Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Mar 1967

Vol. 227 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 48—Health (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. —(Deputy Ryan.)

When I reported progress, I was referring to the future hospital building programme and the cost of providing the extra accommodation. I know that the Minister referred to this in the course of his speech when he said that the rapidly rising cost of hospital buildings makes it imperative that all reasonable economies should be secured both in design of building and the utilisation where practicable of new techniques of construction. I think that any investigation of future needs should ensure that accommodation that is provided at enormous cost should fully be utilised. I do not know whether the Minister is aware, as I am aware, that accommodation has been provided at enormous cost and, in fact, has never been used over a period of years. I think there should be a very close investigation of existing hospitals and institutions in the country to ensure that no unnecessary extra building takes place.

I am aware of vacant spaces in existence over a period of years that have not been utilised. I know that various reasons and excuses can be advanced as to why it is not used but it is a disgraceful waste of public money that that should be so. I think that many arrangements could be made for a change of use. I think that in quite a number of institutions space is becoming available and this should be followed up very closely to see if it can be utilised for any of the purposes for which we require accommodation at the present time.

I said, earlier on, that I was impressed by certain things which the Minister had to say. I was particularly impressed by the present-day thinking and attitudes towards the care of the aged. There has been a complete change of outlook here over the past year or so and this is very welcome. At present, I think we should concentrate on providing institutional care and accommodation for aged people. I am glad the Minister is completely committed to the idea of doing everything possible to keep old people in their own surroundings. It is only in these surroundings that I think they can ever hope to be happy because people belong where they have spent their lives. I think that with half the comfort and half the care they would be much happier in their own surroundings.

I said before on numerous occasions that I visit quite a number of institutions where aged people are looked after and where they receive the most excellent care and attention, medical nursing and otherwise and yet, to me, they are not happy people. They are not happy because they are looking at the four walls of a room in an institution in which they have no interest. Every effort should be made to keep them outside.

We are all pleased to learn of the development taking place in many parts of the country, that various voluntary and charitable organisations and welfare societies are combining to provide the necessary social services to keep these people comfortable and happy in the surroundings of their own homes. The religious orders and charities generally have done wonderful work over the years. Indeed, they have not always got the co-operation and assistance they were entitled to expect from the responsible health authorities. It is quite obvious that there has been a complete change in outlook in this regard and the health authorities, at least in some areas, are co-operating as far as possible.

The Minister has listed many of the services which can be provided and the equipment which can and should be supplied. Of course, the needs of individuals very greatly, but if we get full co-operation from the health authorities and if the voluntary organisations work in co-operation and association with the health authorities, the number of aged persons finding their way into county homes and other institutions will be considerably reduced. Many hospitals in the country have been crowded out and silted up with elderly people who move in and stay there. The whole question of hospital accommodation is very important and it is so expensive to provide that every effort should be made to ensure that, for instance, accommodation in acute hospitals is used only by persons who require the sort of treatment obtainable there. When patients pass the first stage of treatment, there should be accommodation found for them in less expensive institutions where they could recuperate just as well and at a fraction of the cost.

It is lamentable and deplorable that more investigation has not been done in relation to this matter and that there is not first, second and third stage bed accommodation for patients. In an acute hospital, naturally, equipment is expensive and the staff must be expensive. The acute hospital, having done the main job, cannot move the patient. Patients have been in acute beds for three or four months longer than need be the case if proper arrangements were made to move them on and to reserve the acute space for the right type of patient.

There is one matter which should be a cause of concern to all of us. We made rapid progress in the eradication of tuberculosis over a period, as the Minister said, of 15 years. Then we come to 1964 and 1965 and we have the disturbing statistic that slightly over 2,000 new patients were discovered in each of those years. If we accept that state of affairs and make no intensive effort at final eradication, there is something wrong. This is evidence that we dealt with the problem up to a point but are not getting any further. There must be an all-out effort if this hard core of 2,000 is to be appreciably reduced. The special attention of county medical officers and of practitioners generally should be drawn to this figure. A special circular should be issued by the Department asking for their co-operation in ensuring that every case that shows clinical signs of tuberculosis is X-rayed and, where there is a positive result, that every contact is X-rayed. This is an important matter which deserves special attention if we are to finish the job that has been so well done in recent years.

The Minister also mentioned that only about 50 per cent of pre-school children were immunised against diphtheria. In referring to the health services generally, Deputy Gibbons recommended a pre-school medical service. If we had such a service, that other 50 per cent of pre-school children would be immunised against diphtheria and many other preventable diseases. This question is associated with the scarcity of district nurses.

I am glad to learn from the Minister's statement that a training course is now in progress with the object of increasing the number of district nurses. Consideration should be given to the question of giving further assistance to the Jubilee Nursing Association—I think there is another name for it. This is an organisation that gives excellent service. In any district I am aware of where there is a Jubilee nurse, the amount of work done by the nurse is simply fantastic. Recently I attended the annual meeting of the Jubilee Nursing Association in one area in County Dublin. It is worth describing the amount of work done by one nurse. The nurse, of course, is totally overworked and the association would gladly appoint a second nurse, who is badly needed, but cannot see that it would be possible to raise the necessary funds to enable them to do so. I realise that a large percentage of the money is provided by the health authorities but the voluntary element is very important and the people are kept in touch with the nurse.

I shall now give some idea of the work done by this nurse: number of general cases seen during the year, 206; number of visits to general cases, 1,720; number of visits to infants and children, 2,606; number of welfare clinics attended, 44; number of school children examined for school medical examination, 305; number of school children prepared for school medical examination, 208. That is an amazing amount of work for one nurse to perform. It indicates the great need for stepping up the nursing service which, of course, is also associated with the efforts to keep the aged out of institutions and to help to care for them in their own homes.

The high percentage who took the vaccine against polio has been referred to. That has been possible only by reason of the intensive effort made and I know that a very intensive effort was made in the Dublin area. All the pressures were brought to bear and we had this first-class result of which we should be very proud.

Reference was made to the conditions in mental hospitals and the decline in the number of mental health patients. I have been very impressed by the improvements which have taken place over the last few years in the area with which I am especially acquainted. Until recently, conditions in these institutions could be described as nothing short of deplorable. They were completely overcrowded. Due to the small number of doctors employed and to the fact that in one institution you could have as many as 1,850 patients, it was completely impossible to sort the patients out and have any kind of active treatment for them.

I am glad to say that positions for doctors in these institutions have been made more attractive. Now there is an effort to sort out the geriatric patients from those really mental, to provide active treatment and to get as many out as possible. If we continue making progress at the rate made in the past few years, we will go very fast indeed. It is not before time. I know the accommodation is completely inadequate, but the out-patient approach and the active treatment approach will reduce significantly the number of people who will be permanently in these institutions.

The Minister referred to the unit for emotionally disturbed children at St. Loman's. I believe this unit is doing excellent work but I understand the cost is enormous. Apparently, there is no way of reducing this cost. The Minister said it was regarded as a priority to set up a provincial unit for this type of work. The information I have is that it is very important that these institutions be within reasonable range of the family from which the child comes. There is serious objection to taking children a long way from their own homes. I do not know how accommodation is to be provided unless that is done. In any case, I personally believe it is far better that accommodation should be provided, even at a considerable distance from their homes. The disturbance they can cause at home in certain circumstances is enormous.

It is time we gave up criticising the ambulance and accident service. No doubt for many years it was deplorably inadequate and our ambulances were not equipped to deal with accident cases. Now I believe that certainly in the Dublin area, the ambulances are equipped and the crews are trained and equipped to deal effectively with accident cases. It is wrong criticism to say the service is still not up to standard. There may be certain parts of the country where improvements could still be effected but the service in the Dublin area does not leave much to be desired. I hope the new arrangements which have been come to with the hospitals in relation to accident cases, especially at night, will prove to be effective and that the team work expected of them will be available to the unfortunate victims of these accidents.

The dental service is something that needs to be examined. I heard of a case recently of an applicant for assistance towards a repair job on dentures. They cost £1 and eventually, after considerable time and agitation, the person got 2/-. That is something that needs to be looked into.

I was rather disappointed about the setting up of the special unit in the Dublin Health Authority area for the investigation of cervical cancer. I do not know why it has taken so long to bring this unit into being. There was considerable difficulty about staffing the unit because the salary offered was insufficient. I know the Department stepped up that salary but, quite frankly, I do not know what the present position is. I think the unit is still not set up on a working basis. I know there are a couple of technicians employed and there is some sort of temporary arrangement which, I think, is not fully effective.

That more or less covers most of what I wanted to say except one further point the Minister should look into. There should be some sort of an agreed veterinary and medical policy on the use of antibiotics and other drugs. There is a fair amount of indiscriminate use of antibiotics in agriculture today. That could have serious repercussions. There should be some general understanding about the use of these drugs. It is possible that not only could similar drugs be ineffective on people who have used these agricultural products but they could have very dangerous reactions. It is a matter that requires attention as soon as possible.

There are many aspects of the Minister's Department one could deal with. However, I intend to confine myself to one aspect only—hygiene in our restaurants and hotels. I am aware that great progress has been made in this respect in many of our hotels and restaurants, but unfortunately there still remain a large number which are not very hygieneconscious. I was glad to hear the announcement last year that the Minister was in the process of setting up a committee to deal with the improvement of hygiene in the hotels and restaurants requiring it.

And the bars.

Yes, indeed, and the bars. The washing and toilet facilities in the bars particularly and in many of the restaurants are totally inadequate. Frequently, there is a lack of clean paper towels rather than the roller towels, which, reports have indicated, are not as hygienic as people think. I am conscious of the difficulties that many of the bar owners and restaurateurs have. Some members of the public have the unhappy hobby of collecting plugs or anything else removable from a washroom. It is difficult then to fill a washbasin, particularly if one is using the type of tap on which one has to depress a lever. Education of the public is required here, particularly in the schools.

I have here a booklet entitled Hygiene in Marks and Spencers' Staff Kitchens and Diningrooms. This booklet is dedicated to improving the standards of hygiene not only within their own organisation but throughout Great Britain. The original publication was for the Hygienic Food Handling Magazine which first appeared in 1949. This annual is such an excellent publication that it has been accepted by many county councils in Britain. In fact, they say:

Like its predecessors, this annual is intended primarily for use within our own organisation, but it is gratifying to know that thousands of copies of these hygiene publications have found their way, upon request, into the hands of Public Health Authorities, Hospitals, Catering Organisations and individuals who are anxious to prevent the many thousands of cases of food poisoning which occur each year in the United Kingdom.

I have given a copy of this booklet to the Minister. It deals with such things as personal hygiene, the tidy appearance necessary for food handlers, ensuring that they have proper covering for their heads. I have gone into many restaurants and very often found waitresses with little caps on their heads which are more decorative than practical.

They look very cute sometimes.

Yes, but that is not what they are intended for.

Nobody insists on the customer wearing a hat.

I am talking about people preparing or handling food.

The normal custom is for ladies to wear their hats.

What has that to do with hygiene?

Can we get back to the Estimates?

I think Deputy Corish misunderstands me. I am not referring to customers wearing hats but to waitresses wearing proper head coverings. This is established practice.

If they cover their hair completely, they would look like nuns.

Apparently that would spoil Deputy Corish's enjoyment of his meals.

It would, if I saw them that way.

We can discuss that afterwards.

This booklet deals with that subject and says the hair should be clean and well brushed, tidy and covered by a cap. That is accepted. It also deals with morning inspection of hands. I wonder in how many restaurants or cafés in this city are the hands of the staff inspected by the staff manageress or those responsible to see that the nails are clean. I imagine very few. How many people come into a restaurant to prepare food having a bad cold or open sores on their hands, dirty bandages or things like that and there is nobody to check? This does happen. Many people report for work suffering from sore throats, upsets or infections of the stomach and it says quite rightly in this book—and this is accepted among those who know something about hygiene—these people should not be allowed near food. How many times in staff canteens do we see notices saying: "Before starting work hands should be washed?" This should also be done, of course, after using the lavatory on returning to the kitchen and even after breaking eggs which it has been discovered are very unhygienic things to handle and are full of bacteria. Hands should also be washed after handling raw meat. These are simple things and many people are not conscious of the fact that this constitutes good hygiene. Education in hygiene in many instances is deplorable.

This would turn you against food entirely.

If you knew what went on in some restaurants, it would turn you against food undoubtedly. There are many thousands of cases of mild food poisoning which we do not hear about but which we know occur. Many people coming to the country notice in many cases when they go into our restaurants the cakes left on a plate which have been there all day with flies settling on them, the open sugarbowls again with flies settling on them, which a lot of people accept as part of their lives. They are not aware of the tremendous danger this represents to public health.

Dishwashing facilities in many restaurants are totally inadequate. Dealing with this subject, the booklet says:

The object of dishwashing is to produce clean commercially sterile crockery and cutlery. This is particularly important in the case of cutlery and teacups which pass quite literally from hand to hand and from mouth to mouth.

People do not even know that there is a certain temperature to which water must be brought in order properly to sterilise cups and plates and so on. There are bactericidal detergents which should be used and which very often are not. The ordinary type of dishcloth can be quite dangerous. Many people do not know that paper towelling is a far more satisfactory way of drying dishes from a hygiene point of view.

There are many things like that lacking with us and we certainly must develop some means of getting through to the people concerned with public health this better standard of hygiene.

Next September, I understand from the Minister's introductory statement, the European Regional Committee of the World Health Organisation are coming here and delegates from various countries will be visiting our city and probably many parts of the country. It is very important that these people should see that the standard of hygiene in our restaurants is much better than it is today. There is very urgent work to be done in that respect. In parts of America, I understand, they are very strict and a health inspector can go into a restaurant and if he sees that all is not as it should be, he closes down that restaurant which is not permitted to re-open until he says so. Frequently, there is no opportunity to rectify the trouble without closing the restaurant.

I know there is a great shortage of health inspectors here and those we have have their hands very full but I should be very much in favour of the county councils and other public bodies becoming much tougher where they find infringement of the rules of hygiene. If a few more restaurants where these rules of simple hygiene are being blatantly broken were closed down for a week or ten days until they put right whatever is wrong, there would be a much sharper reaction and a keener desire to be more conscientious in the application of hygiene in restaurants.

I could go on with this subject for quite a long time but the main point I want to make is this: Is it possible to convey right down from the Minister's Department to all the county councils in the country the need for improving the standard of hygiene by the preparation of a booklet, if necessary? I understand this company, Marks and Spencer, are only too pleased to supply this booklet to anybody who wishes to obtain a copy. I am sure they will have no objection to the Department of Health copying this and producing their own hygienic food-handling manual. I do not think I have ever seen one at all anywhere. I do not intend to take up the time of the House further. I should just like to reiterate that we must be more hygiene-conscious, that we must be made more aware of the dangers of improper hygiene.

I should like, first of all, to welcome the Minister as Minister for Health and to say that the review which his introductory speech to this Estimate contained is an interesting review of the activities of his Department. I am glad to have noted that the Minister, in the course of the time since he was appointed, went around the local authorities, met them and discussed with them on the spot the common matters of health policy. I am happy to feel that in so doing the Minister followed a practice which I initiated as Minister for Health some years ago. I felt it was a pity that my immediate successor did not continue that practice, because I have no doubt that visits of that kind are of tremendous assistance not only to the Minister but also to the officers of his Department who get to know a local problem in a more real way than they would from a file or from the documentation that builds up in relation to any problem.

Having said that, I am about to be critical and I hope it will not be taken that any criticism I level at the Minister for Health is on a personal basis. I do it because it is necessary that some things should be said in relation to what I regard as the profound lethargy that seems to exist in relation to the development of health policy. The Minister referred to the good things that are in store, to the legislation that is being prepared, to the plan that is to see the light of day some day, to what is to happen some time in the future. We have in his speech the same undertaking that in this year this Dáil will discuss and pass legislation to provide for better health services. I hope I will not be regarded as intemperate when I say: "That is all my eye". We have heard that far too often before.

It is well to remind the Minister that this time last year his predecessor, the present Minister for Education, worked himself into a white heat of apparent sincerity assuring Deputies that by the end of last year—"by next November", he said—the White Paper proposals would have legislative form and the Bill would be introduced in Dáil Éireann. He was going to ensure that there would be no delay about it and that was the reason why the White Paper was published in the spring of last year. He said that discussions and consideration would go on throughout the summer and autumn would see the legislation. I do not know whether the Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Malley, was saying that with his tongue in his cheek; I merely know that he said it and I merely know that he was wrong. Autumn has passed and months have passed since. We now have, in March of a new year, another Minister for Health making the same promise that some time this year this legislation will be introduced. I wonder is there sincerity in that.

This battle for an improvement in our health services has been a long and arduous one. It is one that has been waged by Deputies on this side of the House, in particular in the Fine Gael Party, in successive Dála, in successive general elections, endeavouring to beat down the hidebound conservatism of the Fianna Fáil Party in relation to health, a Party who ceased to think on these important social problems years ago, a Party who have demonstrated hidebound conservatism in relation to the develment of new ideas, a Party whose thinking in relation to health services and social problems was epitomised in the person of Deputy Seán MacEntee.

Away back in 1961 the Fine Gael Party tabled in this House a motion calling for the introduction of a comprehensive health scheme, giving reasons why it was possible and why it was desirable. That motion had the support in this House of the Irish Labour Party, and an amendment to it was tabled here in the name of Deputy MacEntee, the then Minister for Health, an amendment which was carried because of the Fianna Fáil majority in the House, and an amendment which resulted in the appointment of a Select Committee to consider health services.

That Select Committee was established in 1962. It sat through 1963, 1964 and 1965, and its object was to commit the question of the development of our health services into the limbo of forgotten things. In the dying days of that Select Committee, the Fine Gael Party, in my name, tabled at a meeting of the Select Committee, a comprehensive, detailed plan for the development of our health services, giving practical proposals, giving costings and financial data, and indicating a road which we could as a people travel. That detailed memorandum was prepared by a Party without the assistance of a Civil Service, without the assistance of a legion of officials, but it was prepared as a sincere contribution to the rational development of our health services. Perhaps it may be forgotten, but that detailed proposal was never considered by the Select Committee, never brought before it, and it was rejected in this House by the then Taoiseach before the Committee itself had any opportunity of considering it. It was because of the outrageous rejection of that memorandum that the Fine Gael members felt obliged to withdraw from the Select Committee just prior to the general election.

The general election was then fought. It was fought by my Party on a policy aimed towards a just society, a policy with which all our thinking is imbued and which represents our political philosophy in this respect. In that general election, we put forward our proposals for an improvement in our health services, for their rational development, for bringing our policy in this regard more into accord with the thinking and the practice in every Christian country in western Europe.

The Fianna Fáil Party contested that election initially by trying to persuade the people that what we were seeking to do could not be achieved and was not, in any event, necessary. Towards the end of the election campaign, however, they conceded that our point was valid and they gave an undertaking that they would do something in relation to health and other social problems. We are still awaiting for that something. Fianna Fáil were elected to office and a new Minister for Health produced a White Paper. That White Paper contained a great deal of unnecessary data about our health services and a modicum of promises with regard to development. The White Paper proposals went only one inch in a mile towards improving our health services. Even that inch the Minister for Health has not stepped.

I want to remind the Minister that in my Party there is no tradition of speaking merely from the teeth out. There is no tradition in my Party of advocating things in which we do not believe. We have made it clear where we stand in relation to the development of our health services and other social policy. At every opportunity we will remind the Government and, if necessary, the people, how urgent this matter is and how essential it is that we bring to health policy here a constructive approach.

The Minister referred to various things that had been done in the past year. He obviously expected a pat on the back for what has been done. I want to assure him that in all that he seeks to claim credit for in our present health structure he is merely tinkering at a machine which will not operate. No matter what improvements he makes, he is merely papering over cracks. The result is a patchwork quilt not worth the patching. So long as we continue to accept that health policy and health services are to be born out of a marriage between the Central Fund and local taxation, so long will we continue to have a system lagging considerably behind the needs of the times.

The present health policy was initiated away back in the last century. It is part and parcel of the Victorian outlook of imperial Britain in which people were habituated into thinking that the provision of a health service for the public constituted some kind of public charitable exercise. Ever since there has been built up on that idea a system of doling out health benefits and health services in accordance with what the rates or the Central Fund can from time to time afford. As the cost of health services, particularly in recent years, has grown enormously, the impact on the taxpayer and on the ratepayer has created a tremendous obstacle in the way of expansion and improvement. I have said many times that, so long as we continue to finance health services in that way, we will never get anywhere. We provide doctors under the dispensary system. They are good men. They do good work. Frequently they are called upon to do more than they can reach upon. The end result of our present domiciliary general medical services is hospitalisation in more cases than is necessary. We have a system which results in more and more people being sent to hospital and fewer people being treated at home. We have a system which depends for its financing on the yearly striking of the local rate or general taxation. Because of that, there is always an obstacle in the way of raising of standards. Until we accept that the rational development of health services must be on the basis of social insurance, we will never get anywhere. I have made my views in that regard known on many occasions.

I have never been able to understand why the principle of social insurance as a means of financing health services should have been so emphatically rejected by the former Taoiseach and the Minister's predecessor. I believe it was rejected because it was proposed from these benches and I prophesy that, so long as that rejection remains, Ministers for Health will come limping into this House year after year, saying: "Of course, we know there is much we would like to do, but we cannot do it at present because the financial situation does not permit it." From beginning to end of the Minister's speech. there is in every second line a reference to present financial stringency and the difficulty of providing the things he would like to provide and his hope that some time in the future the financial situation will ease sufficiently to enable things to be done. It is utterly hopeless, in my opinion, if we go on refusing to stand back and take a fresh look at this whole problem.

We are a small community looking forward to the day on which we and those in the other part of Ireland, together with the people of Britain, will join the greater association of Europe under the Treaty of Rome. Do we ever contemplate what that will mean to us? We cannot go into Europe as the poor relation. We cannot be the Cinderella. If we go into Europe, we must go in with our health services, our social services, at least as good as those of any other member of that association.

In one part of Ireland today, and for many years past, the idea of a comprehensive health service based on the principle of social insurance has not only been accepted but fully operated. So it is in England. So it is in every country at present subscribing to the Treaty of Rome. So it is in every other country in Europe. But here in this part of Ireland, nollimus mutare—there will be no change. Why? Because a Fianna Fáil Government incorporated this idea in the Health Act of 1953 and all thinking then ceased. From then on, little bits of improvements here, a little bit of papering over a crack there, promises that something better would be done in a few months time, a few White Papers on one thing or another —these have represented the startling and dramatic developments in social thinking and in health policy. It is all so tragic. The Minister is a new Minister. I wish he were a Minister in a Fine Gael Government. He would be given his head; he would be allowed to think for himself. He would be permitted to develop a new idea, or new ideas, in relation to this important matter. Of course, he is a member of a Fianna Fáil Government who have not——

You know your Flanagan better than that.

I know my Flanagan well enough to know that he has good intentions but he is a member of a Party and one of the real troubles the Minister for Health has is that he has been exhausted since he became Minister in trying to catch up on the promises of his predecessor. Just when he is nearly catching up, he finds his predecessor is busy scooping the kitty so that nothing will be left for Health. Here it is, then, a situation in which once more Health is not important. I have no doubt that there have been discussions in the Government in the past few weeks, that they have been asking: "What are we going to do with the money we will raise in taxation this year? Well, we have to give it to Education because O'Malley has been opening his mouth about that." So it has to go to Education but Health can wait. Nobody is making speeches about Health now and therefore it can wait until next year. We are going to have a repetition of the same old story: Health postponed, and of course always with the idea that if it becomes an acute or burning question again, we can always set up a committee to inquire into it.

Is £4 million nothing?

The sum of £4 million in relation to the costings of health services equated to 1953 terms is nothing, absolutely nothing. I know it represents a problem for the Minister for Health and the figure could be £8 million and the problem would still be the same as long as the present policy of financing health services remains. Until such time as there is established an insurance fund financed by weekly payments by people who would derive benefit from it, independently from other sources, a fund which will be so constituted that it will finance health services which will be based on the principle that people pay while they are well for the day they will be ill, we will not make adequate progress.

I said that I would be critical and being critical, I am not in any way being personally hostile to the Minister, or indeed to any of his predecessors. I am criticising the policy; I am criticising the system that is there. I am criticising the fact that progress which could have been made has not been made. I am criticising the orthodoxy and conservatism which still creates a wall around fresh thinking on this matter of health services. I am referring to the fact that in our community today there are still unfortunate people who are searching and seeking for a medical card because that represents to them the only way in which they can be sure that when illness strikes the chemist's bill and the doctor's bill will not constitute a tremendous hardship for them.

I am referring to the fact that we still operate a system whereby when an insured worker is stricken down with illness and has to go to hospital, it is only then, when he is sick in a hospital bed, when he cannot earn, when he has the worry about his illness, about the cessation of his earning capacity and about his family at home, that he is asked to pay. I am referring to the fact that while in other directions we have accepted a way of organising the community so that insurance can operate, we have not attempted to do it with health.

I am glad that in one field with which I was associated, that of voluntary health insurance, the idea of health insurance was tried out, perhaps as an experiment, and that it has succeeded. The voluntary health insurance scheme which was introduced in 1957 is the only effort that I am aware of in a social scheme of this kind which is not the least dependent on a contribution from the Exchequer or from rates. When I introduced it here and stated that that was the aim, that it was my view that this could be possible. I was jeered at by Deputies from the Fianna Fáil Party, with one honourable exception, the present Minister for Health. I should like to recall the fact that out of the entire Fianna Fáil Party at that time, Deputy Seán Flanagan, as he then was, alone came out clearly to express support not only for the proposal but also for the hopes I held out in regard to its success.

We have the Voluntary Health Insurance Board and people without compulsion, but having regard to their ordinary responsibilities to themselves and to their families, pay a sum of money each year into a fund. They pay it when they are well so that when they are ill, or when their neighbours are ill, the fund will be there to meet that contingency. The Voluntary Health Insurance Board has gone from success to success. The initial loan made available to it by the then Government was repaid within a year. Subsequently the Board, being liable for income tax on its earnings, in fact made money for the Exchequer. I mention that merely to indicate that while the problem is different, there is an example of insurance on a voluntary basis working out as a worthwhile social measure.

With regard to the general problem of providing our health services on the basis of social insurance, of course it could not be done—and I would not contemplate that it could be done on the basis of voluntary insurance. It would have to be on the basis of compulsory insurance. It is not beyond the wit of men who believe it is possible, to devise a scheme suitable to our needs.

When I suggested ways of doing this from time to time serious objection was taken by the Minister's predecessor, and mine, Deputy Seán MacEntee, who used to love to say that compulsory social insurance represents a poll tax on every person in the country, as if that were the end of the argument. Poll tax or not, what is wrong with every able-bodied person paying a sum of 1/6 or 2/6 a week, or whatever it might be, into a fund to provide a community health service, a fund which would be there independent of the local rates, and which would not be looking towards the Budget of the Minister for Finance as to its constitution in any one year? I do not see any reason why such a development should not take place. I am certain that unless some new approach of that kind is considered, we will never make the progress we must make within the next 24 months if we are to go into Europe as a fully adult member under the Treaty of Rome.

That is all I wish to say, but having said what I did say, I hope it will not be taken that I do not welcome— because I do very sincerely welcome — the improvements and progress which the Minister has outlined in his Estimate speech. Given the obstacle and the hindrance of a Fianna Fáil Government, the Minister is doing a good job of work. I have no doubt that subject to that restriction and that fearful cross with which he is burdened, he will continue to do a good job of work as Minister for Health. I appreciate that he has to deal with a number of services which, even if not extended, would continue to cost more money each year. I can well understand, particularly at the time of the Budget, the financial problems involved in ensuring that our health services continue to be operated. The financial problem of the Minister and of the local authorities is a very severe one indeed.

I notice that the proposal put forward two years ago by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Malley, to freeze all increases in rates has got to be modified this year. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If this modification passed without a murmur, next year there would be a complete thaw in respect of any remaining partial freeze. There is nothing like trying to unscramble an egg and that is what the Minister has to do in relation to many of the things done and said by his predecessor.

Might I ask a question in relation to this little White Paper the Minister's predecessor waved around this House, this little White Paper with little proposals for improvements in our health services? Do I detect that it is to be watered away? Do I detect from what the Minister said that, having travelled up and down the country, and having talked to all the county councillors, doubts are being expressed about providing a choice of doctor even? May I express the hope that there will be no modification in that regard? Sooner or later the system which we have had for far too long will be modified where possible. No one ever suggested on these benches or elsewhere that in the areas in which there is no concentration of population, in the areas of sparse population, we could ever have a system whereby a choice of doctor would be provided. It is recognised that that must continue to be the case, no matter what modification is introduced. In the cities and in the towns, in the centres of populations where a choice of doctor is available, there is no reason why this elementary change should not be made.

With regard to the rationalisation of the health services, I hope that development will continue. I can well understand that members of local bodies may have other views, and no doubt have expressed those views to the Minister. The plain fact is that in local government and in health we operate on a division of our country which has no basis in the contours of the country, in the areas of local wealth, or in our traditional history. Our county system was introduced here by our friends the English, some hundreds of years ago. There is nothing Irish and nothing logical in it. It is not based on geographical features; it frequently is based despite geographical features.

I know the county system has now been concreted because of its sporting, social and athletic connotations in other spheres. Possibly, it has now become so accepted that we cannot foresee its being changed, but, in my view, the existence of our counties should not insulate the development of health services within county boundaries. I would hope the regionalisation suggested in the White Paper will remain part of the Minister's policy.

On Thursday, 16th February, 1967, I addressed a question to the Minister for Health:

What progress has been made in the introduction of cyto-analytical clinics in Irish hospitals; and in how many hospitals such clinics are available.

The Minister gave me the reasonably satisfactory reply that

services are at present being operated in the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, the Regional General Hospitals at Galway and Limerick, Portiuncula Hospital, Ballinasloe and Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. The possibility of providing a cyto-analytical service on a national basis, in addition to or in substitution for the services at present operating, in the interests of securing the widest possible availability, is under examination in my Department.

Cytology, as we know, is the study of germs by pathologists and my interest particularly in this branch of medicine is the application of this science to cancer of the cervix. There is, as we know, a smear test taken from the cervix and it is important, in my view, that this service be made available in every gynaecological hospital in this country. When women, married women particularly, go in for examination, it is important that this test be taken. It is an early warning system in the nature of things for cancer. It is a very easy, as it were, operation and I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that this test is taken in every gynaecological, and indeed in every other hospital, in the country.

We seem to regard cancer today as tuberculosis was regarded ten, 15 or 20 years ago. Tuberculosis was considered a sociological problem, say, 20 years ago. If a young lady intended getting married and if possibly she had a black spot on her lung, it would lessen her chances in making the marriage grade. Consequently this was hushed up, particularly in rural areas. Now that we have, thank God, eradicated tuberculosis, I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that everyone in this country is examined at least once a year to find out whether he or she has any traces of cancer, or the cancer germ. In my view this again is an extension of the first-class tuberculosis service we have operating today. The tuberculosis test—I am speaking now of human beings—has now performed its function and I would ask the Minister to set up these first-class X-ray units, mobile or static, as the case may be, around the country and appeal to the people to subject themselves to X-ray examination or otherwise, for early warning of cancer. We have to speak about these things and the fact of the matter is that cancer is considered a dirty word. It is not; it is an affliction, and the more publicity it gets—the more it is spoken about— the less fear people will have of it.

The Minister gave figures and mentioned that he is seriously concerned about the figures for diphtheria in preschool-going children. The figure for 1962 showed that only 47 per cent of our pre-school children were immunised against diphtheria; in 1963 there were 53 per cent; in 1964, 56 per cent; and in 1965, only 47 per cent. This, again, is a free service provided by the health authorities.

The figures for polio show that 77 per cent of our children took the full course of three feedings, 84 per cent, two feedings and 88 per cent, one feeding. This is in relation to the oral polio immunisation. I agree that polio is more dramatic than diphtheria. When this scheme for polio treatment was being started, it was advertised on television and given national coverage in the daily papers. I would ask the Minister to consider—particularly in relation to the figures for diphtheria about which he expressed some concern—a nation-wide campaign on television and in the national dailies to ensure that this problem of the lack of immunisation of pre-school children is given the fullest publicity. The Minister can do so much but I believe parents have responsibility here and these figures certainly reflect, in my view, parents' lack of responsibility to their children, children who have not even reached schoolgoing age.

The question of drugs has also come up and the Minister mentioned he was taking a closer look at the possibilities of ensuring that in this country the problem will not be as serious as it has been and is in England. I quote now from a Report of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs:

There have been stories about, and rumours of, adolescent drug-taking in Ireland for the past three years. As yet, however, no official cognisance has been taken of these rumours and no evidence has been officially accepted that drug abuse or dependence is growing in the Irish Republic.

My point in bringing this out is that elsewhere in the world such stories and rumours have always preceded, by about four years or so, the production of definite evidence of drug-taking by adolescents.

Could the Deputy give any date for the publication?

I have not got the date with me: I can get it. It is a report of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and I will hand my reference to the Official Reporter after the debate. There have been appeals to the Minister—and I add mine to them—to ensure that if drug-taking is stamped out in England, these beat types do not come over here where at the moment the type of drugs they are seeking are available. There is also the question of the drug companies. I ask that these companies should, instead of spending huge sums on advertising, form a central agency and make available free to doctors the daily requirements of drugs which at the moment have to be paid for by some doctors who can ill afford the money.

Deputy O'Higgins dealt with the cost of the health services. I should like in particular to deal with the question of the cost to the middle income groups. In an urban constituency such as the one I represent, people are pushed hard enough without having to worry about their health. A man with a medical card goes into a clinic and if he is suffering from disease of the kidney, of the throat or the chest, the doctor is not embarrassed about giving him the best possible drugs available because they are free to him. On the other hand, take a man in the middle income group, a man with considerable commitments otherwise. The doctor knows very well that he has not got a medical card and he does not want to embarrass him by prescribing costly drugs which the doctor can give with abandon to a medical card holder.

This is a big problem. The middle income groups are not getting the best type of drugs available to the man who gets them free. There is the drug penbritten, for instance, a penicillin drug for the treatment of kidney, chest and throat ailments. The problem was pointed out to me of doctors not being able to give the better type drugs to the man who has to pay for them. I appeal to the Minister to see if he can extend the allowance for the middle income groups relative to drugs. In fairness to the Minister, I should mention a case recently where a man earning £1,500 a year was found not to be able to afford the best drugs. I brought the matter to the Minister's attention and he allowed this man free drugs in the circumstances. Of course this should have been there as a right. As I have said, these people are being pushed hard enough and if they have the security of good health, they will be able to stand up to their other obligations without much difficulty.

Care of the aged is another concern of mine not particularly in a constituency sense. Coming from an urban constituency, I know that many old people are living in what I would describe as poor conditions. The Minister paid tribute to the various voluntary organisations which provide domiciliary and meals-on-wheels services to these unfortunate people. I have expressed the view, not in the Dáil, that if it were not for our voluntary health organisations, the entire health services would break down. Again in fairness to the Department of Health, they have been very good to these voluntary organisations, helping them in every possible way. I mentioned on this Estimate last year that the efforts of the various voluntary organisations should be co-ordinated and I am glad to see there has been a move in that direction. I know that the Dublin Council of the Aged have co-ordinated many similar functions.

I received in the post a pamphlet "The History of Fluoridation", which is described as "The Crime of the Century". It is by J. A. Campbell, a research development engineer of California and it was sent to me by Miss K. Neill, of Schull, County Cork. She asked me to read this history of fluoridation and to act to prevent it spreading. The entire suggestion in the pamphlet is that the Government in this country have abused their position by fluoridating our water and the Governments in other countries who have fluoridated the water have committed a calculated crime against the community. I reject this because no responsible Government would fluoridate the water against medical advice and against the advice of other experts such as dentists who have said this is the best way to promote dental health. It is my view also, as a layman, that it is the best way. I am satisfied that the fluoridation of Irish water has been a good thing. I welcome it, and I reject the suggestion that this or any Government have committed a crime, "the crime of the century", by fluoridating our water.

I was pleased by the intervention of Deputy T.F. O'Higgins in the debate, partly because he is one of my predecessors as Minister for Health and partly because I always enjoy his facility. However, much as I should like to do so at this stage, I shall have to leave until later any comments on some of the more sweeping statements he made with regard to the policy of his Party and the record of mine in health matters in years gone by and indeed with regard to the plans I have at the present time. Instead, I propose to go through the more humdrum exercise of replying to some of the points made in the course of the very interesting and mostly constructive debate during the last couple of weeks. Indeed as a relatively new incumbent in office, I am grateful to all those who offered their observations on an Estimate which concerns one of the most vital aspects of the welfare of our people.

Deputy Mullen asked about the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Mental Illness. This report will be available in the very near future. I suppose, inevitably, one will be asked what does the phrase "in the near future" mean? I should hope that in fact it will be published within the next three or four weeks.

Early on in the debate Deputy Gibbons and Deputy James Tully referred to Irish emigrants in Britain and suggested that there is a high proportion of them suffering from mental disorder. I must say that this came as news to me: I never heard that this was so. Indeed, I should be surprised if the Deputies can sustain their arguments in regard to this by producing any survey. I am not aware that any surveys are going on or have been carried out. If the Deputies are basing their observations on personal experiences retailed to them, they should be very wary. At the same time, I have great respect for the views of those Deputies, particularly Deputy Gibbons who made such a constructive and enlightened contribution to this debate. I should be glad to study any further evidence regarding this problem which they may wish to furnish.

In the early part of his rather mixed speech, Deputy Ryan mentioned the problem of the mentally handicapped. I say the Deputy's speech was rather mixed because he can really be very good, whenever he chooses to forget Fine Gael propaganda, but it breaks out in spite of him, every now and again. Then he becomes rather a bit cranky, not so constructive and not so accurate. This problem of mental handicap has been a matter of great concern to me and my predecessor in recent years. I am not for a moment trying to score at Deputy Ryan in correcting the figure he gave to me. He said that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Mental Handicap states there is a need for 7,000 beds. I do not think this is so. I think the estimate was 5,750. The needs for severely handicapped children were 1,000, for moderately handicapped, 942, mildly handicapped, 1,291 and adults 2,517, making a total of 5,750. What I stated in my introductory speech was that the number of beds in residential institutions for mentally handicapped, as at the end of December last, was over 3,600, whereas more than 500 adult units of accommodation have been provided in the past two years.

I want to say I am pressing ahead with all speed with the provision of additional accommodation for the mentally handicapped and that I regard this work as being not merely important but worthy of priority. The fact that over 500 beds have been added in the past two years is a noteworthy achievement and one of which my Department, my predecessor and, to a very much lesser extent, myself are entitled to take credit. I do not think that this falls within the category of being a patchwork quilt.

I believe that in regard to this problem of mental handicap we are at least in sight of providing the necessary institutional units of accommodation. I assure the House that we will continue with every initiative until the problem is solved. Of course, it is not a matter entirely for the Department. It is one thing to provide units of accommodation, to provide houses, but it is another thing to have a religious order or other voluntary body with the personnel and the desire to do the difficult work involved in looking after those suffering from mental handicap.

I might add as well, from the capital cost point of view, that the provision of the 500 beds I mentioned in the past two years has involved a capital outlay of over £1 million. Again, Deputy O'Higgins, and others, seemed to regard money as being of no consequence when he said that £4 million is a mere nothing. Obviously, £1 million is one-fourth of nothing. I do not think that when Deputy O'Higgins's Party were in Government and trying to balance their Budget, they would regard £1 million as one-fourth of nothing and £4 million as of no consequence. We also gave capitation grants et cetera for the care of the handicapped in the institutions.

I want to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the religious and lay staff, the medical and nursing staff, the professional personnel and all others who have helped in tackling this great problem of mental handicap. I want to say that I believe the work they are doing is now, at long last, being appreciated by the public generally and therefore any additional tax that might have to be levied for the purpose of bringing institutional or domicilary care within the reach of all persons requiring care, by reason of physical or mental handicap, is money which the community at large would be quite willing to give.

In regard to children, Deputy James Tully, I think, also mentioned the undesirability of having mentally handicapped children in mental hospitals. I could not agree more about this. It is not at all desirable that there should be mentally handicapped children with adults in mental institutions but one difficulty here is that it is not, and never has been, easy to get personnel willing and capable of looking after the severely handicapped particularly. For that reason, it has sometimes been necessary, particularly in regard to severely handicapped children, to have them temporarily housed in mental hospitals. It has also been found out that some of those children could have been accommodated in institutions for mentally handicapped if we were in the position where we had sufficient units of accommodation. We are planning new accommodation at special centres for mentally handicapped, providing, where possible, for special small units for disturbed cases. This will certainly minimise the need to send these children to mental hospitals.

I should add that a survey of mentally handicapped children made in August, 1964, showed that there were then 122 children in district mental hospitals of whom 83 were severely, 30 moderately and nine mildly handicapped and approximately half of that total number were accommodated in a special children's unit at Portrane, County Dublin, so that while it is indeed true to say that it is not desirable that children should be in district mental hospitals, at the same time the problem is not, numerically, a large one. I concede that one does not look at problems like this in terms of numbers but in terms of compassion. I do not want to give the impression that merely because the number of children involved is relatively small it should be treated as of any less importance or with any less compassion.

Deputy Ryan also mentioned the question of a single statutory authority for the mentally handicapped. I have a relatively open mind on this matter I must say but I cannot for the moment see that any single authority would help the existing services to function any more effectively. On the other hand, there is the fact that there is division of function as between the Minister for Education who exercises control in regard to the recognition of special schools for the mentally handicapped and sometimes perhaps because of the fact that the Departments of Health and Education are involved in that the aspects of building, acquiring, supervising, et cetera——

The Department of Labour now comes into it.

Yes, presumably the Department of Labour will now come into it as well. As I say, I have an open mind on this matter. Deputy Ryan is aware that there is the National Association for Mentally Handicapped of Ireland which has the job of advising, co-ordinating and disseminating information in relation to the services of the various voluntary organisations and associations but I will keep an open mind on this, and if I think, in the course of time, that a single statutory or other body should be established for the purposes mentioned by Deputy Ryan, I will be willing to take whatever steps are necessary to that end.

Deputy Kyne referred to special problems of a local association for the mentally handicapped in Waterford. Might I take time out here again to pay tribute to Deputy Kyne, as I frequently find myself doing? His speeches are invariably constructive and invariably fairminded.

And consistent.

And consistent.

For a long number of years.

Some of his colleagues in the Labour Party could take a leaf out of his book.

He was talking Labour Party policy on health and has been for a long time.

I am thankful to Deputy Corish for his views. I am merely saying what I think about Deputy Kyne's approach. He is a person who invariably manages to avoid the personal abuse, the sly inferences and innuendoes about the motives of Ministers and other things which are not alien to some members of this House from time to time. Deputy Kenneally joined with Deputy Kyne in regard to these difficulties. All I have to say here is that discussions have taken place since the Deputies spoke in this debate. The various problems which have arisen have been fully discussed and I am hopeful that suitable solutions will be found. I am available to give any necessary help to achieve a suitable solution for the association and any aid for the mentally handicapped in Waterford.

Deputy Kyne also raised points in regard to the transport of mentally handicapped and of disabled children to special day schools and to residential clinics and domiciliary care and placement services. In so far as the mentally handicapped children are concerned, it is the Department of Education which provides the grant for the transport of the day pupils to approved special schools for the mildly and moderately handicapped. My Department makes grants to the overall cost of associations providing services on a day basis for moderately and severely handicapped children. With regard to the associations providing day services for other disabled children, various health authorities pay their contributions to these associations.

It is agreed that a service provided on a day basis which enables the children to remain in the environment of their own homes is clearly the most desirable form of service in appropriate cases and improvements in arranging transport facilities can, I think, be expected, as part of the general improved development in the health services for the future. Of course, I agree that development of community care services is of vital importance. Most mentally handicapped children spend their lives in the homes of their parents or of relatives. Where that is possible, it is clearly the most desirable arrangement because it enables a child to develop his personality in a natural way and enables the child to avoid later adjustment difficulties. However, we are again involved here in priority problems, problems of the need for residential care as against the problem of providing suitable domiciliary care.

I think the public would now expect us to concentrate, first of all, on the provision of the necessary residential accommodation as a first prority, if only for the reason that it is the more difficult cases which cause the parents or the relatives, as the case may be, to clamour for accommodation for these unfortunate children. I know that in pressing ahead with an attempt at solving this problem of residential care we are in each individual case relieving parents, relatives and quite often our children of a grave burden and where children are concerned a factor which could cause their retardation later on. Of course, the whole problem of general development of the services is a big one.

I was thankful to Deputy Clinton today and others who referred to the part of my early statement in which I referred to the problem of the care of the aged. Again, I want to pay tribute to the voluntary bodies throughout the country who have sprung up, including those in my own county, for the purpose of providing a community service to aged people who do not require institutional treatment or in respect of whom institutional care can be avoided. No matter what Deputy Treacy or anybody else says, it is not a criticism of the Department of Health that voluntary bodies should be necessary and should be developing throughout the country. Let us face it, while a Government Department can provide money and officials, there can hardly be any substitute for the day-to-day practical help and sympathy of one neighbour towards another. In regard to this and allied problems, recent developments in Kilkenny, Tipperary and elsewhere are evidence of the fact that the official and the Department he represents, and voluntary bodies, can and ought to co-operate in furnishing the most comprehensive service possible on a human and personal level in providing for the aged and others in the community who are in need of help.

I have attended a number of seminars, meetings, and recent developments in order to show the public my interest in them and to express my approval. Perhaps voluntary bodies sometimes overlap in their enthusiasm. It is desired that their work should be harnessed by some sort of local committee, representative of the local voluntary bodies and official representatives, so that on the one hand, the best can be got out of voluntary effort and benefit for the recipients, on the other. Far from its being a reflection on the Department of Health, the fact that these voluntary bodies are growing in number and are playing a steady, more well directed part in the solution of community problems, is a credit to the Department. I intend to press ahead to encourage these voluntary bodies and to provide whatever help the Department can give to improve their work.

Several Deputies mentioned giving financial assistance to the relatives and friends of old people to keep them in their homes. This is something which is already being done in a number of counties and which, incidentally, does not require departmental approval to put into operation. I am not sure which county started this first, but there is no reason why the various local health authorities should not in appropriate cases give special grants so as to enable old people to have a meals service and so on, in their homes, thereby enabling them to stay in the home environment instead of being sent off to an institution.

I do not, of course, accept that people who can afford to do so should have to be paid to look after their parents. There seems to be implied, at least, by Deputy James Tully in his remarks, and in fact I think it is a strange observation — or is it part of socialist thinking nowadays — that old people should be provided for by the State merely because they are old. I do not think this is a sensible proposition at all. I think the far more fundamental duty is the duty of children to look after their parents when they become old and well-to-do people should be glad to shoulder the burden of helping their parents and should not expect the State or the county council to come to their aid for this purpose. On the other hand, I would be the first to encourage local authorities to pay a grant, where necessary, so as to provide for old people who are not able to look after themselves, and thereby obviate the necessity of their going into county homes.

With regard to county homes, I was surprised to learn that amenities such as newspapers are not always available. I hope to make inquiries within the next few weeks to ascertain whether, or to what extent, there is any substance in this charge and, if there is, to take the appropriate steps to deal with it.

Deputy P.J. Burke asked me specifically to deal with the shortage of geriatric beds in the Dublin health area. I am of course aware that there is pressure on the geriatric beds in the Dublin area. As I have already indicated, I am strongly in favour of keeping elderly people out of institutions if this can be managed and I am in favour of a wide range of community services towards this end. I am also aware that there are delays and that this service cannot be brought into operation straight away. Accordingly, there will still be pressure for some time to come on beds for old people in the Dublin area. It seems to me that the position has been somewhat improved by the use of the old St. Mary's Chest Hospital and part of the James Connolly Memorial Hospital for the accommodation of geriatric patients.

Deputy Coogan asked that the geriatric beds in the Regional Sanatorium in Merlin Park in Galway be used to cater for patients in the west of the county rather than that these patients should be sent to St. Brendan's in Loughrea because of the difficulty for relatives visiting a place as far away as Loughrea. There is only limited space in Merlin Park which could become overcrowded. In deciding which particular patients should be transferred to Merlin Park, the best the authority can do is take the circumstances of each case into account, including the question of the liability of the patient on his relatives, and then make the best selection possible.

Deputy Kenneally asked also about the Holy Ghost Hospital in Waterford. I do not have to tell Deputy Kenneally that the description "Holy Ghost Hospital" is a misnomer. This, in fact, is not a hospital and, therefore, the problem of reconstruction may possibly be a matter for the Department of Local Government rather than the Department of Health. However, this is something which I discussed at great length with a large representative vocal and able deputation from the county and city of Waterford, and I am very sympathetic with the views expressed, subject of course to the rather hard facts of my own situation in regard to the making of a grant for the purpose of its conversion into a hospital or home. I will give the whole matter every sympathetic consideration. However, I would ask Deputy Kenneally and those interested to try again with the local people to consider the possibility of treating this as a housing problem with the Department of Local Government rather than as a problem which can properly be dealt with by me or the Department of Health.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share