Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Jul 1960

Vol. 183 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Health (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a sum not exceeding £6,525,600 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Health (including Oifig an Ard-Chláraitheora), and certain Services administered by that Office, including Grants to Local Authorities and miscellaneous Grants.—(Minister for Health.)

There are a few points to which I should like to refer on this Estimate. One of the things which I welcomed in the Minister's statement was the fact that in the near future he intends to issue a booklet on the health services. I think this is necessary because in spite of the fact that the services have now been in operation for some years there is still considerable confusion not only amongst the general public but amongst public representatives in regard to what people are entitled to under these Acts. I find that generally people do not appreciate the fact that even if their income does not qualify them for a medical card, nevertheless, in certain circumstances, they can get that card for a specific purpose and thereby derive the benefits which were envisaged when the Act was brought in.

There are other matters which also give trouble such as the fact that people find it confusing that an old age pensioner who has undergone a severe means test before he can qualify for his old age pension is not automatically entitled to a medical card. It would need to be explained that the medical card is governed by the income of the house rather than the income of the individual.

Another knotty problem, to my mind, is the awarding of a disability allowance. It seems to lie entirely at the discretion of the manager and on the recommendation of his investigating officer and seemingly there is a very wide difference as to the type of person who is eligible for disability allowance. I should like to make a plea for the person who is completely unable to work. I have such a person in mind, a person who is crippled with arthritis. He would cost the State a considerable amount of money if he were committed to a home. He is living at home and even with the disability allowance his maximum weekly income is 30/-. The local authorities inform me that they have no power to give him more. I find that difficult to believe because 30/- bears no relation to the cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer if such a person had to be kept in a home.

There are many benefits to be derived under the Health Act but people find it confusing that ophthalmic or aural services are not included. While I know it would cost the Exchequer money, it is something which the Minister should keep before him because until such time as all the different services can be taken in in some way, the Health Act will not achieve its full purpose.

I was very glad to see that the Minister paid considerable attention to mental illness. There is of course a new awareness amongst the public in relation to this illness and a great change in their attitude to mental hospitals and mental diseases generally. I know that in Cork, which I suppose is not very much different from other centres, an increasing number of people are going voluntarily to the R.M.S. of the hospital and the numbers attending the out-patients' clinics have increased lately on account of the number of voluntary patients going there. This is a very good trend and the more publicity directed to informing the public of the facilities which are available, and of the necessity for early attention to mental illness, the better, because it will serve a very useful purpose.

After 25 years of agitation, a new addition is being erected to the Cork hospital and it certainly will fulfil a great need. I would stress again the need for more publicity to inform people of the facilities in hospital clinics both for intern and extern patients. Such publicity would have very beneficial effects.

The White Paper issued a short time ago about the mentally handicapped shows that the Department is very much concerned about something which up to recently has been hidden away and forgotten and is now rapidly assuming a very great importance, and rightly so, in our midst. We have two organisations in Cork—one of which very rightly received mention in the White Paper—which are doing a tremendous amount of good work. One started as a post-polio committee but has now turned to mentally handicapped children of both sexes. It has a day school and a residential school for such children and it is expanding its activities all the time and deserves great credit. Another activity there is the cerebral palsy clinic. The committee for that was started in 1955. It was a small committee and opened a clinic in two small rooms in a back street. As far as I can recall, it then had 14 patients. Through voluntary efforts, it was able to open a clinic in the centre of the city in 1958 and at that time it included a small school. There were 39 patients and 11 students in the school. They were mainly drawn from Cork city and the immediate suburbs.

Now we find that the clinic is much too small. Instead of 11 pupils, there are now 39. The children are attending pediatricians and medical officers are sending them there not alone from all parts of Cork city and county but Tipperary town, Limerick and even Kilkenny. There are 70 children attending the day clinic. The position is now embarrassing and a new school is an immediate necessity. The room that has been used was turned over for daily attention to these children. It is a well-known fact that success in the treatment of cerebral palsy, as in other diseases, depends on regular treatment at a very early age. I would say that there is only one residential clinic in this part of Ireland and that is the one situated at Bray and for which there is a waiting list.

It seems to me that the time has come when residential clinics will have to be envisaged for Munster, certainly for South Munster. Our experience in Cork shows that there is a great need for a residential clinic. Pediatricians are convinced that a child no matter how badly handicapped he may be by cerebral palsy or any such affliction should not be removed remotely from his parents. No matter how badly afflicted they are, they should not be too far removed from contact with their parents. Even if the Bray clinic were able to take all the patients seeking admission, it would be too far away for many parents to keep in contact with their children. There is a great need for a residential clinic in the Cork area to serve at least South Munster, if not the whole of the province.

I should like to pay tribute to the people who have given such tremendous voluntary service in connection with the cerebral palsy clinic and the other clinic I mentioned. With the exception of a small State grant for school furniture, the cerebral palsy clinic was built entirely through voluntary effort. At a time when so much is expected, or even demanded from the State, it is right that tribute should be paid to voluntary workers and subscribers. I believe that no matter how far we progress, there will always be a place here for the voluntary worker and subscriber.

I am sure the Minister and his Department know very well that the school dental service at present is merely touching the fringe of the problem. In his opening statement, the Minister said there was a scarcity of dentists. There are only two dental schools in this part of the country, one in Dublin and the other in Cork. I was very glad to learn that a new school is to be built in Dublin because the old one is entirely inadequate. However, it certainly is no more inadequate than the school in Cork. About 20 years ago, the average number of dentistry students in Cork was from four to six. Today, the University authorities are embarrassed because it is impossible to cater for all those wishing to do dentistry. Because there is not sufficient space at the North Infirmary Hospital, the intake of dentistry students must be confined to 12. The course takes three years and that means that 36 students must complete that course under the handicap of insufficient accommodation.

Five years ago, both the teaching staff and teaching methods of the dentistry school at the North Charitable Infirmary were reorganised, and that reorganisation has had really remarkable results. Each year, as I have said, there were 12 students, and of the 36 students over those three years, 35 succeeded in their final examination. I do not know if that record can be equalled, not alone surpassed, in any other institution, and that has been achieved when they were working, as I very well know, under tremendous difficulties. As I said, University College Cork are experiencing considerable embarrassment because they have to select those students who will be allowed to do dentistry from the very large number wishing to do it. The system there is something like this: The first 12 students in the pre-Med examination are given the choice of going for dentistry or continuing with medicine, and if they choose to go on for medicine, their place in the dental School is given to the next in order of merit.

At present when so many of our professional people are emigrating, we should consider that there is no more lucrative profession for a young boy or girl than dentistry. Without any doubt in Great Britain dentistry is at present a most attractive profession. According to the most reliable sources, the dentistry needs of that country will not be met for the next 20 years. I suggest that that is one of the reasons why the Minister is finding it difficult to get dentists for the public health services in this country. Apart altogether from the Department of Health, I believe the Government should make available to young people the means to enable them qualify in this profession.

I completely agree with the Department's attitude that the dental services should aim particularly at the preservation of the teeth of our young people. However, one has to recognise that there are people whose health or chances of employment sometimes depend on their having teeth and who have not the means of providing them for themselves. Therefore, it is only right that a percentage of the money available should be set aside for dental work. But that cannot be done until we have a 100 per cent. school dental service, and I would say that it is about 7½ per cent. at present.

In my opinion prevention is better than cure; and that brings me to another matter. This may seem strange coming from a Corkman speaking in Dublin, but I believe there is a great necessity for indoor baths in Dublin. Few exercises can do as much for the fitness and health of any young boy or girl as swimming. Some people will say that Dublin is near the sea and there are outdoor baths, but we must remember that in a climate such as ours there are only three months of the year in which such facilities can be availed of. I would ask the Minister to use his influence with the Department of Local Government and the Department of Finance to see that indoor swimming pools are provided particularly in the city of Dublin but also in other centres, such as Limerick, Waterford and Galway. Compared with other places, I am glad to say we are not too badly served in Cork. The reason I mention Dublin is that I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no city in Europe of its size and population is as badly off in this matter.

In spite of certain criticisms which have been coming in and which will come in, I can assure the Minister that most of us are looking very confidently to the future and to a great improvement under the unified health services. I think that was a step in the right direction and I have every confidence that when we meet here next year to pass the Minister's Estimate, we shall recall with satisfaction the improvement that will have been made under the unified health services.

It is with a great measure of personal sadness that I make my contribution to this debate on the health services which is being carried on in the shadow of the death of the greatest health legislator in history, Aneurin Bevan. We must all regret the passing of this great parliamentarian, this loyal democrat and this great social legislator.

I should like to join in the tribute which Deputy O'Higgins paid to the past secretary of the Department of Health with whom I had much fruitful and valuable association during my period of office in the Department. It is a particular tribute to him that people so diverse in our political views as Deputy O'Higgins and myself can quite genuinely pay a tribute to this man for his great loyalty to us and to the policies we believed in. I should like to wish his successor every good luck in his post and hope that he will be able to equal the high standard of public service of his predecessor.

This has been one of the most heartening debates to listen to and to read for the reason that it seems to me that, for the first time, there is some sort of breach in what at one time looked to be an impregnable wall of indifference or complacency in the approach to health matters. I think there is still a tremendous amount of confused and woolly thinking in the matter but there have been these first stirrings of new thinking on the whole question of health in the country.

To my mind, that has been due to a considerable extent to the defects of the 1953 Health Act as much as to anything else. Whether the Minister is aware of it or not, the health services come in for a tremendous amount of criticism from all sections of the community and particularly from people who have to depend on the dispensary service and that is a depressingly high number of people. It seems to me to be a sad commentary on the social structure of our society that there are something like 800,000 people who can qualify for the health services. That is a very high percentage.

There are a number of minor points which I would like to deal with before dealing in greater detail with the contribution made by Deputy O'Higgins and the points raised by the Minister. The first one concerns the question of cancer, of cigarette smoking and so on. I was surprised that Deputy Dr. Esmonde threw some doubt on the suggestion that cigarette smoking is a possible source of cancer of the lung. I think it has been established, and the Minister has given us to understand that it is accepted, that there is now no doubt at all that cigarette smoking is a causative factor in the establishment of cancer of the lung.

It seems to me to be confusing the issue when people like Deputy Dillon and Dr. Esmonde and Deputy de Valera brought in the question of whether diesel oil fumes are a causative factor. Whether it is or is not, it does not alter the fact that cigarette smoking is. I hope the Minister will clear up any confusion that might remain on that point. Whether diesel oil is or is not a cause, there is no doubt about the fact that cigarette smoking is a cause of cancer of the ling and people should be reminded of this fact. I am quite aware that a lot of money comes into the Exchequer from tobacco duties.

That has nothing to do with it.

I am glad to know that it has nothing to do with it. It must be a source of considerable worry to the Minister for Finance if the Minister for Health were to publicise the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer with anything like the same intensity as that with which the cigarette companies publicise the attractiveness of cigarette smoking. An occasional speech by the Minister will in no way offset the very extensive, costly, clever and ingenious campaigns carried out by all the tobacco companies.

No matter what Minister is there, if he does not carry out a really intensive campaign, he will be completely overwhelmed and is not likely to be understood by the public. The Minister knows that when people are advertising anything, whether it be an item of produce or goods of any sort, it is not good enough for the managing director of a company to make an annual speech praising the article and then to sit down and say nothing about it for the rest of the year. He would insist that if his competitors were advertising, his product should be advertised also.

I believe that the Minister has the right to insist on the publication of this fact. If he has the right to insist on publication of the fact that a certain drug contains poison I think he should insist on publicising the fact that cigarettes contain certain constituents which have been proved to be a cause of cancer of the lung which is certainly one of the most painful diseases I know of from which to die. Very much more could be done by the Minister in this respect and although the matter has serious financial implications I think the social implications should override them.

I find the figures for the poliomyelitis death rate and its incidence so early in the year very disturbing. Medical people who know much more about it than I do have also expressed concern. I think the Minister has not publicised sufficiently the facilities that are available. They are not as freely available as I should like them to be but they are there for what they are worth and certain of them are free and they are not availed of by those who could avail of them. That cannot be said to be due to the fact that parents do not care whether the children get this disease or not; they do care. In my experience, and long before I went into the Department of Health any intensive health educational programme carried out for, say, smallpox or diphtheria or the publicising of the tuberculosis services was effective. It is possible without frightening or worrying people to give them the essential information and to exercise ignorance in regard to these diseases. That was achieved in relation to tuberculosis, diphtheria and smallpox. I believe it will be possible for the Minister to get a much better response from parents if he intensifies the propaganda very much more than he is doing at present.

I notice in the advertisements in the country papers and in the national papers that the Minister for Agriculture, in trying to sell his bovine tuberculosis scheme to the farmers, does not leave it to the agricultural authorities to issue a few leaflets and hope for the best. Properly, he takes every opportunity of publicising the facilities available and of urging farmers to eradicate tuberculosis from their cattle. In that way his programme has a fair amount of success. There is no doubt that if there is a danger of a serious epidemic—and I am sure the Minister is as much disturbed about it as I am, possibly even more—the Minister would be justified in initiating a publicity campaign in regard to the facilities available, limited though they may be, against this disease and the protection that vaccination gives.

I urge the Minister to give parents an opportunity of knowing that they are exposing their children to this horrible disease of poliomyelitis and make sure that they know about it. Secondly, I urge him to get rid of the silly, residual charge for the few who cannot get the service free. It is hardly worth the few shillings he collects when one takes into account the trouble it is for local authorities to assess means and make all the usual enquiries that must be made to establish that a person is not above a certain income if he is to get free service. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter in the light of the figures and see if he cannot increase the tempo of the propaganda and, get rid of the charge and have a free service as in the case of diphtheria, tuberculosis and smallpox which used to be a free service. I do not know why polio should be the exception among these other conditions. I can see no justification for it if the Minister is really anxious that children should be protected from this disease as far as it is possible to do so.

I hope the Minister will treat with considerable contempt the suggestion by Deputy Booth that money should be taken from the T.B. patients, people with infectious diseases, to provide money to look after people suffering from cancer or coronary thrombosis. That seems to be one of the most despicable suggestions I have yet heard; it gives one a rather disturbing insight into Deputy Booth's mind that he should consider robbing the consumptive to pay for the cancer patients when surely there must be other ways in which the Minister can find the money should he decide to do so. I am sure the Minister will not waste much time on that suggestion.

The question of the Health Council was raised here. I should like to say very briefly that it is regrettable that the conflict is there but I am not going to deal with that. I want to explain my personal attitude. I appreciate very much the Minister's decision to appoint me to the Health Council. He could have followed the example of his predecessor and not have me on the Council for one reason or another, but my reason for not accepting the appointment is simply that I do not think that the Council can function efficiently without the representatives of the Medical Association which has been the representative body of the medical profession of the country whatever one may think of them.

The Minister will know from the records or minutes of the Council that for probably 80 per cent. of the time I was in conflict with the views of the members of the Association on the Health Council. But I do not think that is sufficiently good reason for not having the benefit—it may be a doubtful benefit at times—of their advice on the Council. I hope that the difference between the Minister and the Medical Association can be resolved.

The Minister must have been impressed by the unanimity of the complaints about the present health services but, at the same time, I think we must be a little more precise. I have read speeches by outsiders as spokesmen for the Medical Association—I think Mr. O'Connell was one—and speeches made here by various Deputies stating that the Health Acts had been a failure. That is a sweeping generalisation that is not wholly true. It is very important that we should recognise that fact: some of the Health Acts have been failures no doubt, but others have not.

One of the things which I can never understand is that the most progressive Health Act of all is the product of the Minister's activities in the Department of Health, when he has now, it seems to me, turned his back on all these progressive actions of that time. I refer to the 1947 Act. Within that Health Act, it would be wrong to dismiss all our health services as being inefficient, ineffective or bad, when we know quite well that the infectious diseases and the tuberculosis health legislation has been a singular success, due to the activities of various Ministers in the Department of Health over the past 10 or 15 years.

The only reason I mention this section of this legislation is that I want to use it to establish a point in relation to the future pattern which I think our health services should take. If I can establish the point, then I think it must be a guiding line to us in our decisions in relation to future health legislation.

Tributes have been paid by various Deputies to the reduction in the death rate from tuberculosis and in the morbidity rate of tuberculosis and the practical disappearance of infectious fever. It would be wrong to say that it is due to the sanatoria, drugs, doctors and nurses, administration and so on. These things by themselves are completely useless, unless they can be brought into contact with the patient and that seems to me to be the operative consideration in the legislation which was used to get rid of these diseases in Ireland and the legislation which we are trying to use to get rid of, say, the high rate of maternity and infant mortality or the death rate from diseases of one kind of another, for instance, pneumonia and such conditions.

That is the most important consideration and I find it a little surprising that most Deputies do not seem to want to face or to recognise that fact. In some countries there are the finest medical and nursing personnel, institutions and all the great drugs that one has now but because they have not a free, no means test tuberculosis service or fever hospital service, they have the same high incidence of tuberculosis and fevers as they ever had. The important thing in relation to these physical requirements of a health service is not only that they be there—they must be there, of course—but that they must be made available to the patient and must be made available on certain conditions. It is my contention that that is the most important factor in the dramatic reduction in the incidence of infectious diseases in this country since the passing of the 1947 Health Act and the implementation of its provisions over the ensuing 10 or 12 years.

So it is important to clear up that point and if there is any logic in our actions in future, then it should point to this fact in helping us to decide if we are sincere in wanting to get rid of disease and to prevent disease, if we want to prevent deformity and unnecessary diseases and help people as much as possible, we must face it that the patient must be brought into contact with the service at the earliest possible opportunity and the surest way of doing that is to see that the service is made available free and and that there is no means test.

I was particularly interested in Deputy O'Higgins' contribution to this debate. It was a most well-informed, well-briefed and thoughtful speech, giving very many useful and illuminating facts. Deputy O'Higgins was Minister for Health at one time, responsible for legislation. It is conceivable that by what he says he might influence the present Minister for Health in his actions in the future.

There are a number of considerations which arose which I should like to deal with. The first one concerns what I consider a woolly reflection on the position of politics in health. He suggested that the Minister had the possibility to take permanently out of the political arena the problem of health and health policies. I should like to put another point of view in regard to that point. I am fairly proud of being a politician. I do not see why we politicians should accept this interpretation of the word "politics".

Hear, hear!

To me, politics is inseparable from every action which man takes in life in any civilised society. Deputy O'Higgins, in coming into this political arena and making his very excellent speech in that way, was putting forward a political point of view, a political point of view which he had every right to record, a point of view from most of which I differ. He even referred to the fact that the debate was held after the by-election in Carlow-Kilkenny where it might have become a political issue. Over the years, politics has been inseparable from health legislation. Politics is accepted in agriculture, in external affairs, defence, local government, education. Why not accept it in health?

The attitude of the Fine Gael Party in 1946 was quite right when they threw out the rather totalitarian Bill of that time. They were right to do that. They took a political stand at that time and they had every right to take that stand. In fact, on that occasion, they were right to take that particular stand. In 1947, they opposed the 1947 Health Act. They took a political stand. I am not quarrelling. They took a stand and they opposed the free, no means test principle of the mother and child scheme in 1951. Then they opposed the 1953 Health Act, another political stand. I do not understand how an intelligent man can rationalise this suggestion of taking politics out of health.

We have in this House Deputy O'Higgins, with his particular attitude to health which differs from the Minister's attitude which I consider is now a very conservative attitude on health matters. Both of those differ from the attitude held by the Labour Party who believe in the insurance scheme in health matters. The three differ from my attitude, which is that the State must accept responsibility for health without contribution from the beneficiary of the health service. Even in this House we have four different political attitudes and they are all perfectly sound. We all have a right to hold them and to try to persuade other people we are right.

It is absurd that we should now take politics out of health legislation. It is completely unnecessary and most undesirable. When we consider Aneurin Bevan's proposals in his great Health Act, we remember that there was great conflict of opinion and great opposition to that legislation. Because they were socialist proposals, because they were revolutionary proposals, and because they were socialist ideas, they were opposed by the Tories. I believe politics will continue to enter into the discussion of health matters.

I was interested also in the views of Deputy O'Higgins on the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme. I would have been very interested to hear the views of the Minister for Health on this scheme. I am glad Deputy O'Higgins has broken away from the older idea that Fine Gael appear to have had on these matters and that he made a plea for some change in the dispensary service. I shall deal with that later but his adherence to this belief in the insurance principle is another question I should like to take up.

I was particularly amused at the attitude of both Deputy O'Higgins and the Minister for Health on this question of insurance. Whether in relation to health legislation or social legislation, these are people who, from what I have heard them saying over the years, would appear to be very strongly opposed to all socialist thinking because they feel it brings about an undesirable interference by the State in the life of the individual. Yet we had Deputy O'Higgins saying that voluntary health insurance was intended to help a person stand on his own two feet, not to have his hand out seeking State assistance, to teach him to join with others to help himself.

As a socialist I do not accept that it is any function of the State to teach a man to be a man, to have a stiff upper lip or to stand on his own two feet. I do not think it is any part of the function of a Department of State to take this patronising attitude or to educate people by this kind of legislation. That is the function of our educational system. This independence of thought and this sense of responsibility is something we should have absorbed from living in our society, from our environment, and I do not think any Minister should design legislation in order to inculcate these qualities. I do not think it would serve that purpose but even if it did, it is not desirable. The curious thing is that I as a socialist do not believe the State has this right and the non-socialists seem to want it in order to strengthen the moral fibre of the people. That service should be made available to everybody from State funds and there should be no need for people to make any direct contribution to voluntary health insurance.

I have never understood this business of making contributions. Apparently we accept that it does not do a parent any harm to have his child given what we call a free primary education, that it does not do the parent any harm to be given children's allowances. There are grants given to people for house building; there are a tremendous number of people such as farmers, industrialists, hoteliers and others getting grants and nobody seems to worry about their moral fibre at all or insist that they should make a weekly or monthly contribution so that they would benefit. I do not understand the Labour Party's insistence on the necessity for an insurance scheme on that basis for reasons I shall give later in greater detail. I do not think it is necessary.

In this insistence on the individual contributing which has become very popular here, whether in relation to the social legislation passed yesterday or the voluntary health insurance scheme, we seem to forget the composition of modern democratic society. When I used to talk about free, no means test health services, my opponents were very quick to tell me there was no such thing as a free health service. Of course they were right. What they meant was that the health service was paid for by the beneficiaries in the form of rates or in the form of direct taxation or indirect taxation in various ways, on beer, tobacco, cigarettes, bread, butter, tea and so on.

I cannot see therefore why people are so concerned to collect not only the individual's contribution in the form of rates or income tax or in the form of indirect taxation but also a fourth contribution for insurance paid weekly or monthly or whatever way it may be. You must set up a separate bureaucracy for the computations of the amounts involved and the amounts that must be paid by different families. In that way, you duplicate a service which is already efficiently carried out by the Minister for Finance in his Budgetary policy. I should like the Minister to consider that point. I should like Deputy O'Higgins to consider it also but in his enthusiasm for these insurance schemes I should dislike him to get an over-enthusiastic affection for this idea of a voluntary health insurance scheme.

It must be remembered that it is a relatively tiny scheme involving 80,000 people out of a population of 2,800,000 or thereabouts. Because it has got to be, by law, financially sound and because it has got to pay its way, it simply cannot give the services the people want. That disability has nothing whatsoever to do with inefficiency in administration. It can only give a limited cover to a limited number of people. It does not cover the person who has a chronic illness, as Deputy Dillon pointed out. Such a person cannot get cover for the illness from which he is actually suffering. The period is limited. The drugs are limited, and so on. The scheme must have its limitations. While there are 80,000 members, if, tomorrow, a no means test free health service were put at the disposal of the people, we would have an opportunity of seeing how many would remain in the voluntary health insurance scheme. Not one of them would remain. When the free, no means test, tuberculosis scheme came into operation, it put an end to private practice in tuberculosis, and a very good thing, too.

While the voluntary health insurance scheme serves its purpose by providing a very inadequate health service, it is certainly not the pattern we should accept for the future. It is not a desirable pattern for the future. There is a wide disparity as between the voluntary health insurance scheme and compulsory insurance. Compulsory insurance is acceptable, though I do not understand why; but compulsory insurance is quite a different thing from voluntary health insurance. The compulsory scheme could, of course, be more encompassing. It could give more facilities. It would create the necessity for making this individual contribution, and that is something in which I cannot see the sense. But compulsory insurance is a very different principle from voluntary health insurance and it could not provide anything like the same quality service that could be given under a comprehensive scheme.

Dispensary services were discussed here. It was debated as to whether these services could be improved in some way to make them more acceptable and more efficient. My attitude was that I wanted to see the dispensary service go altogether. That is why I was so pleased with the mother and child provisions in the 1947 Health Act because I think they would have finished the dispensary system. Indeed, it was for that reason I made no attempt to replace dispensaries at that time because I hoped to see an end to the whole dispensary system. I think it is a very bad system. I do not agree with Deputy O'Higgins that the system could be amended, or improved, or perfected in any way so as to make it a modern health service which would give to our people the level of service they expect and which, I think, they will insist on having within the next 10 or 15 years.

Hear, hear!

I agree with Deputy O'Higgins on one point, namely, the lack of free choice. It is outrageous that there should not be a free choice of doctor. The whole system, as he pointed out, stems from the 1853 Act. It was designed for a segregated society. You had the wealthy, on the one hand, and the paupers on the other. The service was designed for the "paupers" at the lowest level at which it could be designed. I disagree with the Minister when he says the Act has been in operation for only four years and we must give it more time. I agree with Deputy O'Higgins that the Act has been in operation for the past 100 years. It is grossly inadequate. It has failed completely to provide our people with a proper health service. The figures quoted by Deputy O'Higgins—£1 per head with 16/- going in salaries and 4/- in drugs—seems to me to be a short answer to Deputy Dillon who asked what is the cause of the extraordinary difference between the figures for maternal mortality here and the figures in Great Britain. That is the answer.

It is quite shocking that that figure of 4/- here compares with 22/- in the North and 25/- in Great Britain. It is quite clear that the vast majority of our people who are compelled to avail of the dispensary service have been denied the benefit of the great scientific advances made in modern chemico-therapeutic drugs and medicines, drugs which have revolutionised medical practice in other countries, such as Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark and so on. In these countries, the people have free access to these drugs. Here, the majority of our people are denied them. As far as they are concerned, we are living in the pre-war age. Whatever the dispensary service may have been intended to do, it is simply not doing its job.

I was interested in a speech of the Minister's a little while ago in which he seemed to be genuinely puzzled because he was spending a tremendous amount of money on the dispensary services and yet there seemed to be grave dissatisfaction with those services. I would ask the Minister to throw his mind back to his own decision in 1947 to scrap the dispensary services. He must have had a very good reason for that decision at that time. I know one of the reasons most present to my mind are the figures which were taken in, I think, 1946, showing the difference in the death rate at different economic levels. At the highest level, the death rate was 16 per 1,000; at the lowest level, the manual worker, the death rate was 133 per 1,000.

That is just one figure and I do not intend to try to adduce too much from it, but it strikes me as fairly substantial evidence of the great disparity that must exist as between the standard and quality of service which the people with money can pay for, and get, and the standard and quality of the dispensary service on which those who cannot afford to pay have to depend. Obviously there has been a failure on the part of that service to provide adequately for those people.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 12th July, 1960.
Top
Share