I also urge the Minister to reconsider items here under these paragraphs that are being challenged by various Members of the Opposition. I find it difficult to see justification for this. I can see that various interest groups might press to be excluded. I cannot see why we in the sovereign Parliament should concede anything to such pressures.
In relation to section 2 (1) (a), given the problem of staff embargoes in the public sector, it is entirely possible that in many cases an institution managed by or on behalf of the Government, or a health board, might be less well staffed, because of the way embargoes operate, than a private institution. I am well aware that the embargoes introduced to try to control staff have had perverse effects in many areas and, as the Taoiseach of the day who introduced the embargo system at first, I am aware of all the anomalies. I know we have had great problems in other parts of the health service because of the way the embargoes operated. It cannot be assumed that staffing would necessarily be more adequate, to take staffing as one factor which might be under consideration here in the public and private sectors. It is almost a perverse assumption, given the way the embargo was operated.
Secondly, I do not know why we should assume, because somebody's name is entered in the General Register of Medical Practitioners, that the person is capable of running an institution of that kind well and efficiently. There are many of us with particular aptitudes in life who do not have other aptitudes and the fact that somebody is a doctor does not mean he has the management capacity to run an institution efficiently, and there could well be problems of mismanagement. That assumption has no basis whatever in reality so far as I can see. I take it that this applies to an institution where people are being treated for acute ailments but I am not quite sure what is envisaged and the Minister might explain that perhaps a particular case is envisaged but whether it is for acute or other ailments the mere fact that it is under the supervision of a person whose name is entered in the General Register of Medical Practitioners does not seem to me to be adequate grounds for exclusion.
I take it that sections 2 (1) (c) and section 2 (1) (d) are covered by other Acts and therefore I understand why they are there and are not being challenged. The fact that an institution covered by section 2 (1) (e) is not operated for profit does not necessarily mean it is efficient. The opposite view is sometimes held by people who have a great belief in the profit motive. I am not challenging that one way or the other or saying that one is necessarily more efficient than the other but there could well be problems in a non-profit making institution. The fact that grants are paid by the Minister or a health board does not necessarily mean that the institution is operated efficiently. I do not see why we should discriminate against members of religious orders or priests and remove from them the protection afforded to lay people. I wonder whether it is constitutional to make such a distinction in terms of the protection of the State and I do not understand the thinking behind this paragraph. What have we got against priests or nuns? I do not see why we should pick on them in this respect. These are most curious exceptions, perhaps the Minister can explain them but I do not think he can justify them.
The Minister then adds another number of exceptions. I wonder how many interest groups have got at him. Then we come to amendment No. 15, paragraph (g) which he has not put forward yet:
...physically handicapped persons a majority of whom do not receive whole-time nursing care in the institution,
God help the minority who will not be protected. Why should they not be protected? Another institution to be excluded in paragraph (g) (ii) is an institution:
In the management of which representatives of the Minister or a health board and representatives of the persons being maintained in the institution participate with other persons.
I know cases of bodies of that kind where certainly the public authorities have alleged there are problems. I am familiar with a recent case where there was a running battle for many months. I thought that the public institution, the health board, were wrong in their judgment in that case but they insisted though they had representatives on the board and though some of the other people were representative of the people being looked after. Nonetheless there was a long campaign on the question of the management of that body, on the question of who should manage it and whether the existing manager should be retained. I thought the health board were wrong and I did my best to ensure a different outcome from the one a Deputy from another party wanted. However, the fact that the health board took a certain views in that case does not seem to me to provide a reason for exempting such bodies. It a body with that kind of representative management and health board representation on the management is one with which the health board can be unhappy why should they not be inspected? The very case I am talking of makes nonsense of the amendment that is being made. I cannot imagine on whose behalf it was introduced. The fact that a body are being paid grants does not mean they are efficient, in fact some people would say the opposite. The fact of being grant aided will not make a body efficient or guarantee that nobody will be ill-cared for and that everybody will be properly cared for.
What the Income Tax Act has to do with the Minister has yet to be explained. No doubt there is a very good reason for the provision of paragraph (g) (iv) in the amendment and I am quite willing to hear him and if there is some special income tax provisions that ensure that people are well looked after, well fed and well cared for I would like to hear about it. I should not prejudge because that is a matter which the Minister has not yet spoken about. It is a pity that the Minister has not proposed his amendment as we are talking about an amendment that has not been proposed or justified. Perhaps we should allow the Minister get in at this stage before we talk about something about which we know little and perhaps the little we know may be wrong.
On all those grounds it seems to me that the amendments are perverse. With all due respect to all concerned they represent what one could describe, not in a pejorative way, as bureaucratic thinking and vested interests seeking to be protected and trying to narrow down the provisions of the section so that everything is excluded except what is left, some kind of residue, ragtag and bobtail. Most institutions of the State are excluded, what is the Bill about? What are we at? I do not understand why the Minister should take this line. I have no hang ups about public or private care but from the point of view of caring and looking after people we are all agreed that the Minister should look again at these provisions and I hope he will.