This is a new section, introduced by the Minister and it may be necessary to re-commit it. I understand that copies have not been generally circulated.
Health Bill, 1969: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 32, before section 75, to insert the following new section:
(1) The Minister may make regulations for the control of the possession of a substance to which this section applies.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide for the prohibition of the possession of a substance to which the regulations relate, except by persons or classes of persons specified in the regulations and in circumstances and under conditions specified in the regulations.
(3) A person who contravenes or attempts to contravene a regulation under this section or who solicits or incites another person to contravene such a regulation shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Every person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisoment; or
(b) on conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment,
and the court by which the person was convicted may order the forfeiture, and the disposal in such manner as the court thinks fit, of the substance in respect of which the offence was committed.
(5) (a) Section 31 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1934 (which empowers a Justice of the District Court to issue a search warrant in certain cases), shall apply to the possession of a substance to which regulations under this section relate as if it were a drug, substance or product referred to in the said section 31 and the regulations were made under that Act.
(b) Section 32 of the said Dangerous Drugs Act, 1934 (which empowers a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant in certain circumstances), shall apply to an offence under this section as if it were an offence under that Act.
(6) This section applies to any substance which may be used in the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of any human ailment, infirmity, injury or defect, or for the modification of any human physiological function, and which, in the opinion of the Minister, produces or is capable of producing depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic effects on the human nervous system.
—(Minister for Health.)
I understand, Deputy, that they have been circulated.
They have been circulated.
They were only handed around. I do not know if every Deputy got one.
They have been circulated in the usual manner.
They were circulated some time ago to all Deputies.
I understand now that we have sufficient copies.
When I was speaking last night I was welcoming this new section. It has since come to my notice that one of the Minister's predecessors set up a poisons committee in 1961 and there must have been a considerable amount of study carried out in relation to this matter. It appears, however, from a statement in yesterday's Irish Times, made by the president of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, that a report has never been published. It seems extraordinary that the committee have never issued a report in practically nine years. Perhaps the Minister would indicate if they have been dealing with this problem and if he knows whether they are ever going to issue a report.
Last night I mentioned that from my knowledge of the facts this drug situation is a worthwhile racket but it has only come to the knowledge of the authorities in the last year or so. It seems strange that it is only now a Minister for Health is introducing legislation, which was long overdue, in regard to this matter. A great deal of these drugs have been obtained by people breaking into dispensaries. It is an unfortunate fact that in dispensaries very often there are no accurate estimates of existing drug supplies and when dispensaries are broken into, as has happened repeatedly in Dublin and elsewhere——
That has been effectively stopped.
The section is stopping it, I quite agree.
It has already been stopped.
I am not blaming the Minister and he need not become annoyed. I am only trying to clarify the position. This is one of the means by which drugs have been getting to the public. Apparently there is a gang breaking into dispensaries and they are able to dispose of the drugs rapidly afterwards. Whether or not they are controlled by some higher organisation I do not know, but that is what has been happening. Therefore it is very hard to trace what drugs have been taken and are being peddled on the market.
This is a very serious problem. I agree that, under the new section which the Minister is introducing, it will be prevented in the future. From now on, all drugs will be distributed through chemists. That is an advantageous step which is long overdue. It will control the peddling of drugs. I would sound a note of warning. Chemists' premises are just as liable to be raided by gangs as dispensaries have been. That seems to be the kernel of the problem. The drug traffic through our ports has been going on for a considerable period but drug traffic is not peculiar to this country. It has existed for quite a number of years in America and it is also a very serious problem in Britain.
There is no definite psychiatric unit in this country to deal with drug addicts. I understand that a couple of beds are available in St. Brendan's, Grangegorman, but they are not specifically available for drug addicts in the sense that alcoholics and other addicts may use them. Very often the drug addict is suicidal. He is a complete slave to the drug menace. The only hope for him is to put him into a psychiatric unit but we have no such unit of any degree available for drug addicts. I am not blaming the Minister; he appears to be our first Minister for Health who has tried to face up to this problem.
The drug addict cannot be forced to take treatment in a psychiatric unit, if we had such a unit for drug addicts. Even with a very bad case, who is obviously not safe to be at large, short of certifying him there is no means of getting him into an institution except with his consent. The drug addict is a most unfortunate person whose mind and body are literally gradually being destroyed. We ought to move strongly in the direction of setting up a unit to deal with drug addicts. I believe there is a very serious drug menace in our bigger centres of population and that already it is beginning to rear its head in parts of rural Ireland.
Drugs destroy the mind. Drugs destroy the body. I would go as far as to say that drugs even destroy the soul. They have led to a great many suicides. Drug addiction is a predisposing cause of suicide. It is responsible for wrecking homes and for wrecking the health of our youth. This addiction is found mainly among our youth; the older section of the community has more sense than to take drugs. This menace is being foisted on youth. We must have the greatest sympathy for drug addicts. They are lost to all reason. The craving is such that they have no object or aim in life except to obtain drugs.
The Government have been rather casual about this very serious problem. The Minister is to be congratulated on the introduction of this section. I do not think the Government are to be congratulated because they should have been alive to the existence of this menace long ago. The Minister's statement last night, that this is only a forerunner of steps to deal with the problem, was reassuring. I trust he will study the methods being used in other countries to deal with this problem where it has reached menacing proportions, as indeed it has here. I hope he will bear in mind, in particular, that these people must be segregated and maintained and held in an institution.
At the moment, a drug addict who enters an institution can leave the following day. He can actually be in the institution and still be taking drugs; naturally, the sources from which he obtains them would be unknown. I am not in favour of curtailing the liberty of the individual but, in this instance there is a danger that the drug menace could destroy the nation. Anything detrimental to the youth of a nation will ultimately eat into the soul of the nation and destroy it altogether. Any action we can take should be taken and we should give all necessary powers in the form of legislation to the Minister. That is our duty.
Under the 1947 Health Act there will appear, within the next 48 hours, a regulation whereby the distribution of a wide variety of drugs by manufacturers, wholesalers and chemists will be under stricter control. It will no longer be possible, after a few months, to purchase them freely in a chemist's shop: they can be procured only by special licence and from one central authority. This will enable a strict surveillance to be kept over the whole problem. The notice will be issued shortly. It is being done with the consent and very great approval of the Medical Association and the Medical Union including some of our most eminent consultants.
There are different points of view about persons suffering from drug addiction. Some experts say that a law to compel a drug-addicted person to be incarcerated to receive treatment might not be as good a way of dealing with the problem as persuading the person to receive treatment voluntarily either at home or in the drug unit being established in Jervis Street, Dublin, for day patients, or in the drug unit which has been established in St. Brendan's where there are ten beds. A sufficient number of beds are available at the moment I think.
That is a matter which would have to be gone into. If the medical profession were to give me any advice that would lead me to propose that the Mental Treatment Acts should be amended to give expression to the Deputy's views I would gladly do so. Under certain circumstances, as the Deputy knows, people who are drug addicts can be committed to a mental home in the usual way, and under the prevailing law. If they are so committed by their relatives they could go to the St. Brendan's unit and receive special treatment. There is a wide variety of opinion about this whole matter.
So far as the legislation is concerned in general I would say, without fear of contradiction, that by the time the new Poisons Bill is enacted and, having regard to the regulations that will be made in the next 48 hours, we will in fact be ahead of a great many countries in our efforts to control drug addiction. If it could be said that we were in arrears in the past—and I doubt that because the drug menace has arisen very rapidly and is of rather recent date here—we will certainly be up to date with any other country in this regard by the time the Poisons Bill has been enacted, but a good deal will have been done through the control of the distribution of certain types of drugs including amphetamines which will no longer be able to be procured in the way they can at present.
Can the Minister give me any information as to why the Poisons Board has not issued any report since 1961? Has the Minister any information as to what they are doing? Are they dealing with this problem?
We are about to issue another set of regulations in regard to the distribution of poisons. The draft regulations are virtually prepared so, although the committee may have appeared to have been acting slowly, equally it can be said when these regulations are announced and published that the committee will have done its work adequately.
Every Deputy in the House would be anxious to give the Minister every assistance and support in any measure he would wish to bring in to assist him in the control of this drug menace of which we are all aware at present. Deputy Esmonde gave the House a very full picture of the unfortunate situation of a drug addict. How closely do the Department of Justice and the Department of Health work together? What degree of co-operation is there between the two Departments in relation to the control of drugs and drug addicts?
This section deals with the possession of drugs. I would have thought that this would be more a matter for the Department of Justice. I know it is a matter for the Department of Health in so far as it makes provision for who has the right to have drugs, to sell drugs and to be in possession of drugs. Surely if we come to the point where these people have to be apprehended, the Department of Justice come in there?
Deputy Esmonde dealt with the inadequacy of the facilities for the treatment of drug addicts when they are found, and when they break into dispensaries, as they have done in the past. I have had cases of people in this category who were sent to Mountjoy. Part of Mountjoy is supposed to deal with this sort of thing—St. Patrick's I think. My complaint is that they are not at all equipped to treat drug addicts in St. Patrick's. On occasion they are sent to Dundrum and, apparently, in Dundrum they are in a position to treat them adequately. This is a recent innovation.
Unfortunately there is no check on visitors to those people. This is the information I have from the parents of one of those unfortunate people. It is possible for a patient—I call these people patients—to be offered drugs by visitors. This is something the Minister would need to look into very seriously.
I certainly will.
This section deals with the possession of drugs and, if a person who is receiving treatment is visited by people who offer him drugs, that is a serious situation. This is one aspect which would need to be tightened up very considerably. I do not know how it could be done, but a way must be found to do it. It is certainly right that such people should be allowed to have visitors, but how one can ensure that they do not bring drugs is another matter.
This is an extremely important section because it is far too easy for anyone at all to go into a chemist shop and get drugs without a doctor's prescription. There are far too many people who take some drug every time they get a pain in their head. I know it is a mild drug but then they take another one and, if it does not work, they take another. Much of the psychological trouble in the country at the moment arises from the ease with which mild drugs of one sort or another can be obtained for various slight ailments. If a person is off-colour now he takes a pill. Many people would be far better off if they took a ball of malt.
I agree.
We have reached a shocking stage in the taking of pills. The Minister and Members of this House should try to advise people against the taking of drugs. Not only is it a waste of money but it destroys the whole nervous system, and destroys people in many other ways as well. I am very pleased that the Minister has brought in a section that proposes to control the possession of these types of drugs. I would include very mild drugs and medicines generally. It is far too easy for people to get into the habit of imagining that there is a cure-all for every little ailment which normal people should take in their stride.
This is an attempt, at any rate, to regulate the position in relation to drugs. It is a very important section. In coming to the decision to incorporate it in the Bill, the Minister has expressed a view on the problem of drug taking. In this morning's Irish Times under the heading “RUC drug squad made 61 detections”, it is stated:
The most common offence, according to the statement, was the forging and uttering of prescriptions and obtaining of drugs on forged prescriptions.
That is the experience there Presumably much the same would be the experience down here.
By itself this regulation will not make much difference to the situation but, taken in conjunction with overall action on the drug problem, possibly some inroads may be made on this menace to our young people. The churches might perhaps do more about this drug problem. At any rate, the inscription of this section into the Bill is an acknowledgment that the problem exists. It is not so long since the Minister for Justice referred to the drug problem in Dublin as a story got up by the evening papers. We have advanced from that attitude and that approach to the problem.
Evidently there is not much difficulty involved in a person getting drugs over the chemist's counter in different parts of the city, or in going from one doctor to another and keeping up a supply of drugs. One might ask what has been the experience of the clinic set up to deal with this problem. I remember being involved in a certain amount of talk in this House on the drug problem and I recall the Minister at that time, in answer to a question of mine, deciding to set up a clinic and, first of all, to set up an investigation team to look into the whole problem of drug taking. One of the appeals we made then was for the preparation of a drug addicts register in order to get the clearest idea we could of the extent of the problem. At one stage a suspected member of a particular community said the problem of drug taking does not occur in all areas, that unfortunately it occurs in such and such an area and adjoining areas; in other words it was always elsewhere, never in your own backyard. It was to get away from this subjective impression of the extent of the problem that we called for the setting up of this register.
I should like to know has this clinic added to our knowledge of the problem of how to deal with drug addicts. Some people believe it is sufficient to talk to young people in a businesslike way and tell them of the evils of drug taking. The experience of other countries is that it is not sufficient. Apparently it is the sickness of western society which a lot of these young people speak of when they wish to give explanations as to why they became drug addicts. If these provisions here can, to some extent, safeguard those who might be endangered it will be worthwhile. At any rate it is a step in the right direction, in that it is a step towards dealing with the problem in the context of the health of the whole community. It cannot be isolated and the people involved spoken down to and given moral injunctions to reform, because the experience of other countries has been that this has not afforded a remedy.
I would ask the Minister if he would add his own voice and influence to getting the various churches to act more energetically in this area. There are some isolated cases of the religious of various denominations giving of their time and energy in this regard but in general the churches are not paying sufficient attention to this in city areas. Obviously their knowledge of parishes and so on could be of great assistance in advising young people who have this problem.
Could the Minister tell us how effective the drug squad has been in Dublin? I do not think the people in this squad have sufficient expertise or have sufficiently studied the practices of other countries. Such investigation as has taken place does not suggest that drug-taking is confined to any one section or class in the community. One could say that in certain cases lack of security in jobs, lack of prospects for young people, a feeling of hopelessness as they look to the future, bad housing accommodation, all these are factors which must, in relation to Irish youth, be elements which contribute to the drug problem. I am not suggesting that the anxiety which these factors produce means that in all cases young people will be victims of the pitfalls this Bill seeks to eliminate. However, there are many reasons why Irish youth should be anxious and in the light of which we can understand some of them becoming ensnared in this evil traffic.
I agree with everybody else that the people who push these drugs should be punished, and the real problem is to detect them. I am informed reliably that one may get soft drugs and some of the hard drugs quite easily at the present time. If you ask me for my proof, all I can say is that at the time last winter when I did examine this question first, I was brought in contact with a number of young people, and my conclusion was that there was no difficulty in getting these drugs in Dublin, and possibly the same is true of other parts of the country. This would be a problem for our drug squad, and I have suggested that they are probably not equipped adequately to meet it. I suggest they have not sufficient men with proper training. If we are serious about doing something we should see that our Garda force give as much attention to this problem as they do to the manning of pedestrian crossings and traffic regulations. Our Garda force are dealing with a vital element in our community, the young people, who have been vulnerable to this traffic in drugs.
May I say how much I welcome the introduction of this legislation which will limit the availability of drugs, and in particular drugs in the amphetamine class, which the Minister has singled out? These drugs increase the socialising capabilities of the taker. They are the drugs responsible for the so-called "love-ins" taking place in England and other places.
One of the big problems is the curtailment of drugs which are attractive to youth. Many clergy interested in the drug problem specify that the one group of drugs which they are particularly interested in curtailing are the drugs in relation to sex. We must, of course, remember that there is a step before the actual taking of the first amphetamine tablet. The usual precursor to this, in my experience, has been a compound, which is on sale to anyone without prescription, known as Pro-plus. It is advertised that this tablet will prolong the staying power at a dance. It is said if you do not feel up to going out to a party you should take a couple of these tablets and everything will be all right. The active ingredient in these tablets is caffeine and I would like to see provision for the curtailment of the sale of caffeine in the list of drugs which the Minister is going to include here. It is one of the initial drugs which teenagers take. We have all heard of the famous "ton-up" boys in England. These boys would do 100 miles an hour on their motor bikes on the M1 but prior to doing this they would go to a roadside café and drink between eight to 12 bottles of a particular soft drink, which has a very high degree of caffeine. Through extracting the caffeine they increased their general reflex muscle tone enabling them to be a little bit carefree and succeed in doing the "ton". Unfortunately, we have isolated cases of amphetamine drugs being used in sport. As a student I did a survey and one particular athlete whom we approached for a sample said, "Do not examine that for benzedrine. I have just taken six."
One must remember the side effects of drug addition and drug taking. Over the past three years we have had a dramatic increase in venereal disease, an increase in tuberculosis, an increase in psychiatric disorders, an increase in domestic upset, an increase in illegitimate births and an increase in juvenile delinquency, and I believe all these things are associated in some way or another with drug taking. I believe there is a co-ordinating factor here. I believe that the dramatic increase of over 100 per cent in the incidence of venereal disease in the male section of the population in Dublin is related to the taking of drugs and the more haste with which the Minister can bring in this section of the Bill the better.
Deputy Clinton referred to prisoners and the fact that many of them are addicted or habituated to the taking of dexadrine. This drug is known as the "prisoners' drug" in America. One of the effects of dexadrine is that it will speed up the passing of time. Deputy Clinton has suggested there would be no harm in bringing in some form of legislation, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, whereby people visiting prisoners known to be drug addicts, could be searched. It would be very difficult to carry out effectively a search at our ports of entry for drug carriers.
With regard to the known drug addicts it would be a good thing if we could bring in a register of drug addicts which included a photograph of the drug addict. One of the difficulties in hospital out-patient departments is that a person comes in complaining of acute paid, a complete sham of symptoms which necessitates the administration of morphine or pethedine and, when he gets a jab, he jumps off the table and runs out until the drug wears off. The medical profession are continually up against such incidents and there will be no end to it until this section comes in.
The class of people worst hit by the drug problem, I feel, are the lower-income group. Most of the upper-class who take drugs take them purely and simply for socialising or because of their inability to cope with stress and strain. They can invariably buy their way out of trouble. The working-class cannot do this. They prefer to take the boat to England, go on the register over there, and they usually end up in the toilets at Piccadilly Circus jabbing themselves.
Another point mentioned by Deputy Clinton, with which I think most of the medical profession will agree, is that practically every patient nowadays must have a tablet, even if the doctor only prescribes a sugar tablet. It is very difficult to say to a patient when he comes in to see the doctor, "Just go home and everything will be all right". This tablet-taking starts very early. In my own practice infants are dosed with tablets for every incidental ailment. One often hears a child saying, "Mammy, give me a tablet for this; Mammy, give me a tablet for that". I do not know how we are going to approach the problem but when these children become adolescents they start taking Pro-plus, then dexadrine and they are then on the main line to morphine, pethedine and heroin. The responsibility of this House is to make satisfactory legislation which will curtail the availability of these drugs.
I was disappointed to hear the emphasis put on the Department of Justice here—that anyone who has drugs in his possession will be charged with a criminal offence. I think there should be more co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health. The people in possession of these drugs are ill, they are not fully responsible for their actions and they require immediate medical treatment. At the moment there is no streamlined service available, but the Minister is taking steps to see that a unit will be brought in fairly soon, to which drug addicts can be sent. Recently a young constituent came in to me with at least six veins thrombosed through injecting himself, and there was no place to which I could send him for treatment. I know this is improving. In a short time we will have drug assessment and treatment in Dublin.
Another point which has come to light in the past couple of weeks following questions to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health is that the drug problem is not confined to Dublin but has spread to Cork and Galway and we may presume that it will spread to Limerick and Waterford and any seaport and that the problem will become bigger and bigger. With foresight, the legislation now being introduced could have been introduced three or four years ago on the basis that what happens in America will happen in England five years later and will happen in Ireland another five years later.
I quote fom a letter written to me from New York by a very responsible member of the community there:
As a dare, as much to show what goes on in Dublin, he left the Castle and said he would be back in less than four hours with plenty of proof. He was back in two by simply saying to the right person "I am over from America and in need of a fix". In addition, he found out that the imports of drugs to Ireland were not strictly curtailed, that two chemists make and distribute LSD and that an American had his home raided and a six months supply of LSD was found in the back of his stove. He was doing a profitable business beside a boys' camp. He was on six months probation because—get this—the Government is without a law that would permit the spending of 140 dollars to pay his fare for his deportation.
We all agree that the problem is not one which originated here but was brought in by aliens. We have not grown marihuana or heroin or dexadine. These have been brought in by foreigners.
It was suggested in the debate on the Estimate for Justice that there should be greater scrutiny of aliens. In my opinion there should be if only because of the possibility of their contributing to the drug addiction problem.
There is one other factor which I should like the Minister to deal with immediately. I do not think he will be able to do much about it until the passing of this Bill and until the recommendations of the FitzGerald Report in regard to the hospital service are implemented. I refer to the fact that it is possible at the moment for a patient to be referred on five different days per week to five different out-patients' departments of the five general hospitals and the next week to be referred to a specialist hospital and within two weeks he can obtain from each one of these psychiatric departments a two weeks supply of drugs merely by representing sham symptoms. There is no way in which the medical profession can offset this, no way in which they can prevent it. It is an impossible situation, a heartbreaking situation, with which those who have to work in psychiatric out-patients' departments in these hospitals are familiar. It is a readily available source of drugs for the drug addict or that lowest form of humanity, the drug pusher. Legislation must be introduced immediately to ensure that the pusher is the person who will be penalised; that when the Minister refers to the possession of drugs he will refer to the possession of drugs by a nonaddict; that the greatest penalties will be imposed upon the pusher and that the poor creature who is an addict and who is caught with drugs will be immediately referred to the medical profession. The pusher should be visited with the utmost severity of the law.
I welcome this section. It is better late than never. This legislation should have been introduced three years ago if there had been any foresight.
On 18th October, 1966, I again raised in this House a question which I had raised before that. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy B. Lenihan, told me in reply that the Garda had no authority of the kind attributed to them. He went on to state:
The Minister for Health has already stated in reply to a question on 5th October that he intends to introduce legislation in relation to the possession of certain drugs and related matters.
This is three years later and the legislation is being introduced only now, despite the fact that we were told in this House three years and two months ago that it was about to be introduced. I went on to quote what Professor Wilson had stated in Trinity College about the abuse of drugs in the city of Dublin. I pointed out that, unless plans were made for the prevention of drug abuse, Ireland would have the same problem of drug dependence as faced other countries in our western civilisation. Further, I asked the Minister a question at column 1391 of the Official Report for 18th October, 1966, and Deputy B. Lenihan replied, at column 1392:
I have no responsibility for hysterical newspaper reports or professors' reports.
That is what we were told at that time. I claim that if an effort had been made at that time to deal with this awful scourge we would not now be faced with the problem as it is today. We are inclined to sweep things under the carpet. We are faced with an awful problem now and I doubt if the full facts are even yet being given to the people of this country.
The Evening Press of Friday, May 16th, published figures as regards drugs in Ireland. I quote:
The presence of 1,643 drug takers in Ireland together with evidence which strongly suggests that the total is at least 5,000 is documented in a frightening survey on drug abuse published here for the first time today.
They give the statistics produced by the working party for various areas covered to date: Dublin, Galway and Wexford. We know that there is also a serious problem in Cork and in Limerick. I know that there was a problem in Mullingar four years ago. At that time I got information which I brought to Mr. Costigan, then Commissioner of the Garda, with regard to cases in Mullingar.
According to the figures in the Evening Press article there are in Dublin at least 860 cases, in Galway, 427; in Wexford, 225. It goes on to give for the whole nation the age group affected. The figures are very frightening: in the age group 14-16, a total of 131; 16-20 a total of 977; in the 20 to 25 year bracket the number is 535. From this it will be seen that it is the youth of our country who are afflicted with this terrible scourge. I claim that something should have been done three years ago. This problem should never have been put on the long finger. Great precautions were taken here during the foot and mouth crisis and every credit is due to the Government, the NFA and the people for a job well done. We are now faced with a crisis of another kind. We are not dealing with the destruction of cattle; we are dealing with the degradation and destruction of human beings, our own boys and girls. They range in age from 14 to 25 years; they should be the cream of our society. Unfortunately drug addiction is becoming progressively worse. There were 81 raids in Dublin in the last year or two on dispensaries.
That has finished.
I agree, but the Minister may have seen last week the report of a priest speaking at a meeting stating—I think this is a well-known fact—that there are clubs and public houses in which drugs are peddled. This is a problem which should not be limited to the relatives of the unfortunate addicts or to the drug squad or the Department of Health. It is a problem for all of us— parents, priests, teachers, politicians and everyone. We must all help to put an end to this scourge. The peddlers must be apprehended as quickly as possible. If people are more civicspirited and know who the peddlers are —these are the people who are making the money—they should give that information to the authorities. I agree with Deputy Dr. Byrne that it is the peddlers who should be punished, and punished very severely.
We have seen how the problem has grown in Britain, especially since 1962. In 1962 the British House of Commons said there was no problem. We all know the problem they have now. It is an enormous one. We have seen in Britain, too, the consequences of legislation. It is rumoured that our Government are contemplating similar action here. I hope that that is not true and I should like some information from the Minister about it.
In the Sunday Press of 9th October, 1966, there is a heading: “Gardaí Will Crack Down. Drugs in City and in Beat Clubs”. It states that it is well known to the Garda that boys and girls in their early teens are paying 2/6d to 5/- for single reefers, cigarettes tipped with certain drugs, and 5/- a cup for shot coffee. This is still going on and the sooner legislation is passed to deal with the problem the better it will be for everybody. It is up to all of us to throw in our weight behind the Garda, the Minister and the Government in trying to solve this problem as quickly as possible.
I have read a great many statements in the newspapers by people who say that addicts are procuring hard drugs, hard drugs which are already the subject of legislation and whose possession, distribution or manufacture, without licence, carries the penalty of arrest for their illegal possession. If only these people would give the information they have to me or to the Garda about psychiatrists who are not, apparently, conscious of what they are doing in prescribing drugs for addicts who move from one hospital to another, I would take the strongest possible action. A great many people have been publishing articles in the newspapers. All I ask them to do is to give whatever information they have to the Garda authorities, to me or to the officers of my Department as quickly as possible.
Drug addiction will not be solved by any action we take. No country has been able to solve the problem and all we can do is make it as difficult as possible for people to procure drugs. I shall not deal with how many drug addicts there are. I think the figure of 5,000 mentioned by Deputy L'Estrange is exaggerated.
I hope so.
We have a very excellent committee working on this problem. As soon as they present their report and make recommendations we will act immediately upon whatever recommendations they make.
Forged prescriptions will be dealt with most effectively in the drugs and poisons Bill which will be introduced shortly. In relation to amphetamines the regulations which will be issued 48 hours from now about their method of distribution will almost totally eliminate any danger of forged prescriptions. Deputy Dr. Byrne will be glad to hear that. The success of the clinics in Jervis Street and in St. Brendan's is being kept under review. I have no great comment to make about this at the moment. I am extremely keen there should be a register of drug addicts, and we will certainly have such a register. There is no need to pass any legislation in order to compile such a register.
Deputy Clinton referred to drugs which are obtained too easily. The Deputy should be aware that under regulations made following the 1947 Health Act a very wide range of drugs are already subject to control. These comprise such drugs as heroin, morphine, and so on. Any drugs which the medical profession believe have a significant risk potential can only be sold on prescription and I believe the majority of pharmacists are cooperating fully. In any community there will, of course, always be the small minority who will give in to temptation.
Deputy Clinton also referred to the lavish provision of tranquillisers and sedatives of one kind or another. They do not arise on this debate nor on this section of the Bill. It would be quite impossible for me even to discuss here the habit of taking sedatives of one kind or another which do not result in the person's moral character being completely destroyed. It opens the field of controversy far too wide. I am interested in the figures that have been given by the Dublin Health Authority about the number of pills of this kind they distributed last year; but at the moment these pills do not come within the regulations being enacted under this Bill or under the Poisons Bill where they are not known to have very serious effects on people's character and behaviour, but naturally we shall look into all these matters.
Deputy Clinton and Deputy Byrne referred to drugs being obtained from visitors by drug addicts in some institutions. The conditions under which visitors are allowed to patients are a matter for the authorities of these institutions. I hope they take reasonable precautions—I believe they do—but I hope that any Deputy who knows of a person in an institution, whether a prison or a psychiatric institution, and whose condition has not improved because he is being given drugs by his visitor friends, would let me have the name of such a person so that the matter could be dealt with. If anybody has any information on this they should convey it to me immediately so that we can give warning, backed by evidence, to prison governers or heads of psychiatric institutions that drugs are being brought in by visitors in this way. I hope that I will be given evidence about this so that we can deal with this particular problem.
My Department are in touch with the Garda, and I believe the drug squad are doing very effective work. They have received training. I understand that the working committee on dangerous drug addiction accept the fact that they now have an understanding of the kind of work they should do. The Minister for Justice is now considering an expansion of the drug squad and it can be taken for granted that he is fully aware of the position. In reply to Deputy Clinton, it will be the Garda who will have to administer this section so far as arrests and prosecutions are concerned of persons found to possess any one of the list of drugs that will be scheduled in connection with the regulations made under the Bill. LSD will be included in this list although, as Deputy Byrne knows, we are not aware that LSD has been a particular problem in the past year. Other drugs have been mentioned but not LSD. Possession of LSD will be illegal under the Bill. We have also alerted the customs authorities, whose task will be extremely difficult in view of the huge number of people passing in and out of the country, to see what they can do in the matter.
I want to make clear that we shall be ahead of British practice when these regulations are published 48 hours from now. I hope the British will consider this whole matter; in fact, I intend to make contact with the British Minister for Health even before the passage of this Bill with this new clause in it because we shall have taken precautions over and beyond those taken in England at present in regard to distribution, methods of distribution and issue of amphetamines. If the two countries could work cooperatively in this matter, the risk of drug peddling across the water would be very much less.
Finally, I want to tell the House that I accept the challenges that have been issued by everybody, priests and others interested, and we are doing our utmost to deal with this very serious matter. The extent to which drug abuse existed four years ago can be exaggerated and I believe that by the time the Poisons Bill is through we shall be ahead of a considerable number of countries in our efforts to reduce drug addiction. I do not believe we shall ever be able to stop it: we can only make it as difficult as possible. I should also say again that the question of how we treat a drug addict is one for very deep consideration. The alternatives of harsh disciplinary treatment and persuasion are the subject of considerable controversy. Therefore, we must also consider that matter.
One other question was raised. The working party on drug addiction have been examining the matter of publicity in schools and I hope to have their report very soon. They are absolutely responsible people who are not taking any unrealistic attitude towards drug addiction and they are a little worried about introducing publicity in schools because they feel that, while they might persuade certain young people from taking drugs, they might actually excite people of certain disposition into taking them. This is a matter of controversy elsewhere. I hope to be able to make the right decision about it when I have all the information I can get from the working party. It is not easy to say that we shall have a great deal of publicity in the schools in regard to dangerous drugs: we must make quite certain that we are not putting the idea of drug-taking into the minds of people who would say: "What a wonderful effect this drug will have; I shall not take too much of it. I shall enjoy the effects but I will not be sufficiently foolish as to become an addict and lose character, poise or ability to work." I think Deputy Byrne will appreciate the complications in regard to that and these must be considered very carefully also, in regard to the nature of any publicity that we might introduce in schools on drug addiction.
I do not want to exaggerate this problem but it is up to each of us to bring home to children and parents the dangers facing youth especially in the cities today. I agree with what the Minister has said, that too much publicity might excite young people, but the dangers should still be brought home to all concerned. The Minister has said that no country can solve the problem and that we may never be able to stop drug-taking. I do not want to accuse him of adopting a defeatist attitude but, at the same time, much could perhaps be done in other directions.
Juvenile delinquency seems to be also tied up with this problem. In the schools, children could be educated to the dangers of the problem. There should be greater emphasis on competitive games, including swimming, and things to occupy the mind of youth. This may not come under the Minister's control directly, but any committee dealing with the problem should try to see that there is greater emphasis on giving facilities for youth to work off superfluous energy by the encouragement of all sorts of competitive games. We generally find a boy who is occupied with games will not become mixed up in the same amount of devilment, so to speak, as those who have no interest in a swiming pool, a football club or an athletic or hurling club or some such organisation.
We will never get through the Health Bill, Deputy, if we enlarge the debate.
Three years and two months ago, Minister, we were told that legislation was being introduced and not a thing was done about it until you introduced this Bill.
I am suggesting to the Deputy that we do not widen the debate to discuss the whole social and economic policy of the Government and the local authorities in relation to recreation.
I agree entirely with having a register of drug addicts. I wonder if it would be possible to issue each drug addict with something like a medical card so that when the addict goes to a doctor it will be stamped by him and this will prevent the person from going to a number of doctors.
If the Deputy asks a question after the regulations have been introduced I will be delighted to answer him in regard to these matters.
Could this be done? If such a card was stamped by the doctor the person could not go to a number of doctors the same day.
We are dealing with that. We are dealing with the work procedures of the scheme which will be established. Details will be published later.
It is important to refer back again to the British register. For many years they did not recognise the fact that they had a rampant drug problem. The number on their register was far below the number suffering from drug addiction and it remained so until it became clear to those concerned that it was perfectly safe for them to go on the register as they would then have certain advantages in regard to obtaining free drugs and so on. It took a long time before the problem came to light. The register was not a success at the beginning. You could draw a comparison here between the register for drug addicts and the notification of venereal disease cases. In the chief medical officer's report for 1968 it was stated that 170 positive tests for this disease had not been reported: in other words, all the tests carried out by general practitioners were not reported to the CMO. The information came about from reports from the laboratories but the cases of people suffering from the disease were not reported.
In a country as small as Ireland or a city as small as Dublin addicts might be deterred from registering because of the size of the place and because there are many people who could get their hands on the register. I should like to see a file for each drug addict being made available only to the medical profession, to the outpatients' departments of the hospitals in Dublin, Cork, Galway or Waterford. This matter has presented us with a great problem. I should like to ask the Minister if the drug marijuana will be included in the list?
It is already covered in the dangerous drugs. It is defined as a hard drug.
It may be news to some of us that this drug is being grown widely in England and it is quite possible, from certain reports that have reached me in the last few days, that the weed is actually been grown here.
Perhaps the Deputy would give me some information.
I wish I could, but unfortunately I have not got the detailed information.
This kind of rumour is useless unless I have information.
Does the law cover the production of marijuana and not only the possession of it, its production in the raw state? Would this be included?
Yes, in any state, the possession of marijuana or cannabis in any form.
Even the seed?
It is completely forbidden and it does not arise on this Bill.
In regard to prisoners, there should be legislation whereby the prison authorities have power to search all the people coming into the prison. It is not right for the Minister to throw the onus on the prison authorities. It will be their final function but he should help them with some direction. Another point is that I have also been disappointed at the Minister's failure to recognise the associated increase in venereal diseases. The fact is that young girls are being sent out on the streets from certain cafés in this town——
Would the Deputy tell me the names of the cafés?
We are getting away from the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
I was disappointed that the Minister did not recognise the increase in venereal diseases and other associated diseases.
Subsection (2) specifies the conditions under which drugs will be kept. The Minister could perform a useful exercise if, even before this Bill becomes law, he circulated hospital authorities with a directive as to the conditions under which drugs should be kept, the type of locked container in which they should be kept and the type of person who should only have access to them.
We have issued a circular of the type suggested by the Deputy in regard to the control and keeping of these drugs and the method by which they should be distributed.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment 95d in the name of Deputy Tully forms a composite proposal with amendment 109 and they can be taken together.
I move amendment No. 95d:
In page 32, before section 75, to insert the following new section:
"(1) The Minister may make regulations for the control of the use of a substance to which this section applies.
(2) Regulations under this section may provide for the prohibition of the use of a substance to which the regulations relate, except by persons or classes of persons specified in the regulations and in circumstances and under conditions specified in the regulations.
(3) An agricultural employer who contravenes or attempts to contravene a regulation under this section or who allows another person to contravene such a regulation shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Every person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable——
(a) on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment; or
(b) on conviction thereof on indictment, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding five years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment,
and the court by which the person was convicted may order the forfeiture, and the disposal in such manner as the court thinks fit, of the substance in respect of which the offence was committed.
(5) This section applies to any poisonous substance (being a substance listed in the Fourth Schedule to this Act) used in agriculture to which persons working in agriculture may be exposed or which may be handled or inhaled by such persons.
(6) The Minister may, by order, amend the Fourth Schedule."
Perhaps the Minister would give us his opinion on this amendment?
A considerable amount of what Deputy Tully wants to do relates not only to my Department but to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Deputy seeks to control the use of a variety of substances mainly used in agriculture. Provision already exists in section 12 of the Poisons Act, 1961, which enables the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to make regulations dealing with the use of agricultural poisons and so this matter is more for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries than for me. This division of responsibility exists not only here but in all other countries. In the North of Ireland regulations on the lines proposed were made by the Minister of Agriculture.
Section 15 of the Poisons Act, 1951, is due for amendment in the proposed Drugs and Poisons Bill and, on its introduction, Deputy Tully can raise the issues involved in his amendment. Alternatively, he can raise the matter directly with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Under the 1961 Act, I have power to make regulations to control the sale and supply of substances declared to be poisonous. These regulations are at an advanced stage of preparation and are about to be issued to interested bodies for their views. All the substances listed in the schedule to Deputy Tully's amendment are dealt with in relation to sale, supply, labelling, storage containers and transport but not in relation to use—and the use of these preparations is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. I note that Deputy Tully's list of substances is taken from two Northern Ireland Statutory Instruments both of which were made by the Minister of Agriculture in the north. My attitude is that it is not suitable to bring in this amendment at this point; that I am going to deal with part of it, with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, in relation to sale, under an existing Act. There will be further examination of the use of these substances in the Poisons Bill which will come before the Dáil.
Has the Minister any idea, roughly, when it will come before the Dáil?
I think it will be introduced in the early part of next year.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 75.
I move amendment No. 96 which stands in the name of Deputy Ryan:
In page 32, line 3, after "land" to insert "after reasonable efforts over a period of one week so to do".
I am afraid I have not had time to go into it.
This is a rather trivial matter in relation to the circumstances under which health boards trace the occupiers of land where it is proposed to eliminate rats. In certain circumstances the board may not be in a position, because of the degree of infestation or the danger of infestation, to afford to give up to a week in trying to trace the occupier. That such a situation can arise is borne out by the fact that under section 5 of the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act the health authority is empowered to take whatever action it considers necessary within 24 hours after giving notice to the occupier. On the other hand, there may be cases where the board will be in a position to take steps to trace the occupier over a period of months. Acceptance of the Deputy's amendment would absolve the board of its obligations after only one week. Accordingly, I do not think the amendment is desirable. The provision proposed in the Bill is on the lines of well-established precedents such as section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1941, and section 7 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. The provision in the Bill, as it is, is adequate.
It is possible that when Deputy Ryan put down this amendment he did not appreciate the trouble people go to, generally, to track down a person in a case of this kind. There are people in the neighbourhood of this city who are keeping property for development later but who are not in the least bit concerned about infestation around such property. Unfortunately, I am speaking against the amendment. It is only reasonable that, where such people deliberately try to evade meeting the authorities who wish to get them to eliminate rats from dumps and overground areas, the Minister should have the power which he seeks here to put a notice on the gate or property.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 76.
Question proposed: "That section 76 stand part of the Bill".
Perhaps the Minister would explain a little more fully what is in section 76?
This section has been introduced in order to enable arrears of grants payable under the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, to be paid after the services have been taken over by the health boards. This section will enable the Act, which is scheduled for appeal, to remain in operation with section 31 of the Bill for sufficient time to allow arrears of grants to be cleared up between one authority and the other.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 77 agreed to.
SECTION 78.
Question proposed: "That section 78 stand part of the Bill".
It has struck me that this is an easy way for the Minister to deal with it but that it has left it very open. The Minister says in subsection (1):
The Minister may by order make, in respect of any enactment in the Mental Treatment Acts, 1945 to 1966, any adaptations or modifications (including the substitution of a new provision for an existing provision in such an enactment) which appear to him to be necessary to enable that enactment to have effect in conformity with this Act.
If a Minister is not quite clear what circumstances may arise, it is an easy way of dealing with the matter. To some extent, it is covered by the fact that every Order is brought before the Oireachtas. I wonder if it is wise to leave legislation quite as open as this?
Sections 77 and 78 are really adaptation sections. They are simply applying the Mental Treatment Acts to the new administrative structure upon the replacement of these Acts by a new Mental Treatment Act. Section 77 (a), for example, repeals several definitions which will be inapplicable with the transfer of responsibility for mental treatment to health boards. The expression "chargeable patient" under the Mental Treatment Acts means a patient eligible for care under the services—that is, a person in the lower or middle income groups. The objects of paragraphs (b) and (c) are to bring this concept into line with the provisions on eligibility in the Bill. In other words, it does not mean that any changes are taking place of the kind which would warrant considerable debate here in relation to mental treatment.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 79 agreed to.
SECTION 80.
Amendment No. 97 has been ruled out of order.
Question proposed: "That section 80 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with the separation of public assistance from the health authority. I know the Minister is reconsidering the situation to see what can be done in relation to this proposal. I feel very strongly that it is wrong to separate the social assistance function from the health function. When health authorities start to investigate a case they find that social assistance is needed first and that the two things are not separated. We have had quite considerable discussions with the Minister on this matter and I am sure he understands our objection.
There is a point on which members of local authorities feel very strongly and, that is, that two-thirds of the time of the officers of the various local authorities who are engaged in social assistance or public assistance is spent on health matters. It is felt, and I think rightly so, that the personnel here concerned should be absorbed into the regional health area and taken over as officers of the health section rather than that they should be officers of the local quthorities and acting on an agency basis. It should be turned around the other way and those officers should be acting for the local authorities in respect of public assistance on an agency basis. I would strongly recommend to the Minister that he should adopt this course.
I agree with Deputy Carter. This is a declining service. It is a shame that it is there at all. It should be covered by the public health service. The home assistance officers, as we call them, examine eligibility in relation to health cards and their proper place would be under the health services.
Under section 24, as I have already indicated, it would be possible for the assistance functions to be operated by the health boards, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government and Social Welfare. Between now and Report Stage, I will be in communication with the Minister and I will point out that, on both sides of the House, it is felt that home assistance is so closely linked with home help and the work of the public nurses, psychiatric nurses, social workers and those in hospitals, that there should be complete co-ordination of these services. I hope to be able to report favourably on that on Report Stage.
The more I have come to study the work of my Department the more I realise that, in this particular matter, while it would be possible for home assistance officers, even working under the local authorities, to co-ordinate administratively with the officers of the health boards, it would still be a good thing if the Minister concerned would agree that we could make use of section 24 and that, on the general basis, the health boards would be able to carry out the function of home assistance. Of course, the home assistance service is financed entirely from the rates and, therefore, in allotting the amount of money for home assistance, that would be based on what each county area or corporation area wished to raise, and there would have to be very reasonable financial co-ordination between the local authority and the health board in administering an amount which would be raised entirely from the rates.
As I have already informed the House, the Minister for Social Welfare is examining in depth the whole problem of home assistance. He is examining its implications, what should be done about it, how far it has operated successfully, the extent to which it does the job it is supposed to do, and so forth, and what might alter the position later, but I give my promise to the House that I will consider this between now and Report Stage because I have been pressed by Deputies on all sides of the House to maintain this co-ordination of administration.
I am glad the Minister has as good as promised us, I hope, that he will change his decision on the proposal to separate the social assistance and the health functions. The only case that can be made for it is the fact, as the Minister said, that it is paid for 100 per cent out of the rates. I have already suggested to the Minister, and I will now suggest it to him very strongly again, that he could rectify that with a stroke of his pen and, indeed, the ratepayers will be very pleased on the day he does that. He can include it in the 50 per cent grant which health authorities normally get. It would be the easiest thing in the world for him to do. It would be one way to overcome it. The health authorities have been looking for this for a long time.
I hope the Minister will ensure that this obstacle does not remain in the way, because there is no doubt that, if this function is taken away from the health authorities, people will be kept in hospitals and institutions longer than they need be because of the fact that they need some type of home assistance when they go home, and need it immediately. If the local authority or the sanitary authority are employed to do this, inevitably there will be delays. When a poor person goes home from hospital and needs this assistance, application is made for the other authority to move in, and it takes some time for them to move in. Inevitably there is a delay, and then the patient is back in the institution again.
I know the Minister can say that section 59 empowers the health authority to provide this sort of assistance. You will have the health authority and the public assistance authority coming in to do part of the same job. What is everybody's business is nobody's business. This is really a health function and I would make a very strong plea to the Minister to get together with the Minister for Local Government and decide to retain this as a health function in the future.
I also welcome the Minister's decision to make this a health function. We have already discussed this matter with him. I feel that if the two are separated an injustice will be done to the people who are in receipt of help. We have set up machinery in the Dublin Health Authority region, and I am speaking for that region, known as the social welfare department, which deals with the health of the people generally. For that reason I feel that this separation would cause a lot of overlapping. We are most anxious that nobody in our community should be hungry or in want. For that reason I am very pleased the Minister has agreed to have another look at this section.
Does the Minister intend continuing under this section the payment of home assistance to people who are on voluntary strike and who have not paid up their union subscriptions to enable them to draw strike benefit?
That is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare.
At the present time some assistance is being paid——
In the Bill as it stands it was presumed that home assistance would be continued to be operated by the local authority. I am afraid I am not briefed on the circumstances in which home assistance is paid to people on strike. I am not in charge of that Department.
We have spoken here regarding the payment of home assistance to patients, involving co-ordination with the health section. One very disillusioning fact which came to my notice was the payment of home assistance at Dublin dispensaries to employees who were on strike. Because their payments to the union were not up to date they did not receive strike pay, and they were provided with ratepayers' money through the Dublin dispensaries.
We must keep to the terms of the Bill. There are two types of home assistance paid by the local authorities under the auspices of the Minister for Social Welfare. There is pure income maintenance, there are also many cases where income maintenance relates to a person coming back from hospital, to a person who is sick, to a person who is visited by a public nurse and who has physical or mental difficulties. If the Minister for Social Welfare does agree that the health officers would be able to administer home assistance, I am not concerned with the question whether pure income maintenance is made available to any particular class of the community unless there is a health function involved. I am sure the Deputy can understand that. I have not come briefed in regard to the circumstances in which home assistance is paid to people on strike.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 81 and 82 and First Schedule agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 98:
In page 35, rule 5, in the third line, after "Minister" to insert "after consultation with the bodies representing the medical and ancillary professions".
I have already spoken on this matter in relation to other sections of the Bill. I am required to consult the National Health Council on the regulations to be made in connection with the Second Schedule, that is, in accordance with section 41 (16) of the Health Act, 1953. This body, as I indicated last night, includes representatives of the medical and ancillary professions concerned, and it may be taken for granted that, if they feel that any kind of wider consultation was required with any medical association or a sub-committee of an association or anybody concerned with the administration of health services, they will very quickly let me know about it. In fact we do, all the time, have these consultations with the Medical Association, the Medical Union and many other bodies of this description. However, the House can be assured that the National Health Council is a sufficiently responsible body to indicate to me the need for any further consultations in regard to any regulations we propose to make or any resolution we propose to bring before the House in relation to the health boards, regional hospital boards or Comhairle na nOspidéal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 99.
In page 35, rule 5, to add the following new paragraph to the rule:
"(2) Regulations under this rule may, in relation to any class of members specified in the regulations, prescribe the qualifications to be held by candidates for election to membership."
This is a very simple amendment. It is to make it clear that the detailed regulations of the election of the professional people, doctors, etc. to the boards, can specify that particular classes of doctors, etc. will be elected. For example, we want to make quite certain that general practitioners and consultants will have their representation. These resolutions will come before the Dáil and the Seanad to be discussed. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the main categories of the medical profession will have representation on the regional health boards and the regional hospital boards.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 100.
In page 35, to delete rule 6.
The object of this amendment is not absolutely clear. If the paragraph were deleted there would be nothing in the Schedule to indicate how long a member of the board would remain in office. This would be a very undesirable thing. I do not know whether the Deputy intended that these appointments would be made for life. It is usual for the Minister to have the right to fix the term of office of his appointees to coincide with that of the local authority or the professional members or, alternatively, to have the right to provide for some continuity of office for members of the board. The Minister could arrange that his appointees would have some term of office over-lapping that of the others for the sake of continuity. I do not recommend the amendment. I think the Minister should have this right.
The Minister has this right in relation to a great many boards of other descriptions. As far as I am concerned, I would propose to appoint these nominees for a sufficiently long period to ensure some continuity as between one local election and another when the regional health boards would be reappointed, at the same time not sufficiently long to prevent my successor from appointing others if he so thought fit. In other words, I am taking a reasonable attitude towards this. Equally there must be some flexibility. There might be some people who would like to be appointed only for a short period, and the situation might arise where the Minister might like to appoint the nominees only for a short transitory period and would make the appointment of other nominees within a fairly short time. Flexibility is the answer to Deputy Ryan's proposal.
Like the Minister, I do not know exactly what was in Deputy Ryan's mind when he put down this amendment. I know he had a serious objection to the Minister making appointments at all. However, the amendment admits that the Minister has to make appointments, and what I believe the Deputy has in mind is this: the public representatives on the board will go out automatically at the end of the normal 5-year period in a local authority and will have to be reappointed, and that is giving, if you like, an unfair tenure of office to the people appointed by the Minister. This would also appear to leave the Minister in a position where he could appoint somebody for life regardless of his work on the board.
I am not suggesting the Minister is likely to do this, but it does seem strange that the members of the local authority have to be subject to the will of the people for five years, but the Minister's appointees can be there for life.
The Deputy is quite reasonable about this and bearing in mind that these boards, unlike State boards, are going to change I shall put in an amendment on the Report Stage providing that it will be for a maximum of five years and that should cover the Deputy's point. If we were on the other side of the House and the Minister were doing the same thing we would make the same demands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As amendments No. 101 and No. 104 are cognate, we could discuss both together.
I move amendment No. 101:
In page 35, rule 11, paragraph 1, after "not" in the second line to insert "without reasonable shown cause acceptable to the board".
Many of Deputy Ryan's amendments have been interesting to discuss. We have accepted many of them because they were also amendments in the minds of Deputies on our own side, but we have, of course, contested many of his amendments. These amendments would give the board an option of allowing a local authority member to retain his membership of it even though he had not attended a meeting within the period of three months. This period has now been extended to six months. As the paragraph stands, it would be open to the local authority who appointed him to allow such a member to continue on in membership and, if they were satisfied that there was a good reason for his non-attendance during the prescribed period, they could reappoint him to the vacancy. It seems better to me that this option should be left to the appointing local authority and not to the board, as proposed by the Deputy's amendment. In other words, the regional health board should not be permitted to reappoint someone who has not attended for a long time; the local authority who appoints the person to the board should make this decision. I think Deputy Ryan is definitely wrong here.
I do not know whether or not there is some confusion about this amendment, but I do know that the normal practice has been that if a member fails to attend a number of meetings of the health authority he can be considered for reappointment, if members are satisfied that there was a good reason for his being absent from those meetings. It might be due to illness or because of a position he was in for a short period but if it was something which was going to disappear they were at liberty to reappoint him. I think it would be a pity not to leave this provision in the Bill.
I understand the case in the Dublin Health Authority, of which the Deputy was a prominent member, was that Dublin Corporation or Dublin County Council made the decision.
That is true; it does go back to the rating authority.
I prefer to leave it as it is.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
As amendment No. 105 is cognate with amendment No. 102 perhaps we could take them together. Amendment No. 102 in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 103 in the name of Deputy Ryan could also be taken together.
I move amendment No. 102.
In page 35, rule 11, paragraph 1, to delete "three months" and substitute "six months".
This amendment extends the period from three to six months before which a member of the health board, elected by a health board, will be disqualified for non-attendance at meetings. The point was made during the Second Stage and also during the Committee Stage and we have inserted this amendment to conform with the general wishes of the House.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 103 not moved.
Amendment No. 104 has been discussed with amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 104 not moved.
Amendment No. 105 is cognate with amendment No. 102.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 35, rule 11, paragraph 2, to delete "three months" and substitute "six months".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 106 was taken with amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 105.
Amendment No. 106 not moved.
I move amendment No. 107:
In page 36, to delete rule 13.
I presume the Minister, when terminating the appointment at his own discretion of any member of the health board who he was responsible for appointing, will have to give reasons for terminating membership?
If this amendment were accepted I could not remove from office any member until the end of his term of appointment. The tradition of removal in this country in connection with semi-State bodies and other bodies is very rare. I must have the power to replace one of my nominees by another if I wish. This is an essential power. I should not be asked to give the reasons for doing so. The reason might relate to some matter which could be as embarrassing to the person as it would be to me. In section 6, subsection (4) of the St. Laurence's Hospital Act, section 20 of the Nurses Act and section 7 of the Voluntary Health Insurance Act, 1957, there is a precedent for the power of the Minister to remove a member of the board without stating the reason and it also applies to numerous State boards.
Is there any possibility of a confidential interview between the Minister and the person he is removing? I agree the Minister does need this flexibility and the complete power of this section, but it seems to me slightly dictatorial just to write a letter to someone telling him he is to be removed without giving any reason at all.
In this small country with our tradition of reasonable compassion towards people and our acceptance of human failing it is inconceivable that the Minister would not take whatever humane action he thought necessary. I do not propose to commit the Minister to have to do this.
I think there is a certain danger in leaving rule 13 in. I think it would be preferable if the board had power to remove a member. There is a political danger here. If the Minister's nominee fails to toe the line the Minister could simply remove him. It is an unlikely thing to happen but, nevertheless, it is something that could happen with a different Minister in a different time. It is a dangerous power for the Minister to have. The Minister has cited the precedent of the St. Laurence's Hospital Board but no other system could have been worked there because this is the only hospital in the country where the Minister appoints all the members of the board himself. If he appoints all the members then no one else can take action but himself. Here we have a mixture of elected representatives and people appointed by the Minister. I think a board should have sufficient responsibility and authority to terminate membership of a member if it is considered he is not fit to carry on. I think it would be a safer arrangement to give the Minister the power.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 108.
In pages 36 and 37, to delete rule 17.
I can end what might be a prolonged debate by saying that I have had representations from my own party and from the Opposition parties to arrange for the regional health boards to appoint the chairman and vice-chairman even on the first occasion. All I would say is that I hope Deputies on all sides of the House realise the executive character of these boards and the serious work they perform. These boards are not set up for political discussion. At least 99 per cent of all their meetings need not be politically controversial.
The appointment of a competent chairman is an extremely important matter. Everyone concerned in public life knows that it is a vocational gift to be a good chairman. You can, for example, have excellent Deputies who would make appalling chairmen and you might have a bad Deputy who would make a good chairman. Everybody knows that. It is terribly important when you have a new structure set up, with all the complications involved, that the health board would select the person whom they would think would be a competent chairman in the human sense and also in the administrative sense, someone who knows how to deal with an agenda and how to deal with members. It does require quite a gift. So, I have decided that the chairman and vice-chairman of the health board will be appointed by the members themselves even on the first occasion and even although the State eventually supplies 75 per cent of all the finance for the health and hospital services.
I hope the chairmen to be appointed will be responsible people. There are many responsible chairmen today of boards who are directly or in part responsible for the operations of the health services and I hope that when a number of county council authorities come together with professionals they will show the same commonsense in the appointment of chairmen and vice-chairmen as can be seen from looking at the work and operations of the health authorities as they exist today.
I did not catch exactly what the Minister said at the beginning. Did he say that he will leave the appointment of the chairmen and vice-chairmen to the boards?
I am going to leave it to the boards to appoint and there will be one more provision, that they may not appoint an officer of the health board as chairman or vice-chairman.
That is a very wise provision.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Amendment No. 109 in the name of Deputy Tully was discussed with amendment No. 95d which has been withdrawn.
Amendment No. 109 not moved.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
Most of the amendments arising from the Committee Stage have already been drafted and the Bill can be circulated tomorrow or Monday at the very latest and I propose that we take the Report Stage on Wednesday, 10th December.
It does not give a great deal of time because there will be considerable amendments on Report Stage, is not that so?
No.
If we have it for the week-end, yes.
We will have it for the week-end.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th December, 1969.