On this section I should like to institute what I might describe as the softening-up process of the Minister, anticipatory to an amendment that I will bring in on the Report Stage. On the Second Reading I pointed out that it was not, from the point of view of the Minister for Finance, a very satisfactory thing to put up a permanent building, the property in which would pass to the owner of the existing building when, by all ordinary medical expectation, at the end of three or four years, it would be a white sepulchre or a white elephant, as either the unfortunate person for whom it was put up would be dead or he would be cured. From the public health point of view, and from the point of view of the Minister for Finance, a grant of £150 would have been provided for a man who was dead, or for a man who was well, and although nobody could put the room in his pocket, he could put the proceeds from the sale of it. Wherever possible it would be a much more economic proposition, as well as a better proposition from the curative point of view, to provide temporary and easily-erected outdoor shelters, which would remain the property of a local authority. These could be put up when needed, and taken down when not needed, and would always be serving the purpose of helping to cure somebody instead of remaining for 80 out of a probable 100 years quite ineffective for the purpose for which they were put up. I assume that a well-built room would last 100 years. Certainly the man for whom it was put up would not be there at the end of that time.
The Minister met my suggestion, not by a frontal attack but by a flank scrimmage. He said he would accept the figures given by Senator O'Reilly that these shelters could be provided for about £30 or £40, but he thought if he took into account the cost of putting them up, and other incidental expenses, they would not be as good a proposition as they appeared. As a matter of fact there is no expense in putting them up, except the hiring of a lorry to take them to the site. They rest on concrete blocks and have revolving floors. They would take about half an hour to erect. They are meant to provide outdoor protection from the weather for people who are sleeping in them, and they have the advantage that they can be turned around to get the sun.
There is no provision in this Bill whereby county councils are to provide these shelters out of their own funds and keep possession of them. Section provides for chalets, but it does not meet my objection, because any that are put up will become the property of the owners of the ground. Although these shelters may not have a life of 100 years, if properly built wooden chalets they should have a life of 60 years, and five years after being put up they will cease, from the public health point of view, to be needed, either through their complete failure or complete success.
Therefore, I propose to introduce a new section, to the effect that where-ever a county medical officer of health or a medical superintendent certifies that a member of a household in his area is suffering from tuberculosis—I use the word tuberculosis there to indicate all tuberculosis, because the treatment of bone tuberculosis may be dealt with—and should be segregated, in such circumstance the local authority administering the scheme may provide an outdoor hut or shelter for such period as the county medical officer of health may from time to time certify it to be necessary. That will enable the county medical officer of health to certify when a shelter is immediaely necessary where a patient cannot be got into an institution. While a patient is in the institution the shelter could be taken down, and when he comes out the county medical officer can again certify that for, say, two years, it was necessary that a chalet should be provided. At the end of that time it should be packed up and taken away. In addition, a local authority may, if they think fit, make such charges as are reasonable, either by lump sum or annual payments, or the Minister for Finance may make such an allowance in respect to the provision of a shelter as he thinks fit. It is possible that the last provision would create a difficulty, although I think otherwise. However, I intend to introduce an amendment on these lines and I suggest that it is no answer to say that under the tuberculosis scheme that may be done. I do not want it done under the tuberculosis scheme. I want it under an Act where everybody will understand it, because it will be so much more efficient than providing permanent outdoor chalets, which would become the property of the ground owner, and might be only used once.
