This amendment is intended to meet a point raised by Senator Duffy on the Committee Stage in regard to the maintaining of a list in institutions and exhibiting it in a conspicuous place. That might entail a good deal of difficulty in the larger institutions. The amendment probably effects the same purpose in protecting the interests of the officer or servant and it is less cumbersome.
Mental Treatment Bill, 1944—Report and Fifth Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In page 28, to delete sub-section (2) of Section 65, and substitute the following sub-sections:—
(2) A mental hospital authority shall, on the application of an officer or servant employed by them, inform him in writing whether his name is or is not entered in the register maintained under this section by them.
(3) A mental hospital authority shall keep affixed in a conspicuous position in each institution maintained by them a notice stating that, on the application of an officer or servant employed by them, they will inform him whether his name is or is not entered in the register maintained under this section by them.
I think this is an improvement. I do not know how the situation could have been met other than in the manner suggested here. Once you get away from the list idea, some method had to be adopted by which an officer or servant could be made aware whether his name was inscribed in the register or not. I imagine that this is the only practicable and satisfactory way.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 34, Section 76, line 17, to insert before the word "after" the words "(or such longer period not exceeding six months as the Minister, if in any particular case he so thinks fit, may approve of)".
This is intended to meet another point raised by Senator Duffy and supported by Senator Kingsmill Moore. It will have the effect of giving the Minister a discretion, in certain circumstances, of extending the period within which a female nurse who retires for marriage will have to present her certificate of marriage. If the Minister is satisfied, in any particular case, he can extend the period from three months to a maximum of six. It is a compromise between the views of Senator Kingsmill Moore and those of Senator Duffy. In so far as I have been able to ascertain the views of the classes of people concerned—and that ascertainment has been very limited— they were quite satisfied with three months. They felt, as I felt, that there were potential dangers in having too long a period, within which the arrangements might break down. However, it seems to be a wise thing to make provision for the exceptional contingency.
I think the amendment meets the case adequately.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3—
In page 38, Section 86, sub-section (4), line 21, to insert before the word "after" the words "(or such longer period not exceeding six months as the Minister, if in any particular case he so thinks fit, may approve of)".
This deals with the same principle.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:—
In page 41, Section 92, sub-section (1), line 55, to delete the words "not later than six months" and substitute the words "within six months (or such longer period not exceeding twelve months as the Minister, if in any particular case so thinks fit, may approve of)".
This is to meet a point raised by Senator O'Dea, that the period of six months from the date of termination of the employment was rather short, in certain circumstances, within which an officer would have to appeal if he were to appeal at all. The Minister is again given the discretion, if he is satisfied that the period ought to be extended, within the maximum of a 12 months' period. I think that meets Senator O'Dea's point.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:—
In page 42, Section 92, sub-section (2), line 13, to delete the words "not later than six months" and substitute the words "within six months (or such longer period not exceeding twelve months as the Minister, if in any particular case he so thinks fit, may approve of)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 42, Section 92, sub-section (3), line 25, to delete the words "not later than six months" and substitute the words "within six months (or such longer period not exceeding twelve months as the Minister, if in any particular case he so thinks fit, may approve of)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:—
In page 50, Section 109, sub-section (7), line 5, to delete the figures and word "1939 to" and substitute the figures and word "1940 and".
This is a drafting amendment. Attention was drawn to this point on the Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In page 54, Section 126, line 1, to insert before the word "alteration" the word "structural".
This is to meet a point raised by the legal gentlemen here, particularly Senator Kingsmill Moore and Senator M.J. Ryan. Senator Moore was perturbed lest a change of the curtains might be interpreted in the courts as being an alteration. We have inserted the word "structural" now, in order to qualify the type of alternation.
I think this is a very necessary improvement. I know some people, concerned with charitable homes, who were not bothered about curtains but rather about the changing of a system of pipes or the removing of a basin. This will meet the case entirely.
I think it is definitely an improvement.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:—
In page 55, Section 135, line 46, to delete the word "unlawful" and substitute the word "lawful".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:—
In page 59, Section 148, line 23, to insert before the word "alteration" the word "structural".
This links with amendment No. 8.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:—
In page 96, Section 250, line 12, to insert before the word "for" the word "or".
This is a drafting amendment. It deals with a point raised by Senator Duffy, though, in fact, the new insertion is not where Senator Duffy required it. The point raised here drew the draftsman's attention to the fact that this verbal alteration would improve the structure. Senators will observe that Section 250 sets out:
"Where any person...induces or assists a patient...to escape or leave the place where he is maintained while absent on trial or parole, under treatment, for the benefit of his health,..."
The word "absent" is the governing word there—whether absent on trial, absent on parole, absent under treatment, or absent for the benefit of his health.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:—
In page 97, Section 256, line 33, to delete the words "contrary to" and substitute the words "which is not a religious service of".
We had quite a lot of discussion on this point. This is to meet the views of many members of the House on the question of a patient attending a service contrary to his religious belief. I think this meets the views of the House.
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:—
In page 107, Rule 7, line 6, to delete the words "the day after".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:—
In page 109, Rule 19 (2), line 4, to insert before the word "elect" the words "or, in the case of a resignation of office, at the meeting at which the resignation becomes effective".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:—
In page 109, Rule 19 (3), to insert in line 7 before the word "ceases" the words "resigns the office of chairman or vice-chairman or sooner"; and to delete in line 9 the words "the day after".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
At this stage perhaps I might be afforded an opportunity to remove certain misconceptions which appear to have arisen between the Parliamentary Secretary and myself on earlier stages of the Bill. In the first place, I would like to withdraw a remark which I made and which I would not have made if either my hearing had been more acute or the Parliamentary Secretary had been in the habit of speaking loudly enough to be heard by Senators like myself. I thought the Minister said that the services of chaplains were nominal in reference to the cure of mental disease. On reading the report afterwards, it was quite clear that he was only referring to the question of chaplains who had no members of their flock in the institution and therefore their services were only nominal in the sense that they had nothing to look after. I am sure he agrees that the services of chaplains who have real patients to provide for are far from nominal. I regret very much that I misunderstood what he said in that connection.
There were other matters also which arose, which raised certain broad questions that I hesitate to discuss because I would hate to say anything that might in any way hurt anyone's feelings. Yet, there are certain matters which ought to be discussed in a spirit of friendliness and frankness as between the citizens of the same country, and in the spirit of one of the most liberal, democratic constitutions existing anywhere in the world. They concern the general relations that exist or that should exist between the State, as a secular organisation, and the Churches. Those relations are admirably set out in the Constitution, and I think we should observe the spirit of the Constitution in all that concerns those relations. I think everyone will agree that everything that has to do with the spiritual welfare of our citizens is rightly left to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Churches, but the welfare of the citizen has other aspects as well as his spiritual welfare. We are all concerned with the mental and physical welfare of citizens as well as with their spiritual welfare, and while the Churches must have a monopoly of regard for the spiritual welfare of our citizens, in the other fields of civic welfare Church and State meet on common ground, so to speak, and both alike are concerned to promote in their separate ways the mental and physical welfare of citizens. For example, in matters of education the Churches have an obvious and important part to play, and the State freely recognises that the co-operation of the Churches must be sought and recognised in providing for the mental development of the younger generation. From that point of view I consider that if any matter arose in which it seemed possible that the Churches could make helpful contributions to the solution of a problem which was also the concern of the State, I, as a representative of the Oireachtas, and anyone else in a similar position, was perfectly in order in suggesting that the Churches should be disposed to consider the matter from the point of view of closer and more active co-operation with the activities of the secular authority. As even the highest dignitaries of the Church are also citizens of the State and owe obedience to the secular authority, I thought that I was perfectly in order in making that suggestion.
I seemed to notice that the Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading debate was not unsympathetic to that suggestion, but in the Third Reading debate he rather tended to frighten me off discussing the matter at all. Now, I do not want to make too big a fuss about it, but it seems to me that the Cathaoirleach is the person who should determine whether any remarks I make are in order or not, and that the Parliamentary Secretary was, perhaps, proceeding outside his function in warning me off the turf, so to speak, in making a certain suggestion. The whole matter is rather delicate, perhaps, because I happen to be a democratically-elected representative of Trinity College, and it is common knowledge, although I had forgotten it at the moment, that my constituency is not, perhaps, persona grata in certain ecclesiastical quarters. No one could deplore that fact more than I do. And when I say that I deplore that fact, I speak as a representative of a university having literally thousands of Catholic students and graduates. I am sure that in this matter I speak their mind, and I say on their behalf and on my own that from our point of view there is no atom of justification for the reasons which year after year are put forth as reasons why our college is not a desirable place for Catholic students to frequent.
Is this subject in the Bill?
It is a matter arising out of certain remarks on the last occasion.
I suggest that it should not be allowed to be discussed at all, Sir.
We will hear the Senator further.
May I say that we have always, in reference to the Mental Treatment Bill and other Bills, sought to make our contribution to the general welfare. I personally made my first contact with national ideals 40 years ago when I came to Trinity College as a very young man and happened to come across the writings and poems of Thomas Davis. I think that the conception of citizenship and nationality which Thomas Davis advocated in his day is one which we would do well to remember now. I personally subscribe to every word of it, and in all our political actions and all our national activities I hope we will do our best to live up to the ideal of citizenship and nationality which Thomas Davis advocated 100 years ago, he being then a student or graduate of Trinity College.
On a point of order, Sir, what has this to do with the Bill?
Am I out of order?
I am afraid you are, Senator. I do not see how this is related to the Bill before the House, although it is interesting.
I read all of Davis, but he did not write anything about mental treatment.
Well, if Thomas Davis is out of order, then I shall not delay the House further, but there are certain things I have said, and anyway, they are on record now. I should like to say, however, that we in Trinity College are anxious to make a constant contribution to the welfare of the people and in that connection I would remind the House of something which Davis wrote:—
"And oh! it were a gallant deed
To show before mankind,
How every race and every creed
Might be by love combined—
Might be combined, yet not forget
The fountains whence they rose,
As, filled by many a rivulet,
The stately Shannon flows."
We are anxious to make our contribution to the current of our national life.
You made a good contribution last Monday, anyway.
I think that on this stage there is very little more to be said. We have discussed the Bill very thoroughly and I think that whatever our contribution has been it has improved the Bill. I think I can make that claim, because practically all the amendments submitted to-day and adopted by this House were, on the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is in charge of the Bill, the result of our suggestion. On the last occasion I complained with regard to one matter and promised, or threatened, if you like to have it that way, that I would introduce an amendment. I want to explain now why that amendment was not introduced. On looking over other legislation which was passed during the last four or five years I found that so far as the placing of contracts was concerned, there is no prohibition in respect of the members of any local authority to hold contracts with that authority. Therefore, there would be no point in introducing an amendment to this Bill having effect only in regard to the members of a joint board, whereas the same would not apply to members of local authorities generally. I regret that the law has been so altered, but I cannot help it. It is there, and I do not propose to discuss it further.
With regard to the matter raised by Senator Johnston, it is regrettable that when we are dealing with a measure of this kind, which is purely of a machinery character, there should be imported into the discussion matters which are entirely foreign to it. That kind of thing will do this House no good. The contribution which this House ought to make, if it is to make any contribution at all, or if the Seanad is to be of any value under our Constitution, is a contribution which seeks to improve the legislation coming before the House, and personally I do not see very much point in discussing political speeches or in justifying a particular point of view on these Bills. That can be done elsewhere. It is not necessary that it should be done here and it is not necessarily done well when it is done here. When I interrupted the Senator it was not for the purpose of denying him the right to defend the institution whose graduates elected him to this House. My intention was simply to prevent, if I could, this House being led into a discussion which could have no effect but to damage the position of the House in relation to legislation.
On the last occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary paid a tribute to the officials with whose help this Bill was framed, and I think we ought not to let the Bill pass without expressing our gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary himself. We must all have been struck, as was pointed out by Senator Duffy, by the way in which he met and accepted the suggestions offered to him. He did not turn them down, but took the view that practically all the suggestions made were made for the express purpose of ensuring that the Bill would be as good a Bill as the House could make it. That was what was in everybody's mind. As Senator Duffy pointed out, most of the amendments accepted on Report Stage were put forward by various members of the House and accepted by him in the proper spirit. It is a model for the proceedings of a House like ours. I think we ought to congratulate ourselves upon it and regret that any false note should have been struck at the end.
I do not propose to pursue the line of discussion pursued by Senator Johnston. There is no matter in relation to the Bill which has been raised with which it is necessary to deal. Naturally, I am not going to enter into a discussion as to the propriety of the attitude of the Catholic Church towards Trinity College. That is a matter that ought not to concern us here. Neither ought we to enter into a discussion as to the attitude adopted by Trinity College on various issues in the past, recent or remote. I have no doubt that if we did indulge in such a discussion, we would have a variety of conflicting views expressed here. It certainly is not appropriate to this Bill and I doubt the appropriateness of such a discussion in any circumstances.
It might result in some new patients.
I want to avail of the Final Stage of the Bill to thank the House for their helpful criticism and co-operation with me. It is a very big measure, and I personally have been very closely associated with it and personally very much interested in the good effects which I hope will accrue from its passage. Both Houses have been very helpful, and the Bill has been substantially improved by the criticism and assistance I got from the members of this House. It is encouraging to find that, when we bring before the Oireachtas a measure which ought not to be contentious, all sections of the House combine in an effort to make it a better measure. It is the duty of and an obligation on the Minister in charge of a Bill to take advantage of any useful suggestions which may be made for the purpose of improving the legislation. What we ought to be concerned about, and what I personally am concerned about in relation to public health and social reforms is, when passing legislation, to make it as perfect as possible.
In relation to this measure, the Oireachtas, the Government and everybody associated with the measure, have very good reason to be proud of it. I think we have done a good day's work, and I hope we shall all live to see the fruits of that work. I have no doubt that it will bear fruit, and that it provides machinery by which we can reduce the magnitude of one of our great social problems.
I am certain that we could not make very much headway with our measures for dealing with mental disease and the treatment of mental disease, particularly in the early stages, without the radical alteration of the law which the Oireachtas has now brought about. I hope that, when we begin to bring this measure into operation and require the co-operation of the local authorities and of the public, we will get—I have no doubt that we will— the co-operation of members of the Oireachtas and of this House particularly in getting the necessary understanding amongst the public to enable us to furnish ourselves with the money to make the Bill effective. As we all agreed during the course of the discussion, we cannot make it fully effective without money, and money in liberal quantities, but we equally agree that money spent on such an object is well spent and that our efforts ought not to be curtailed by financial considerations. I hope that spirit will be carried down through the country, so that we will get the same intelligent and enlightened outlook from the members of local authorities as we have got from the members of the Oireachtas.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be returned to the Dáil with amendments.