the manner in which Deputy McQuillan's amendment wishes to have that done. I can see from the public representative's point of view no argument against that proposition.
Deputy McQuillan referred to local representatives, such as himself, who regularly at meetings of the local authority have to make representations for the reduction of bills which have been sent to individuals for treatment, medical services etc.—bills which, if this Act were implemented, would not arise. The Minister believes that such a situation could not arise in the case of any small farmers of £10 valuation, but we had the case made by Deputy McQuillan to the effect that each case is considered on its own merits and, as he said himself, it might mean the difference between paying and not paying if a hen in the yard were found laying an egg.
There are other Deputies in this House like myself who have been approached from time to time by country Deputies to make representations to Dublin hospitals and Dublin doctors with a view to securing a reduction in charges, fees, etc., to country people who have been sent up by the local authority or their own doctors and did not qualify for full assistance. I can only speak for myself but I know others who have been approached and, by putting up a case in relation to the resources of the individual concerned, we have been able to effect a considerable reduction in medical fees. I have here before me letters which have been sent to my colleague from Monaghan from some of his constituents. There is a bill from a surgical hospital to a particular person demanding £3 3s. 0d. for attendance at that hospital.
Would the question of medical bills arise in this amendment?
Oh, yes. The whole purpose of the amendment is to make certain medical and surgical services available to people who are being debarred from the benefits of the Health Act, 1953 by this new Bill.
In relation to that matter, now that the discussion on this amendment has been in progress for over half an hour, I would suggest that the issue in the amendment is whether it is right that a particular health authority, which states that it is satisfied that it can provide all the services, should be entitled so to do. That is the only issue in the amendment. Deputy Briscoe is again starting to discuss matters germane to the Second Stage of the Bill and the principle of the Bill. We have had all this on amendment after amendment and on the Second Stage last week. I would appeal to the Chair to confine the discussion to the lines along which Deputy Briscoe was discussing it up to a moment ago.
I am not making a Second Reading speech. This particular amendment is the most important of all the amendments put down because it involves a principle of the utmost importance, particularly if we consider ourselves in a democratic way. Deputy McQuillan made his case on this particular situation.
Deputy McQuillan made his case in relation to the amendment.
He referred first of all to the Minister's statement on Second Reading with regard to occupants of holdings of £10 valuation. The Minister on that occasion stated that he believed that there would be no question in these cases at the present moment from the point of view of free medical treatment. Deputy McQuillan to-day on this amendment pointed out —not at great length I will admit— that at least every month his local authority has had to go through a pile of bills and he indicated what was taking place. I say that I have clear evidence——
Could we have a ruling on the point of order which I raised?
Is the Minister in the Chair or should he be allowed to dictate to the Chair?
The Deputy will restrain himself.
I have indicated to Deputy Briscoe that in my opinion he is travelling rather wide of the amendment. The amendment deals with the question of a local authority which is in a position to operate in the sections referred to. There does not seem to be any question of the payment of bills involved in the amendment.
Is it not a fact that people under a local authority which is in a position to operate the Act now, will be deprived of the benefits they would otherwise get by this Bill and that they will have to pay these hospital bills which they need not have to pay if the authority were allowed to proceed to operate the Act?
There is nothing in the amendment about the payment of bills.
May I submit that Deputy Briscoe is entitled to refer to the hardships inflicted on the sections of the community that are going to suffer as a result of the suspension of Sections 15 and 16?
There is no question of that involved in this amendment. It is a question of whether I decide or the health authority decides what services are to apply.
Sections 15 and 16—we shall forget Section 17 for the moment——
I think we should have a ruling on the point of order raised.
I feel that Deputy Briscoe is entitled to refer to the question he has raised in passing but I do not think he should go into it in too much detail.
I do not propose to go into it in much detail. I only proposed to introduce some incontrovertible evidence into this discussion. I do not want to have it suggested that I am manufacturing something for the purposes of argument. Sections 15 and 16 deal specifically with the people above the assistance level and people below the £600 per year income level under the 1953 Act who would have provided for them services free of charge. The removal of those sections by this Bill means, of course, that those people have to continue to pay as heretofore for services. I have an invoice from the Monaghan County Council——
The Deputy is continuing to discuss the matter along the lines the Chair ruled he should not.
It is addressed to an unemployed carpenter. I also have a charge of £19 in respect of a person of £10 valuation.
On a point of order.
The Chair has given his ruling.
The Minister on a point of order.
You, Sir, have given your ruling and, despite that ruling, the Deputy continues to make his speech along the lines which you ruled he should not speak. I think it is quite unreasonable that there should be a Second Reading debate on each one of these amendments and sections whatever excuse there might have been with regard to the earlier sections and amendments. In this amendment there is a net issue before the House as to whether it is the local authority or the Minister who should decide to operate the services. That is the only issue in the amendment.
I will make this appeal to the Minister. I do not want to go all over it again on the Fifth Stage. I want to say that there is urgency. Deputy Mooney has from constituents in his own area problems arising from the postponement, the abandonment or whatever you like to call it of the sections of the Act which would bring immediate relief to the people.
That is not relevant to the amendment. The amendment says that the deciding authority should be the local authority and not the Minister.
That is not correct. The Minister is now putting an interpretation on it which it does not bear. The amendment clearly states that it wants any local authority by law of the land——
Read it again.
——to be in the position of implementing any health service it is willing to do within what was envisaged in the 1953 Health Act. I think that is clear. The Minister is opposing that because he wants to be in a position to allow any or every local authority to bring in these health services whenever he thinks the time is ripe if it will ever be ripe. The choice, whether we support the amendment or reject it, is whether any member of a local authority agrees it is better to have the amendment of Deputy McQuillan than it is to have the suggestion of the Minister.
The Minister says that I am making a Second Reading speech in so far as it concerns rural people as distinct from the city. I am not making a Second Reading speech. I am trying to deal with this amendment with the attention and care the amendment deserves. I had that point of view when I was making the Second Reading speech. I think Deputy McQuillan expressed agreement. He said it was his point of view. He had intended to bring in this amendment and he did so. It is an amendment worthy of support. As he says himself, it is not an amendment brought in by the Opposition. He appeals to the Minister for the sake of what one might call bringing assistance to those who need it immediately. He thought it would be far better for him to remove from the Opposition the opportunity of criticism whenever such cases of hardship would arise. He is approaching the matter as an Independent Deputy of this House. He believes this amendment is a good one. We believe it is a good one.
I do not want to take up the time of the House by going into all this. I want to say this. I mentioned, without giving names, that Deputies are constantly burdened with the problem of trying to bring some relief to people who should not be asked to pay the fees charged and who in any case just could not afford it. We have from Deputy Mooney a number of letters— I have not read them all—some of which have either solicitors' demands attached to them or threats that if the bill is not paid it will go to a solicitor. When it goes to a solicitor there is an extra charge by him for collecting the money. The people may not have the money.
When a serious illness arises suddenly we are not concerned whether we have money or not. Our chief consideration is to save the life of the person concerned. In the case of serious illness one does not think of the difficulties you may have to face. You would take the shirt off your back or face any difficulty in order to bring relief to or save the life of the sick person. That sick person may be a child, a wife, a husband and so forth. I do not think there can be any legitimate argument against accepting this amendment. I think it is unfair of the Minister to take that line because it is not fair for anybody. It is not fair to the Deputy moving the amendment nor is it fair to the people to whom the Deputy is trying to bring relief. The Minister says he has that power already. He told Deputy Larkin not by word of mouth but by a nod of the head that he has that power already.
So they have.
The Minister also says he is not prepared to exercise that power until policy dictates the necessity.
If the Deputy purports to quote me, he should quote me correctly. The matter of policy is not revelent to the discussions to-night.
I cannot understand the Minister. He himself in relation to this amendment introduced policy. Now, when I refer to his contribution on the matter of policy he says it is not relevant.
It is useless to try to educate the Deputy.
The question of education does not arise. It is a question of common sense.
To try to instil common sense in the Deputy is an impossible task.
Many of us may not have got the education the Minister has but we have got common sense.
The Deputy should try to exercise common sense.
Did the Minister not say that he has the power if he wishes to exercise it but that he did not think it would be a good thing from the point of view of policy to exercise that for one place and leave many others without it? Did the Minister not say that?
I did not put that power in the Act. It was Deputy Dr. Ryan who did it. Does the Deputy understand that? If it was thought desirable to give this power to health authorities it could have been done in the main Act. It was not. That is why it is not there now.
The Minister need not try to make out that the amendment is not necessary because if the Deputy withdrew the amendment what he wants would be done in any event. There is a big difference. Deputy McQuillan wants August 1st as a date fixed, from which date a local authority may, if they so decide, implement any one of the sections that are now being debarred.
Deputy McQuillan is well able to make his own case without any assistance from the Deputy.
I am not making Deputy McQuillan's case. I am trying to interpret this amendment because I am supporting it. I take it that, if I am supporting it on a wrong basis, Deputy McQuillan himself will correct me. It is his amendment. It is a serious amendment. It is a good amendment and it is an amendment worthy of immediate support or acceptance by the Minister. There must be something peculiar in a Minister's saying: "I have the powers. You do not need this amendment"— and, at the same time, introducing sufficient words to safeguard the situation. The Minister does not give a date. Is the Minister prepared to say that he would accept the amendment provided, say, the date were not the 1st August but the 1st January next? We could understand the Minister's saying that.
Take, for example, a local authority that can satisfy themselves, their representatives and the people whom they represent that they can provide these health services for certain people not provided for now and come along to the Minister and say: "There we are. We have struck the rate to cover the cost. We are prepared to do it. We have the necessary facilities. We have all the technical requirements in the way of doctors, nurses and so forth. We want to operate this because there is a great need for it by reason of hardship in our area." If the Minister says that, subject to those circumstances and subject to a deferring of Deputy McQuillan's date from, say, the 1st August to the 1st January, then I could understand it. However, to refuse it blankly and to lead people along as the Minister is doing now reminds one very much of the saying which one of my colleagues has already quoted, that is: "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick." That is what is happening in this particular case.
This amendment reads as follows:—
"Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Health Act, 1953, shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954, in respect of the area of every local authority which states that it is in a position to operate the sections referred to."
Section 15 of the Act, more than any other section on which this whole discussion revolves, says:—
"(1) A health authority shall, in accordance with regulations, make available institutional and specialist services for the persons specified in sub-section (2) of this section."
Later on, we read in sub-section (5):—
"Specialist services under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made available without charge."
Sub-section (2) sets out certain categories of persons referred to in sub-section (1):—
"(a) Persons insured under the Social Welfare Act, 1952,
(b) adult persons whose yearly means are less than £600,
(c) adult persons whose yearly means are, in the opinion of the health authority, derived wholly or mainly from farming, the rateable valuation of the farm or farms (including the buildings thereon) being £50 or less,
(d) persons not specified in the foregoing paragraph who, in the opinion of the health authority, would be unable, without undue hardship——"
How many of us know people who are unable and who have debts that they do not want to reveal to the whole world?
"——to provide institutional and specialist services for themselves or their dependents."
Sub-section (3) of this Section 15 states:—
"Institutional services under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made available without charge for the persons specified in sub-section (2) of Section 14 of this Act and to such other persons specified in sub-section (2) of this section as may be determined by the health authority."
Sub-section (2) of Section 14 states:—
"The persons referred to in sub-section (1) of this section are persons who are unable to provide by their own industry or other lawful means the medical, surgical, ophthalmic, dental or aural treatment or medicines, or medical, surgical or dental appliances necessary for themselves or their dependents."
It is for that particular category of persons that we have sat here for days fighting their case. It is because the services——
You might have gone home because there is no difference between us.
——are indefinitely suspended that we are supporting Deputy McQuillan's amendment.
They are not.
Deputy McQuillan comes to the House with an amendment and, in effect, says to the Minister and to the Government: "Perhaps you have difficulties I, on my part, will assume you have difficulties." We on these benches do not assume you have difficulties. But Deputy McQuillan, in effect, says that to the Minister and he further says, in effect: "Very well. There are certain areas where all these facilities are available and where the people are at death's door because of the health charges. Put these sections into operation on the 1st August." Is that not a reasonable request to the Minister?
Perfectly.
The T.B. scheme has been a success. If we had waited until every county had a T.B. sanatorium, or until every three counties had one, where should we be to-day? We should still be in the bad plight we were in some years ago as regards T.B. However, because we took our courage in our hands and faced the T.B. problem and tackled it—because we put up chalets, converted old hospitals and old buildings—we have fought and beaten T.B. After all, what have we in life, if we have not food, housing, clothing and our health? What price health?
Deputy McQuillan's amendment suggests that where these facilities are available they should be put into operation. In the course of the debate to-day the Minister spoke of a survey. I asked him who will carry out that survey. A certain number of doctors are very favourable to this Act. The general practitioner is in favour of it. The general practitioner wants to be relieved of the responsibilities which he cannot cope with at present. He wants to see it in operation at present. However, there are certain vested interests—just as Deputy McQuillan to-day mentioned that the engineers did not want to work the Local Authorities (Works) Act—who are out against this Health Act of 1953. I do not intend to dwell now on the reasons why they do not want that Act to operate. The Minister will be replying to this debate and I ask him now to answer the following questions: Who is to carry out the survey? Who is to indicate when the facilities are ready? Will it be left to certain biased people who, in their dislike of this Act, in their dislike of free services, went out hell for leather in the last election to defeat the people who stood behind the Health Act of 1953? Will they be the judges? If they are to be the judges and if the Minister takes their judgment then Sections 15 and 16 will never come into operation.
Is there to be any limit to this?
I am asking the Minister when that survey will take place, how it will take place and who are to be the judges. The Minister spoke about jealousy and about policy. Take, for example, my County of Westmeath. We did not deal as rapidly as I should have wished, though we did our best, with T.B. Other counties dealt very quickly with T.B. Were we jealous? It only made us speed up our attempts to tackle the problem. If, in Deputy McQuillan's constituency, they put Sections 15 and 16 of the 1953 Goddess of Chance. His justification attack the Minister in this House because they have done that in County Roscommon? The blame will not be on the Minister. It will be on me and on my colleagues as members of the county council. We know that he will place certain facilities at our disposal. His Department will help us out with schemes. It will be our fault if these schemes are not put into operation, and there will be no jealousy or question of policy. The Minister all through this debate dealing with the sections talked about ethical objections. Now what are the ethical objections? Are we to have an insurance scheme, people going around like carpet-baggers calling on the people and receiving an income three times a year?
This is also irrelevant.
It does not arise on the amendment.
I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I want to say this much, that the people we are interested in are the middle income group and where there are civil servants in my constituency I would be interested in them even though they took the sop and voted against us in the last election. They are going to get it in the back now. We are also interested in the small farmer and the self-employed small shopkeeper who may have a delicatessen shop or an ice-cream shop or something like that.
I know there are people who always approach things from a very humane point of view in this House, but there are some Deputies opposite and the people in the lower grade of society do not exist in their minds. They have no pity for people like them. They look upon them through the caste system. They are dirt in their eyes, but they are not dirt in our eyes. They are just as near to us as anybody else, and in their treatment cannot be deferred under this Health Bill. That is why we are supporting this amendment of Deputy McQuillan.
I will be very brief on this amendment. While in spots it is a good amendment I think the time is not opportune for dealing with it. First of all, the county councils have the rates struck for this year. We in Roscommon have struck the rate and have made certain provision for the implementation of some sections of the Health Act. We have ordered something like 6d. in the £1 for the implementation of these sections, amounting to about £7,000. What we had in mind at the time, I think, was to meet claims arising from maternity benefit, and we have only provided sufficient money to meet such claims. If the Minister accepts this amendment it cannot be accepted by the majority of the county councils throughout the country. It is impossible, even though Deputy McQuillan's intentions would be the best in the world. If accepted by the Minister, the amendment cannot be implemented because financial provision has not been made by the county councils, so I think it is entirely premature.
To go back to the Health Act, I remember attending a conference in Sligo some time ago. It was a regional conference convened by the former Minister for Health, Deputy Dr. Ryan, and attended by representatives from the five counties of Connaught and Donegal. Deputy Dr. Ryan himself was unavoidably absent; but all the representatives from the various counties gave their views on the Health Act and as far as I could ascertain, they were hostile to it in nearly all cases. At that time we were told that to implement the Act to the full extent would cost the ratepayers of this country something like 2/- in the £1. If you adopt this amendment where are you going to get the money to implement it? Where are the county councils going to get it? The rates are struck now. We do not want supplementary estimates or anything like that, so that the thing is impossible at the present time.
Again, if you do implement it where will you get the institutions? In Roscommon, we cater for eight or nine maternity cases in our hospital, and the birth rate in Roscommon is something in the neighbourhood of 1,300 a year. We have nine beds to cater for those 1,300 mothers and babies. I would say that the whole thing is impossible and that it is entirely premature. The Minister has promised that at a later date probably these sections will be implemented. I think this is a hasty piece of legislation, and for the present it should be abandoned and not forced on the House.
There are only two matters on which I want to comment. I want Deputies to appreciate that the amendment proposed by Deputy McQuillan, while so far as he is concerned it may have particular reference to his constituents, which is not unnatural, is a general amendment and if passed by the House becomes part of the general law.
That is right.
Deputy Briscoe says that is right. I wonder is it right? The whole machinery of the Health Act of 1953 was to deprive local authorities of having any discretion at all in relation to the provision of services. The Health Act consists of 72 sections. The services under the Health Act are obligatory on no one except on health authorities. Only on them, and no one else, is an obligation imposed. The responsibility under the Health Act for directing what health authorities were to do was by design placed on the shoulders of the responsible Minister. It was his responsibility to direct the services, to make the regulations, and incidentally his responsibility to ensure that the necessary arrangements were made. What the amendment proposes to do is to take from me, as Minister for Health, any responsibility for the provision of these services, and to leave the matter, in direct contradiction to the Health Act, in the discretion of each local health authority. That is a departure in principle from the Health Act, 1953.
I am concerned to see that these services are provided. I am determined to see that they will be provided. So far as Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Beirne are concerned they can rest assured that the full services will be provided in Roscommon as quickly as I can ensure that they will, but the responsibility will be mine, not that of Roscommon County Council; and I will be responsible to this House, as the Act directs, for what is done or not done in County Roscommon. I have no intention of sheltering behind the Roscommon County Council, of doing as Deputy Kennedy suggests I should do —throw in the ball, let the boys play with it any way they like and then be able to say afterwards if anything wrong happens: "Well, it has not been my fault." That is not what the country or the House, I believe, would regard as satisfactory conduct by the Minister responsible. It is not what Deputy Briscoe and the Fianna Fáil Party thought nine or ten months ago when they asked the House to pass this Health Act.
Under that Act, they placed the responsibility on the Minister for Health to direct health authorities when and how they should provide health services. Why are they now jettisoning the very foundation principle of their own Act? Why are they now departing from the principle that runs through the 72 sections of that Act? Is it just because they happen to see some short-term political advantage? Is that to be their approach to this important problem?
Is this not a Second Reading speech?
I am dealing with the principle of this amendment and nothing else. They are doing no service to themselves, to what they claim to stand for, to the people generally or to the proper administration of health services in this country.
It would be quite unthinkable for the House to allow the rich counties to provide services for the rich citizens of those counties. Deputy McQuillan talks about County Roscommon. County Roscommon does not class with Deputy Kennedy's county and it does not class with Deputy Briscoe's county, and if, by any stretch of the imagination, the amendment were accepted by the House, the country would find very quickly that it is the richer counties that would benefit and that the poorer counties would not.
In any event the responsibility under the Act—not merely under the Bill which does not deal with this at all except in relation to one section, the regulation section—is placed on the Minister. The principle underlying the Act is to empower the Minister to place an obligation on no one but health authorities to provide services and the design behind the Act is that the Minister is bound to see that the necessary arrangements are made. Having satisfied himself as to that, he is empowered to direct what each health authority must do. I am asked by these people who say they are in favour of the Health Act to jettison that and to allow different bodies to decide for themselves what should be done. I will not accept that approach to these important matters.
Does what the Minister has now stated apply to Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act?
Yes, of course.
Read them.
Section 15, sub-section (1) says:—
"A health authority shall..."
That is a statutory obligation
"... in accordance with regulations, make available institutional and specialist services..."
The later Section 22 empowers only one person to make these regulations and that is the Minister.
They shall do certain things in accordance with certain regulations but they shall do them.
They cannot do them until the regulations are made.
The regulations were to be made by August 1st.
The Deputy obviously thinks he is at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil Party, but this is Dáil Éireann, a responsible assembly. Under Section 15, an obligation is imposed on the health authority to act in accordance with regulations not made by themselves, not according to their own decision, irrespective of their wishes, their views and their opinions, but in accordance with what the Minister says they must do. The responsibility for directing wrongly is the Minister's and the responsibility for not acting is the Minister's. There is no responsibility on any health authority except to do what they are told to do. That is the very keystone of the Health Act of 1953. It is no wonder Deputy Briscoe says this is an important amendment. It is important because it is directed against the very foundation stone of the 1953 Act. It is, in fact, a surprising amendment to be discussing at all in relation to the Committee Stage of the Bill.
I want, if I can, to help Deputy Kennedy and Deputy Briscoe. I do not know whether they want to be helped, but I am going to try to do it. Deputy Kennedy read Sections 14 and 15 of the Act and said that, under Section 15, a health authority shall provide, in accordance with regulations, these different services for different people. He went on to refer to sub-section (3) which sets out:—
"Institutional services..."
These are the hospital services.
"...under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made available without charge for the persons specified in sub-section (2) of Section 14 ..."
Having gone through Section 15, the Deputy reads sub-section (2) of Section 14 relating to the people who are to get free hospital services. The sub-section reads:—
"The persons referred to in sub-section (1) of this section are persons who are unable to provide by their own industry or other lawful means the medical, surgical, ophthalmic, dental or aural treatment, or medicines, or medical, surgical or dental appliances necessary for themselves or their dependents."
Having read that, Deputy Kennedy says: "Those are the people we are concerned about." Those are the people I am concerned about and those are the people on whose behalf I regarded this measure as being necessary. Those are the people who. on 1st August, will be guaranteed free hospital, free specialist, free maternity services and all the other services envisaged by the Health Act.
Under what qualification?
With no qualification at all. I suggest that Deputies, instead of trying to be smart, should read the Act and the Bill they are talking about. That class is the class who at the moment enjoy priority in relation to treatment.
You are doing nothing extra.
This is supposed to be an intelligent debate. Deputy Kennedy says these are the people he is concerned about. I assure him that these are the people for whom we are providing these services. In order to illustrate his concern, the Deputy read out the sub-section. In the name of heavens, will there be some effort by Fianna Fáil Deputies if they are going to discuss this measure, to read it and understand it? They have come in here garbed in shining armour as defenders of the Act of 1953 and their latest effort is to try to kill that Act. When they discuss it further, they do not even know what makes that Act work.
That is what you said.
Deputy Briscoe is concerned only with making noises and he tries to make as many as possible in every debate.
It was very interesting indeed to hear a contribution from one of the Clann na Talmhan Deputies. It was the first contribution we had from Clann na Talmhan since the debate began. Deputy Beirne should have an idea of the position in the country and I do not think he should have taken up the line of argument which he followed. It is just more of the somersaulting. When Fianna Fáil were in Government, they were not going nearly far enough. He talked about the rate that had to be struck and said that they struck only a rate of 6d. in the £ in Roscommon. I know Roscommon fairly well. The northern end of the county might have fair sized farmers but there are not so many really big farmers; I know the southern end of the county also. I believe the majority of the landholders in Roscommon are under £20 valuation. If they have to pay 2/- in the £ on their valuation, that is £2 per year and on that they get a rebate of three-fifths; consequently by bringing all the fine advantages that the 1953 Act intended for such people into existence they would only have to pay 16/- instead of £2.
I thought when this amendment was put down by an Independent Deputy— and if there is any Deputy in this House who can really claim to be independent it is Deputy McQuillan; he was elected on his own without the assistance of any of the organised Parties in this House—it would be discussed calmly and that we would not have any of this quibbling in which the Minister has indulged. He said this was Dáil Éireann. I am glad it is Dáil Éireann and that every Deputy has a right to express his opinion here. If one were to judge from the course taken by the Minister, one would imagine this was the Four Courts instead of Dáil Éireann. We have heard very little but legal quibbling and we do not want legal quibbling where the interests of our people are concerned. We are here to speak out our minds and to express our opinion in the best interests of the people we represent without any of the side tracking or technical quibbles that have been introduced into this discussion. If the Minister wishes to have this amendment discussed in a more friendly atmosphere then he has not been very helpful in that respect.
Deputy McQuillan outlined what it was possible to do in County Roscommon as far as giving effect to the 1953 Act was concerned in respect of the categories of people mentioned in Sections 15 and 16 of that Act. The Minister says there was no necessity for it. If there was no necessity for it why did he go to the pains of introducing a Bill postponing—which is the milder term to use—what Deputy McQuillan and a number of us believe it is possible to bring into operation on the 1st August?
I can instance the case of County Galway. I want to know why it is that, in a county where we have six-sevenths of the landholders under £20 valuation, where we have a number of local craftsmen, tradesmen and self-employed people of that kind, people are going to be denied the services and benefits that were envisaged under the 1953 Health Act. We are told it is because there is lack of facilities, lack of accommodation, lack of specialist services, and so on. That is not the case in County Galway, at any rate. For the past five years we have there health services as good as any that can be provided under the 1953 Health Act with this exception, that a number of the people who would benefit, and who are being provided for under the 1953 Health Act, had to pay for them, which was very difficult.
In County Galway—perhaps we are in a specially privileged position—we have a central hospital, the county hospital, if you like. That county hospital is also a teaching hospital and is an adjunct of Galway University. As a result of that we are in a position to have all the specialist services that are required for nearly every complaint that could be mentioned. As far as bed accommodation is concerned there are in the general hospital, as it is at present constituted, 450 beds.
We have also a semi-voluntary hospital where we have an additional 75 beds and another voluntary hospital where we have a further 12 beds. In all, I think that would amount to something over 500 beds. In Galway I would say we have a population of roughly 90,000. With that bed accommodation, if you take an average of one patient a fortnight per bed, we are able to accommodate one in every seven of our population, and I think it would be very hard to provide better accommodation than that. If every other county was in a position to come near that standard—and I believe most of them are—then there is no justification whatever for the Minister's refusing to accept the amendment that Deputy McQuillan has tabled here and which, as a result of the attitude the Minister has taken and of the unsatisfactory way in which he has replied to it, I am going to support.
There is also an orthopædic hospital in Galway, a fever hospital and a maternity hospital. Last year we had over here—and it was recorded in the newspapers—a body of medical men from the United States who were, I am sure, experts in their job, and they made a survey of the hospitals and the services available in this country. They complimented the health authority in Galway; they complimented the surgical and medical staffs and the nursing staffs in the Galway Central Hospital and said the hospital was outstanding. In view of all that, our people—six-sevenths of whom are under £20 valuation—are to be denied, at least for a considerable time, the benefits that would accrue to them had the 1953 Act been brought into operation on 1st August.
We feel very keenly about this, because it is of such great importance to us in County Galway and because our people in County Galway have always been very generous in contributing in rates to advance the health services in our county. I think Galway was one of the first counties in Ireland to adopt the school inspection scheme and to adopt also the county medical officer of health appointment. That was many years ago.
Six-sevenths of our people in Galway had that service over a number of years but they had to pay for it. That is the big snag. Bills in County Monaghan were mentioned here. Bills were mentioned by Deputy Briscoe regarding country patients coming to Dublin hospitals. We could collect sheafs of bills in Galway in cases where people have been notified that court proceedings will be taken against them unless they pay. The time has arrived for a more broadminded approach to all these matters. When people talk of the few paltry shillings they pay in the rates for a service of this kind, it is a very sad commentary on the Christian outlook of our people. In Galway a rate of 1/3 in the £ has been struck. That was gone into very care fully and meticulously in conjunction with the county manager. It was felt that 1/3 in the £ would be sufficient to provide all the services envisaged under the 1953 Act, where you have specialist services in pathology, bacteriology, physiotherapy, dermatology and the various other "ologies" of that type. They are there already. We have specialists equal to any, not merely in this country but in any country outside. Therefore, it is a terrible injustice to our people to be deprived of their services and of the benefits conferred on them by the 1953 Act.
The Minister should be very grateful to Deputy McQuillan for bringing in the amendment. It would be very helpful to him if he would approach it in a sensible way. Where he was satisfied —as I am sure he could be satisfied by a number of local authorities—that they have the facilities, the specialist services and the accommodation to cater for their people, it would be a fine experiment in the carrying out of the Act.
I can do it if I wish.
Must we wait for the next 45 or 50 years, until we have the facilities that certain sections of the people say we must have, before a skeleton Act—an emasculated Health Act, as it was described here—is put into operation? I wonder what type of services we should require if we had this comprehensive scheme that some people tell us, very emphatically at times, is their conception of a proper Health Act?
There is another question which is a very serious one and which we should bring to the Minister's notice, the question of the choice of doctor. We know that all doctors do their best.
This does not come into the amendment.
I beg pardon. Maybe it does not, but I thought that, in the implementation of these particular sections——
No. There was one amendment on which it was relevant.
I will bow to your ruling in the matter. I think I am pretty well understood and need not delay any further on it. We have the surgeons, the physicians and the nursing staff in Galway; we have the accommodation also. In fact, in one of the voluntary hospitals where we have 75 beds the complaint is that they are not being used sufficiently. Therefore, when people put up a case that there is lack of accommodation or of facilities, I must say that as far as County Galway is concerned that does not apply. In our regional sanatorium there is now no one on the waiting list on the male side. In fact, there are idle beds there. I think an offer was made by the local authority to accommodate patients from Donegal and Westmeath there. I believe what is true of Galway is true of some other counties.
I feel it very much that what I longed to see in operation and yearned for for many years for the people in whom I am interested, is not to be given to them. I believe every other Deputy has the same interest, and would show it were it not for the Party line-up. This is a reasonable amendment. It gives the Minister a good opportunity to have an experimental period with the 1953 Act in operation in various parts of the country. If it is worked properly, that will be an incentive to the other areas to make the necessary provision. However, as was mentioned by Deputy Briscoe earlier, will the people of Galway, Roscommon, Mayo and elsewhere have to wait, will they be held back, if one local authority refuses to make the facilities available?
The Minister mentioned that if he accepted this amendment it is the wealthy counties that would benefit and the wealthy people. We do not claim to be a wealthy people in Galway, but we claim to be a pretty broadminded people. We are prepared to make an effort and to put up the money and to pay our rates in order to provide health benefits, not merely for our neighbours but for ourselves, because what benefits one family to-day will benefit another family tomorrow. That kind of argument was used by Deputy Beirne. All that is being dinned into our people: why pay this 2/- in the £? It is extortion; it is exorbitant. Sickness will never come to your door and, if it does, sure wait for it. I think that is a very poor line of reasoning, and it is not at all in keeping with the social outlook of the people as a whole.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision and to accept Deputy McQuillan's amendment. If he does that his task will be a much smoother one and he will do himself a benefit as well as benefiting the people. If he has the power why not use it to make the regulations and specify the areas in which he is prepared to allow the Act to operate as from 1st August next? He has not done that. His entire case in my opinion is a quibble. He has tried to catch out speakers on this side of the House on little technical points. These technical points will not be very helpful to the people. The people will not swallow technical quibbles; it would be too bad if they did.
I have never been an obstructionist. I am not an obstructionist on this occasion. To me it is a dreadful state of affairs that the people who would benefit if the Act came into operation on 1st August will now be deprived of something to which they are entitled. They will be deprived of those services for several years until the Minister has had sufficient time to decide on what date he will implement it for the country as a whole. If that is not to be the position, is the Minister prepared to accept the amendment tabled by Deputy McQuillan and give the benefits and advantages of the 1953 Health Act to those areas in which the local authorities are prepared to put the Act into operation?
It is a great pity that Deputy McQuillan, when coming into the House to move his amendment, could not have persuaded the Fianna Fáil Party to stay out because, had he done so, I think he would have had a great deal more success and enlisted more support.
The Deputy would have supported him if we did not.
Deputy Larkin should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I will deal with Deputy Briscoe's point in a movement. So far as the amendment is concerned, it attracted me very much at first sight but, quite frankly, the more I listened to Fianna Fáil, the more determined I became to stand firm, for the very good reason that—whatever may be the argument, and we have had very little argument—I do not propose to be coerced or driven either by political blackmail or mendacious debate; and that is what we have had for the last two days here.
We have had letters produced out of hats. We have had documents produced. We have had the former Minister repudiating the council he set up. We have had a consistent line followed right through and I regret that, in so far as Deputy McQuillan's amendment is concerned, it has to be considered in that atmosphere. I shall not say any more on that. I want to deal now with the amendment on the basis that so far as Deputy McQuillan is concerned he has tried to put his view quite honestly and quite sincerely. Because of that, I have a great deal of respect for him.
But I want to get some clarity on the basis of the amendment. The basis of the amendment is that, as Deputy McQuillan has stated here repeatedly, speaking from his own knowledge in relation to his own local authority area—and I imagine also taking the view that other local authorities must be in a similar position—it is a fact that between this and 1st August there are local authorities who would be able to put the services in Sections 15 to 17 into operation on 1st August next. His argument is, if that is the case, why not let them go ahead?
I hope Deputy McQuillan will understand what I am now about to say. I want to draw his attention to one of the difficulties facing any Deputy, irrespective of the Party to which he is affiliated, who is trying to get a clear and definite understanding of the position. Deputy McQuillan has spoken at length and, I think, with authority in relation to Roscommon. I accept all his statements as being statements about which he himself is personally satisfied as to their accuracy and foundation. I do not want in any way to use the statement made by Deputy Beirne against Deputy McQuillan. It is quite possible that within any particular local authority there may be two diametrically opposed and honest views as to the state of readiness of that local authority.
I will deal with that afterwards.
It is nevertheless correct that here we have two members of the Roscommon local authority holding two apparently opposing viewpoints. I do not know which is correct. I am accepting that both are speaking quite sincerely and honestly from their particular point of view. I am even prepared to accept that Deputy McQuillan is more correct than Deputy Beirne, but that does not alter the fact that from that one area we have two opposing viewpoints. If we go farther afield, we will find in relation to practically every local authority area that has come under discussion the same situation. Deputy Briscoe has been most emphatic so far as Dublin is concerned. He is apparently perfectly satisfied that these services can be put into operation. I want to say, in all honesty, that I have not yet come across any definite statement by any responsible official in Dublin that will bear out Deputy Briscoe's statement.
Possibly that definite statement has been made. I do not know. Leaving the officials on one side, and I am not so much concerned with the officials as against Deputy Briscoe's assurance, I have no doubt that there are other local representatives in Dublin—I am not speaking as one—who will express a different viewpoint. Deputy Beegan spoke at length. I have a great respect for him; he is a decent man. He dealt with the position in Galway. On the National Health Council is the county manager of Galway. No one can accuse me of having particularly tender feelings for county managers but, again, there is the conflicting atmosphere. At the meeting of the National Health Council on 25th June the county manager of Galway, Mr. O'Flynn, made the following statement: Mr. O'Flynn, in reply to a question by Miss Ashe, said he had told his county secretary about the obligation which would fall on the county council on the 1st August.
From what is this being quoted?
The minutes of the National Health Council of 25th June, 1954.
I am delighted. This is not a breach of privilege, is it? I was accused of a breach of privilege when I quoted this document.
Deputy Briscoe was allowed the same privilege as Deputy Larkin is being allowed.
He continued to state that "the obligation fell on the county council on the 1st August, but that little had been done in the way of preparation." This was as late as the 25th June. "The matter had not been considered by his county council or by the local consultative committee as the whole matter was indeterminate at this stage. Mr. O'Connell had pointed out that it would be impossible to work the Act until agreement had been reached with the hospital authorities and with the medical profession. The difficulty in relation to the hospitals would not be great in County Galway. There did not appear to be power to bring the Act into operation in particular areas only and he doubted if it would be desirable to have such power as it." He then made reference to the basis of the Act.
I am not accepting Mr. O'Flynn's statement as being more factually correct than that of Deputy Beegan, but there is a conflict there, and it is immaterial whether I believe Deputy Beegan or Mr. O'Flynn, whether I believe Deputy McQuillan or Deputy Beirne, or whether I believe Deputy Briscoe or some other councillor in County Dublin. It is correct that, leaving the Minister out of it altogether, and leaving his official advisers and even the National Health Council out of it, there is still no clear, definite and unqualified statement, as far as I am aware, from any local authority, that it is now in a position to put the services into operation on the 1st August.
Now, let us look at the amendment itself. It proposes that, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the services under Sections 15, 16 and 17 will come into operation on the 1st August in respect of the area of every local authority which states that it is in a position to operate these services. Now, purely for the purposes of the record, can anyone state at this moment that any local authority has yet stated that it is in a position to bring the services into operation on the 1st August? I do not know. I would be glad to be enlightened if there is.
This is now the 15th July. The Bill is now passing through its Committee Stage in this House. I am not sure at the moment as to when exactly it will reach its final stage and leave this House and go to the Seanad. I understand the intention is that the Seanad is to be called some time towards the end of this month. But, until the Bill is passed through the Oireachtas, the question of whether this amendment, if it is embodied in the Bill and becomes part of the final Act, would operate will not be known until within a matter of two or three days of the 1st August. It is at that point, apparently, that an inquiry will have to be addressed to the local authorities, that is, between now and the 1st August, asking if they can state whether they can operate these services. That is the big fact that we are largely fighting over.
The acceptance of the amendment will bring in another factor. It is not so much a question of ensuring if there are local authorities which are already in a position to state that they can operate the services from the 1st August, but whether they should be allowed to do so. If that is not the main purpose in our approach to the amendment, then there is only one other factor, and that is somewhere down along the line, namely, that either by the front door or the back door we have got to fix the Minister with a particular date. That has been the attitude, I think, of the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken. I am not going to make that suggestion in regard to Deputy McQuillan although already he has attached great importance to the date. It means, however, that, in fact, it is the only remaining beneficial point in so far as the amendment is concerned.
I would still be glad to know if anyone, on either side, can quote an official authoriative statement from any local authority—not an opinion whether it be the opinion of a member of the county council or of a corporation but an officially expressed opinion by those who will be required under the Act to give effect to that opinion— that at this moment it is in a position to operate the Act. That has not been stated yet. When we come to examine the state of readiness we get conflicting opinions.
As I stated earlier, I am not trying to play off Deputy Beirne against Deputy McQuillan. I am only trying to find out from Deputy McQuillan what he would regard as being the position in an area with which he is very fully acquainted. We have had these varying viewpoints. We had a varying viewpoint from a Deputy whom a little earlier Deputy McQuillan had referred to as being the person with whom a question would be raised in regard to the position of farmers under the £10 valuation in Roscommon. I have no doubt that Deputy McQuillan has respect for Deputy Beirne who is another member of the local authority. They have given their different viewpoints and one may be entirely wrong. That only goes to indicate, as I have said, the difficulty that is there at the start.
Deputy Beegan made a very lengthy and what I accept as being a quite sincere speech in support of the amendment against a very authoritative statement in regard to County Galway. We have the statement made by the county manager.
I am not for a moment going to suggest that I am prepared to accept the county manager's view as being more dependable than that of a member of the local authority. But there is that conflict of view. In effect, what we are being asked, as far as the amendment is concerned, and by Fianna Fáil in the somewhat stupid way they are trying to secure it by their play-acting, is to try and raise an issue around a question that quite possibly will not arise until the 1st August, and that is an authoritative statement that there is any local authority that can operate the Act on that date.
From the point of view of the amendment going into the Bill, we can only start to apply the provisions set out in the amendment as and when the Bill is passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas and becomes law. The Minister then knows that is going to be the point at which it is to operate and that, I imagine, is going to be a matter of hours of the 1st August. The alternative to that is the position within the Act as it stands at present, and as drafted and piloted through the House by Deputy Dr. Ryan. There is a provision in Section 22 with regard to the Minister making regulations to deal with the various areas as they may be ready. The question of whether the provisions in the section should be utilised by the Minister or not seems to the Minister to be a matter of policy. Frankly, in my opinion, if the powers are in the Act and are given to him by the Oireachtas, particularly in a situation where it is so essential to ensure that, despite any deferment of various sections, the services under the Act will be brought into operation with the least possible delay, then the overall consideration of policy might well be put to one side so that the provisions of Section 22 would be taken advantage of as and when each local authority is in a position to say that it can operate the Act.
I do not think that would give rise to any difficulty. Certainly, if there is a departure from policy it is not one which was pursued by the present Minister in regard to the 1953 Act, but it is a departure from the policy set down under the Act by the Fianna Fáil Minister who was most rigid in his insistence on complete centralisation and control under the Act. He even objected that we should have the power of insisting that regulations made under the Act should be laid on the Table of the Dáil so that they would automatically come up for revision. If, in the Bill of the present time, that provision was included, I think it would be of help to many members of the House who would be interested in watching the progress of the Minister if the Bill goes through. As to the extent, as I said earlier—and I am being quite frank about it—to which he is able to carry out the public commitments he made in this House, if we were able automatically, without being dependent on getting Government time or anything else or being confined by the decision in regard to questions, to see the various stages at which the regulations would come on the Table of this House, we would have an opportunity of inspecting them, dealing with them and discussing them in this House. That has been denied us because of the insistence of the preceding Minister on completely, not only centralising the power in the Act in his own hands, but on ensuring that there was not even the ordinary exercise of control to be effected by this House by bringing regulations on to the Table of this House.
It seems to me, as I said a little earlier, that Fianna Fáil have been trying to have it every way. Nobody can object to that. They tried it on other occasions and they thought they could induce or, if you like, compel or coerce or blackmail people to take that particular line. They are not going to do it now. As far as I am concerned, the regrettable feature in the amendment introduced by Deputy McQuillan, whatever the merits are, is that it has been poisoned, at least in my eyes, by the background atmosphere built up by Fianna Fáil in the last few days.
So far as the other features in regard to the amendment are concerned, I am putting them to Deputy McQuillan because I know he will give them reasonable consideration, and I think he will be quite as quick as I am to appreciate this variant atmosphere that we are getting reflected in the speeches of the representative Deputies from the different local authorities here and in the minutes of the National Health Council of Ireland, where there are also other spokesmen from different areas.
Finally, there is the time factor. For reasons outside the control of this House we are now within the last few days remaining before 1st August, and by the time the Bill comes out of the Oireachtas and becomes law, the question of time will be very material so far as the 1st August is concerned.
Even at the risk of driving Deputy Larkin into the Lobby to vote against a Bill that he said a few months ago did not go far enough and was most urgently needed, I rise to support the amendment put forward by Deputy McQuillan. When Deputy McQuillan put forward his amendment I was delighted to hear the Minister say that everything in the amendment was in the Bill. I thought everything would be plain sailing and that we would be out of here in a very short time. Immediately after that he told us that he was legally advised that the amendment could not be accepted, that it was contrary to everything in the Bill. Later on he said the amendment would upset the Bill in every way. The whole thing was very confusing.
Then I listened to Deputy Beirne making a statement about the position in Roscommon. I bear out Deputy McQuillan about Roscommon. I know the facilities are there. I know they have the hospitals. I am sorry Deputy Larkin has gone because Deputy Beirne did not even contradict that. He never said one word in contradiction of what Deputy McQuillan said. All he said was that he did not think they had enough money allocated for it. He did not even insist on that. He tried to get around it.
Deputy Larkin, when he reads us a long homily on the difference of opinion between Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Beirne, must have a very poor opinion of our hearing in the first place and of our sense of values in the second place. He quoted a statement from the National Health Council by the Galway county manager in juxtaposition to Deputy Beegan's statement. I did not see any great conflict of evidence in these two statements because even the Galway county manager on that occasion did not say that it was impossible to implement that Act.
What Deputy McQuillan has said about Roscommon, I say about Sligo. Deputy Beirne quoted a conference that was held in Sligo. I was not a member of the conference but I had a free day and went into the gallery and listened to all the representatives from the various counties. I did not hear one word of hostility to that Health Bill. The only arguments and the only questions that I heard were to the effect that if the Minister agreed to pay for the whole thing out of the Central Fund every one of them would jump at it. Every member of that conference said that the Bill was badly needed, urgently needed. That was my reading of that conference. Deputy Beirne is expecting an awful lot if he expects us to believe that the people at that conference were hostile to that Health Bill. The whole trend of the conference was that they wanted the Bill. The only objection to it was as to who would pay for it.
Deputy Beegan dealt with the payment part of it. I do not believe that if the Health Act is put into force everyone in the country will become sick. The Health Acts and the Acts that have been passed in the past years would reduce the incidence of sickness. With God's help we would have less people in our hospitals if the Health Act went through. At the present time we have sufficient hospital accommodation. The objection is to the paying part of it. The real objection to the Health Act is on the part of the vested interests who want to maintain the old system. Every day of my life I get hospital bills and doctors' bills to bring in to the county manager. I hate that kind of thing. I detest it. I hate to see a man coming to me with his hat in his hand, asking me to go in to the county manager or anyone else to get the bill reduced. That sort of thing should be done away with. I am surprised that any member of the House should want to maintain that old, cringing, system of running with hat in hand to a Deputy or representative or county manager asking for a reduction in a bill.
These people are entitled to this free treatment. Give it to them. We in Sligo have the hospitals. We have specialists appointed for two or three years on a regional basis, in conjunction with County Roscommon and County Galway. There is no question whatever of not being able to put the Act into operation. The hospitals are there. A good hospital has been built. The contract is going out for a clinic. The site for a children's hospital has been acquired. All these things were done by Deputy Dr. Ryan who, we are led to believe by Deputy Larkin and others sitting over there, was doing nothing for all those years to implement the Health Act.
Will they be ready on the 1st August?
Certainly. They are ready to-day. The only thing is that you want to keep the people paying all the time. You are said and led by the vested interests to make them keep on paying.
You dug the sod the other day and you will have them ready by the 1st August.
There is plenty of hospital accommodation. We do not need that to put the Bill into operation. We are not such fools.
What about County Galway where they had to send people into the county home?
They would not have the county home to put them into if you got your way.
Interruptions must cease.
There were more hospitals built under Fianna Fáil than were built for generations under your system.
By the Hospitals' Trust.
No matter. It was the people's money under Fianna Fáil, Deputy Dr. Ryan and every Fianna Fáil Minister. Do not think you will get away with that kind of stuff. As I pointed out, Deputy McQuillan's amendment is a reasonable amendment. He is only asking that any county that is in a position to do it should be allowed to do it. I think that is very fair. I can give no guarantee that Roscommon will vote for it. I have no guarantee that Sligo will vote for it but they are entitled to get a chance to do it. There is no use in people coming in here, turning a complete somersault and making wrong statements in order to justify their change of attitude, for what reason I do not know. The Health Act is there and the facilities are there to put it into action any day. There is some sinister motive behind the decision not to put it into effect and I can tell the people on the other side of the House what is the meaning of this attitude here and the attitude on the county council. We had a case a few weeks ago where the question arose of forming a consultative council and the Fine Gael people on the county council asked to have it postponed because they said the Minister was not going to put that Bill into force. There was no use in the Labour Party trying to fool themselves and others into the belief that the Act was going to be put into force. That was what was behind this Bill and that was the reason why the Minister was not prepared to accept this amendment.
The Galway County manager has been cited here as a person who expressed his opinion that these health services could not be implemented in the near future, and one of the reasons he is supposed to have given is that no agreement had been made with the medical profession. It is very strange indeed to hear one of the most prominent members of the Labour Party advancing the absence of an agreement with the Medical Association as a reason for the postponement of this Act, while Deputy Kyne last week went further than anybody on this side to indicate how they would deal with the Medical Association if they attempted to interfere with the carrying out of better health services for the people.
If, in fact, the county manager referred to made the statement attributed to him, it is very strange indeed that the county manager should have advised the public authority of which he is manager to provide a rate of 1/3 in the £ to provide these very services which he is now supposed to have said cannot be provided in fact. The obvious comment, of course, is this: While the county manager may be of the opinion, and I, too, am of the same opinion and everybody on this side of the House is of the same opinion, that if, in fact, on the 1st August everyone who becomes legally entitled to these services were to go sick then the county manager could say truthfully that they were not ready. He could go further and say there was no provision that a health authority in this country could make, that would meet a situation of that kind. It is tantamount to asking a local authority to provide fire-fighting services on the basis that every house in the town is going to take fire at the same time. The whole thing is really dealing very frivolously with this question.
Deputy Larkin condemned Deputy Dr. Ryan's Act in respect of one particular matter—incidentally I might point out that he supported it and so did his Party. The matter on which he condemned it was the centralisation of authority in the Minister for the purpose of imposing an obligation on a local authority to provide the services of the 1953 Act. But he seems to see no inconsistency whatsoever in the centralising of authority in this Minister to prevent any local authority from providing these or lesser services. If any person had a choice of the two powers referred to—the positive and the negative—I am very sure that everybody here would give the positive power for providing these services rather than allow any Minister to have the power to prevent a local authority which is able to provide them and able to pay for them from doing so.
Deputy McQuillan's amendment has been misrepresented quite deliberately by the Minister. The Minister said that Deputy McQuillan's amendment would transfer to a local authority the power of deciding when these benefits would be made available in a health district and that the central control of its administration would in fact pass from the hands of the Minister to the various health authorities throughout the country. That, of course, coming from a man of the Minister's legal qualifications is, I would say, a very deliberate misrepresentation of the content and purpose of this amendment. It is a common practice to pass Bills in this House and when they become the law of the land and are entered on the Statute Book, to have suspensory provisions in respect of either the whole or any part of them. There are Acts of Parliament on the Statute Book for a considerable time and some sections or parts of them have not yet been implemented. The regulations are provided for the purpose of enabling the Minister to bring in complex and difficult Acts of Parliament step by step as circumstances warrant. That is all in fact that Deputy McQuillan is now asking. He does not seek to transfer the authority from the Minister to the local health authority. The amendment states that they shall come into operation on the 1st day of August, 1954, in respect of the area of every local authority which states that it is in a position to operate the sections referred to. I take it that the statement would be made by the local authority to the Minister for Health and I take it the Minister for Health would have an opportunity of examining the facts upon which the local health authority's statement was made. It is there implied that if it is quite obvious that the statement made by the Health authority is untrue this section could not apply. Therefore there is every guarantee that no foolish steps would be taken under the condition of affairs sought to be brought about by this amendment.
We, as other speakers have said on this side, are very keen that people who find health bills an unbearable burden should be given the advantage of freedom from charge which the 1953 Act provides as soon as possible. Certain counties have been mentioned and I think it is an unwarranted interference with the rights of the beneficiaries in those areas and with the willingness of health authorities in these areas to provide those benefits, that Deputies in this House who are not satisfied that in their own areas the position is similar should, by their vote, deny to other health areas the benefits they think cannot yet be made available in their own areas.
I would have preferred to hear some of the Labour Deputies from the rural areas rather than city representatives speaking on this question. Any Deputy from a rural area must be familiar with the type of case that has been dealt with by all the speakers on this side of the House since the Bill came under discussion. The demand or the request made by this amendment is quite reasonable. There cannot be any objection to it on the ground of removing from the Minister any powers which he should have as Minister. He will have the same authority in respect to this Bill as his predecessor would have in respect to the principal measure and he will have in the exercise of that power alone, an opportunity of examining the position in any given health area which sought to apply the benefits of the Act. Could anything be more reasonable than an amendment framed in these terms? If in fact the intention is not, as we stated to be our belief, that this Bill is essentially to scrap the 1953 Act, then there is no alternative but to accept the amendment of Deputy McQuillan.
I just want to clarify one or two points for Deputy Larkin and other Deputies, in case they got a wrong impression from having listened to Deputy Beirne's contribution to this amendment. Deputy Beirne is chairman of the Roscommon County Council. I am sorry he is not here at present, because we are good friends away from the political arena. He mentioned three points when he was speaking. He said, first of all, that the Roscommon County Council had not made financial provision-had not struck a rate, in other words—to enable it to implement the sections covered in my amendment. Now, Deputy Beirne should have considered for a moment as chairman of the county council the fact that a certain amount of money has been raised by the county council for the payment of maternity benefits to those in the middle income group to the wives of those whose income is less than £600 a year and to the wives of farmers of a lower valuation than £50. Provision is made for all that in the rate struck and this new Bill, if it becomes law, is going to deprive, as from the 1st August, the wife of a small farmer and the wife of the self-employed worker of the maternity benefit for which provision is already made in the rate that was struck. That deals with the first point.
The second point the Deputy made is that we had not the facilities in the county, that the number of maternity beds is nine. I do not want to be too hard on Deputy Beirne but it is only fair that the House should know that 14 additional beds have been provided in the last couple of months in Roscommon county hospital. As chairman of the county council, he is not even aware of that.
His third point was that at a regional meeting in Sligo of local representatives, they all expressed complete antagonism to the 1953 Health Act. The fact is that in Sligo every delegate, including members of the Fine Gael Party, expressed satisfaction with the Act and said that it was badly needed but that they would prefer the cost of the implementation of the Act should come from central funds and that no money should be levied from the rates. That is what took place in Sligo, not what Deputy Beirne said. That I think should be enough to convince Deputy Larkin that of all the Parties who opposed the Act, Clann na Talmhan was the greatest culprit. Only three weeks ago, the county council in Roscommon set up a consultative health council as envisaged in the Act.
Fine Gael supported that but Clann na Talmhan refused to have anything to do with the setting up of that council. If that is not a fair indication of the outlook of the Clann na Talmhan Party in regard to health services, I do not know what other indication Deputy Larkin needs from me.
The Minister made one statement that caught my attention—he does not want to see people enjoying different things in different counties. He wants a similar standard in all counties as regards health services. Once we have local authorities functioning in this country, we must take it for certain that similar facilities will not be available in all counties. Let us just look at the situation in neighbouring counties. One county council makes a tremendous effort to provide housing for its people; a second county council is noted for the type of roads it provides while other county councils specialise in and are anxious to provide waterworks and sewerage. You have, therefore, in each county a difference in outlook with regard to services. If the Minister is going to suggest that in the implementation of the Health Act, 1953, all counties, on a regional basis even, must be in exactly the same position to implement the Act or the sections of the Act dealt with in this amendment, then I have no doubt whatever that it will be many a day before we see these sections in operation. That is not a criticism of the Minister; it is a criticism I am levelling at the local authorities in these counties because some local authorities are much slower than others in taking the necessary steps to provide services. What I tried to establish in putting forward this amendment is: Can the Minister tell me what is wrong in a local authority having satisfied the Minister that they had all the necessary facilities ready, saying: "Now we shall operate the Health Act?"
There is nothing wrong whatever in it.
That is where the whole crux arises. That is the technical point in the Bill but the Minister has pointed out the question of policy arises. Once we deal with the matter of policy, there is a fundamental difference between us. I maintain, if it is a question of policy, that these local authorities which have taken the necessary steps to implement the Health Act, and to have the services envisaged put into operation, should be allowed to implement the sections concerned. Why should people in these areas where you have progressive county councils be held up and prevented from getting the services because a county council in an adjoining county is slow and has not taken the same interest in the matter?
There is another point I want to put to the Minister. We shall have in the next 12 months an amendment of the County Management Act. One of the ideas behind that is to take away power from the county managers, to give more power to the local authorities—in other words to get them to be more active, to get people to take part in public life and to run local affairs efficiently themselves. Supposing we get a very efficient council, in any county you like, who have all the facilities ready, and all the provisions made to enable them to carry out these sections, are they to be told by the Minister: "My policy is to operate the Health Act when all county councils of the Southern area or the Western area, have reached a certain standard".
Actually, if the Minister accepts what this amendment of mine stands for it will enable him to bring in those sections on the step by step basis he has envisaged. I do not suggest, like some people, that the Minister himself intends to utilise this Bill for the purpose of postponing indefinitely the benefits that would come under the 1953 Act but I do say that he is certainly giving a lever to other people to utilise it in such a manner as to disturb the public mind.
I am in the position in my constituency that I meet small farmers regularly who have to meet hospital bills for their wives or themselves. They ask: "Will you get this bill reduced?" I bring in a bill to the county manager. The county manager sends out a home assistance officer. There is a most rigorous check on all that man has in his possession. In other words, he has to disclose the intimate business arrangements of himself and his family to a home assistance officer and then he may get a reduction in his hospital bill.
That is the position at the moment. The facilities are there and these people are getting the treatment but they have to pay unjustly for the benefits. What I cannot understand— I hope Deputy Larkin will forgive me this—is that those people who make up the majority of the people of this country—they are the relations, sons and daughters of small farmers—are left out. It is their services and benefits which are suspended while the insured worker whose income does not exceed £600 is catered for. He is actually being transferred from the Department of Social Welfare to the Health Department under the Bill introduced by the Minister.
All I want to say on the matter is that if the Deputies on both sides of the House who represent rural Ireland were together on this the Minister or any other Minister would not dream of introducing legislation of this nature which would postpone the services for the small farmer. We should get the assistance—I am speaking as an Independent Deputy—of those who on all sides of this House represent or suggest they represent the small farmer. I do not for a moment suggest that they are all angels on the Fianna Fáil side of the House. There are many on that side of the House who are just as concerned in my opinion as the Fianna Fáil back benchers. This matter concerns both sides of the House.
I for one took a stand long ago on this question of a means test. That is exactly what this is—the worst form of means test. The Health Act of 1953 was only a step in the right direction. This present Bill is a step back. Of course, the Minister in his statement said there was no need whatever for this amendment of mine, that according to the regulations under Section 22 of the Health Act of 1953 he could take the steps I ask in the amendment. Is it not fair to suggest that he has no intention then of taking these steps if he will not accept the amendment?
The local authority, as I said to the Minister, has made the necessary arrangements and says to the Minister: "Will you allow us to operate the sections concerned?" I see no reason why the Minister cannot reply "Yes". If the local authority is willing to carry out the sections in accordance with the provisions of the Act and with the regulations laid down, surely, under those circumstances, the local authority will not take unto itself the functions of the Minister? The Minister is still the boss. He is the controlling influence because the local authority must satisfy the Minister that they are prepared to implement the Act according to the regulations which he sets down.
This appeal is the last one I will make to the Minister. He can finish this conflict on health matters if he makes clear to the House that the step by step arrangement he envisages of implementing the 1953 Act will be implemented in the manner laid down in the amendment. He will allay a lot of fears and he will remove political ammunition from the Opposition on this side of the House and will probably ease the situation created by the disturbance that has existed over health matters for years.
I will not even say a word about the Irish Medical Association in the hope that the Minister will see his way to do as I suggest. I would like that in a case like this he would consider leaving this matter to a free vote of the House and let the Deputies on both sides of the House make up their own minds. This amendment, as far as I am concerned at any rate, would mean that it was not just at the discretion of the Minister, that when a county council or a local authority satisfied the Minister they were in a position to implement the Act the county council would be entitled to carry it out.
Let us look at it this way. A good county council is prepared to implement the Health Act, say, in County Roscommon: what an example that would be to the neighbouring counties. The people in Westmeath, for instance, might complain and say: "Look at the facilities provided in Roscommon. What is our council doing?" I am not suggesting that they are behind in Westmeath. I merely take that as an example. In other words, the fact that you have the scheme in operation in pilot centres will be an incentive to other local authorities to come up to scratch as well. I would like if the Minister would approach the matter with that aim in mind. That is all I have to say.
I do not suppose the Minister will agree with the view——
Is the Deputy starting the debate again?
Will the Minister please have manners and wait until I complete the sentence because it might be an answer to what he puts? If the Minister is willing to indicate now whether he will accept the invitation of Deputy McQuillan and allow a free vote I will not say one word further. I do not suppose the Minister would do that. Deputy Larkin, fortunately, also has a copy of the minutes of the meeting to which I referred earlier to-day.
This is just wasting time and opening the debate again.
Deputy Larkin quoted extracts in relation to certain of those present. Deputy Larkin argued that his attitude flows from the opinion of the National Health Council and, in order to strengthen himself in that attitude, he quoted a Mr. O'Flynn who is the county manager of Galway—at least he quoted part of what he said. I do not know that Mr. O'Flynn is expressing the view of his council, or anybody's view, when he says something which I am sure even Deputy Larkin would not subscribe to.
I did not say that, Deputy.
Mr. O'Flynn was quoted as one of those present to fortify the attitude that this Act could not be implemented at the moment.
No. The Deputy should have listened to what I said.
Deputy Larkin tried to take the attitude of weighing up both sides——
In regard to the local authority.
He had no evidence from any local authority that they could work it at the present time. However, he did not also say—which is something of equal importance— that neither had he any evidence from local authorities that they could not work it.
Surely we should have positive evidence.
You were very positive last year.
Positively either way. Deputy McQuillan, I take it, will be accepted as positive evidence that County Roscommon is willing, able and prepared to work this Act, particularly the sections that are being postponed. Deputy Beegan from Galway will, I hope, be accepted as positive evidence——
Definitely not.
Deputy Coogan did not interrupt or question any single word while Deputy Beegan was speaking.
I certainly did.
The Deputy did not. The Deputy did not interrupt Deputy Beegan once. He interrupted when Deputy Gilbride was speaking but he made sure, when Deputy Beegan was speaking, not to open his mouth.
I certainly did, and will again.
The Deputy can get up when I sit down and contradict what Deputy Beegan said, if he is able to.
Certainly.
Listen to this:—
"Mr. O'Flynn, in reply to a question by Miss Ashe, at this particular meeting, said that he had told his county secretary about the obligation which would fall on the county council, on the 1st August but that little had been done in the way of preparation. The matter had not been considered by his county council or by the local consultative committee as the whole affair was indeterminate at this stage. Mr. O'Connell had pointed out that it would be impossible to work the Act until agreement had been reached with hospital authorities and with the medical profession. The difficulty in relation to the hospitals would not be great in County Galway."
That is an admission that, if there were difficulties, they would not be great for County Galway. The paragraph continues:—
"There did not appear to be power to bring the Act into operation in particular areas only and he doubted if it would be desirable to have such powers as it."
The Minister earlier to-day said here that he had the power that was implied by Deputy McQuillan's amendment. I do not think that will be contradicted. Here, this county manager says at this meeting of the consultative council that the power does not lie to operate in that way. He further says something which I am sure Deputy Larkin will not subscribe to:—
"The Act provided for a health scheme on a national scale and it would be inequitable for the Exchequer——"
—remember, for the Exchequer——
"——to be meeting part of the cost of a service which operated in some areas and not in others."
There is the answer of Mr. O'Flynn. There is the answer of the county manager whom Deputy Larkin attempted to adduce as a witness on behalf of the doubt of operating the Act in the manner suggested by the amendment.
Deputy McQuillan has appealed for a certain amount of fair approach to this matter. I am appealing also for a certain amount of realistic and fair approach to it. This county manager, in my opinion, had no great information because, through the whole meeting, there were interjections from time to time asking if there was any information about the situation of councils.
"Mr. O'Connell then asked if the secretary would repeat what he had earlier said regarding the information given by the local authorities."
The information given earlier, according to the secretary——
Page 3.
Yes, page 3. The information given earlier was:—
"The secretary informed the council that local authorities had recently been asked what steps they had taken and were taking to prepare for the commencement of the Act. In general, they had stated that forms etc. were being got ready and some of them had said that they were awaiting further circulars from the Department on the details of the services."
Nothing is said there to the effect that they were not able to work it but when the secretary was asked to give further information:—
"...he repeated his earlier statement and, in reply to a question from Mr. Condon, added that the query made related to the preparations which had been and were being made and did not ask for the views of the local authorities on the practicability of the 1st August as a commencement date. He did not know whether or not any representations on this particular point had been made to the Minister or the Department by local authorities."
Obviously, therefore, the National Health Council, according to their own secretary, had no information whatever from local authorities as to their inability to implement from a practical point of view——
Or ability. They had no information.
No information.
We are agreed upon that?
Yes. However, if the Deputy reads his Second Reading speech he will find he was under the impression—I am not saying he made the statement in any deliberate manner —that they were bound to have had this information from the local authorities.
I have had the minutes since.
I agree. As he has had the minutes since, I hope the Deputy will also correct the difference that appeared between us yesterday evening——
In regard to Dr. Ward.
I will deal with him, too, and in regard to the Labour Party. When I attempted to refer to these minutes this morning the question of privilege was raised. Deputy Larkin gets a copy of the same minutes from some member—which he is entitled to get as a public representative—and there is no suggestion that he is abusing privilege. It is quite in order for him. I am glad he made it possible for me——
You had already quoted them.
I was allowed to quote only little parts.
Once again, may I ask what is the relevance of all this to the amendment?
The Deputy is dealing with the question of local authorities and, so far as the Chair can see, he is in order.
I thought the Deputy appeared to be dealing with the proceedings of the National Health Council. I have just come back into the House and I may be wrong.
Apparently the Minister was not here when Deputy Larkin was reading his minutes of the National Health Council——
I heard Deputy Larkin's speech. It was perfectly relevant.
He read what appeared to me to be relevant and what, I suggest, might be suitable to his point of view. I am reading what appears to me to be relevant and suitable to my point of view.
The Deputy is speaking for the sake of speaking and it would appear to me to be favourable to my point of view.
I would suggest that the Minister should let me finish. Deputy Larkin challenged me on the question of Dr. Ward. Deputy Larkin had suggested on the Second Reading stage that Dr. Ward was present when this decision was taken. I pointed out——
I did not say so.
I pointed out that that was wrong, that Dr. Ward had left, but then Deputy Larkin corrected me and said that Dr. Ward made a certain statement before leaving. I will read his statement before leaving which is recorded in the minutes:—
"Dr. Ward at this stage said that he regretted that he had to leave the meeting then to go to an urgent case. He thought that if the Minister were satisfied, as he appeared to be, that commencement on the 1st August could not take place it was his responsibility to decide on legislation to defer it. He (Dr. Ward) did not wish to oppose a proposal for such legislation. He thought, however, that the Minister should consider how far he could bring the Act into operation for the lower income group only, instead of deferring it completely."
That is what I am doing.
The minute, continuing, says that Dr. Ward said:—
"To do this the Minister would apparently require power to bring the Act into operation for different areas and different income groups at different times. Apparently the Minister had not got that power in the Act as it stood."
That is the point and the point that I am making relative to this particular amendment. The Minister, immediately the amendment was introduced, said that he had the power to do what is stated in the amendment.
The Deputy has made his point apparently in reply to something that Deputy Larkin said. Would you now rule, Sir, that it is not relevant to the amendment we are discussing?
Why is it not relevant?
Surely it is not relevant.
I cannot understand the Minister. The amendment of Deputy McQuillan is to give the Minister power to have the Act operate in areas separately and not over the whole nation at the one time. Is not that the amendment? Dr. Ward says at the National Council that for such an operation he does not think the Minister has power as the Act stands. This was also said by Mr. O'Flynn. Now either Mr. O'Flynn, the county manager, is talking through his hat——
He might well be.
He could possibly be, or he was stating what was a fact, and the Minister here is trying to ride two horses at the one time. He says he has power to do, nothwithstanding this Bill, everything that Deputy McQuillan wants done in his amendment. Is that the position, or is Dr. Ward wrong, and Mr. O'Flynn?
I am so advised, yes.
I am satisfied if the Minister says so. I am accepting that. If the Minister says he is so advised that Mr. O'Flynn, the county manager, is wrong, I hope it will be conveyed to him by the representatives from Galway that he was talking nonsense at the Health Council.
Who appointed Mr. O'Flynn to the Health Council?
That does not arise on this amendment.
It is very relevant to the views expressed. It is well known that Deputy Dr. Ryan appointed both Mr. O'Flynn and Dr. Ward.
What has that to do with it?
It is a criticism, presumably, of the views held by Mr. O'Flynn and Dr. Ward.
A lot of people changed in a couple of months.
Order!
I am going on to page 6, in case Deputy Larkin would like to see that I am quoting accurately and correctly—page 6 paragraph 2:—
"The chairman said that to achieve unanimity on the matter——"
The matter of the resolution.
"——he thought that it would be as well to include some preamble to meet the wishes of the members concerned. He thought that this should consist of a reference to the fact that the Minister had, under the relevant sub-section of the Act, requested the advice of the council on the matter."
Mr. O'Connell did not want that done but nevertheless it was agreed as suggested. The preamble was in relation to a question put by Mrs. Ashe.
Miss Ashe.
On a point of order, I know that the question of the admissibility of quotations from a certain document was raised earlier and the Ceann Comhairle ruled, I think, that it was in order to quote from the document; but the document, being an official document, I think in fairness to the other members of the House should now be made available to the members of the House. I think there is a ruling to that effect, that where an an official document is quoted the House is entitled to have the whole document.
Hear, hear!
It is rather embarrassing for Deputies who have not seen a copy of this minute and hear it quoted there piecemeal by Deputy Briscoe in a few minutes. It would be much more helpful if the whole House would be supplied with copies.
Hear, hear! The whole country.
I offered before to hand in this document which I feel should be made available——
If you do not mind raising it with the Chair——
I will put the whole document in.
Put it in.
I will put it in, but before putting it in I should say that it was Mrs. Barry, not Miss Ashe to whom I wish to refer. On page 5 of the minutes she said:—
"She would like if the resolution was amended so that it would commence by a reference to the fact that the Minister had communicated to the council that he thought that the Act could not be brought into operation on the 1st August and that the council accepted that it could not be done then. The point she wanted to make was that the council should be shown as expressing agreement with the Minister and not as taking the initiative."
Would the Deputy read on now, the next remark?
I am going to give the whole document, but I will certainly read on.
Read on what immediately follows.
Is it suggested that I did not fully read what Mrs. Barry said?
Taking it out of its context.
The Deputy knows very well what I am saying.
You want what Mr. O'Connell said in reply?
Yes.
Very well. The minute goes on:—
"Mr. O'Connell said that he thought the council's function was greater than that of merely expressing agreement with the Minister. They were a national body with special qualifications to advise on the commencement of the Act. They should tell the Minister what they thought. The inclusion of a prefix as suggested by Mrs. Barry would give the impression that the council had not considered the impracticability of the commencement date until the present meeting, whereas they had in fact already made recommendations to the Minister on the matter.
Dr. Brennan said he thought the prefix was not necessary.
Mr. Veale thought that the council should find out the position in each local authority's area before giving this important advice."
Do you want me to read on?
Yes.
—
"Mr. O'Connell then asked if the secretary would repeat what he had earlier said regarding the information given by the local authorities."
I had already referred to that. I am obliged to Deputy MacBride, and I will hand in this document now to make it an official document.
The document can be made available in the Library.
There is no machinery whereby Deputies would get copies?
Would not the handiest thing be to read it all and it would be in the Official Debates? We will have it all next week.
Certainly I will put it in the Library. Perhaps the usher will take it. I do not know what the procedure is.
Would the Deputy consider joining the D'Oyly Carte Company?
There is the further difficulty that the Library at the moment is not in existence.
The Library is in existence up in the Seanad Chamber, the Seanad at the moment being in the labour of being born.
Actually it is not in the Seanad Chamber. It is in the ante-room.
It will get free maternity service.
That is the only free maternity service the country will get.
But look at the parentage.
The parentage is very mixed, I will agree.
Will Deputy Briscoe please speak to the amendment?
Yes. I am finishing.
He is in labour, too, of course.
I would say that bringing in the resolution of the National Health Council has now turned out to be a boomerang.
It is quite clear that the Minister had agreement with the Labour Party and so informed this body, through the chairman. The chairman did inform the National Health Council, as the document shows, that the Labour Party had agreed and they then felt that they had no alternative but to agree. I feel that what the National Health Council feared is in fact happening and that, instead of having a practical and realistic approach, keeping in mind the people who are to be affected or to benefit, the matter has become again somewhat of a political issue. I hope the House will accept the amendment.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Johnny.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.
I move amendment No. 6:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the words "and shall cease to have effect on the 1st day of November, 1954."
Will amendments Nos. 6 and 7 be taken together?
If you take 6 I will allow 7 to go. I was going to suggest that there is not very much more to be said in advocating this amendment than we have said already. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to let it go to the House and perhaps have an opportunity of finishing the Bill to-night.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kelly, Edward.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donough.
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Burke, James J.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Carew, John.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Collins, Seán.
- Connor, Johnny.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Morrissey, Dan.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- O'Carroll, Maureen.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donovan, John.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, James.
- Tully, John.