Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I indicate, at this point, that I am not allowing amendment No. 3 as tabled by Senator Duffy. The Bill as it came forward for Committee dealt with the establishment of two Departments. The amendment proposes the disestablishment of an existing Department of State, a purpose which is clearly outside of the Bill as read a Second Time. In the circumstances, amendment No. 3 may not be moved.
Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill, 1946—Committee and Final Stages.
May I make a submission to you? The Title of the Bill is:
"An Act to provide for the establishment of a Department of Health and a Department of Social Welfare, and for that and other purposes to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1939."
It appeared to me that I would be entitled to submit an amendment having for its purpose the amending of the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1939. In moving this amendment, I had in mind that the great majority of the functions of the Department of Local Government and Public Health will be transferred elsewhere, that is, to the two new Departments. It appeared to me, therefore, that we ought to have an opportunity to discuss, on an amendment of this kind, whether the Department of Local Government and Public Health should be continued.
Not on this Bill, Senator. The purpose of the Bill, as I have said, is to establish two new Ministries.
With all respect, and to amend the Ministers and Secretaries Acts, 1924 to 1939.
But only for purposes incidental to the main purpose, Senator.
Section 4 does not come within that category.
It does, and in any event that section was in the Bill as read a Second Time.
The White Paper points out that the Bill is being availed of for another purpose.
Section 4 was in the Bill as read a Second Time.
I agree that it is in the Bill, but I wish to point out that the Bill has other and further purposes than that of establishing two new Minitries. Paragraph 6 of the White Paper says that advantage is being taken of the introduction of the Bill to amend the law relating to the assignment of State Departments and the termination of such assignments. Therefore it is proposed to amend the existing law in respect to that matter and provide that the Taoiseach may from time to time assign a particular Department of State to a member of the Government and may assign more than one to the same person. All that seems to me to suggest that there is something more envisaged in this Bill than merely the establishing of two new Ministries. I would like you to consider whether the abolition of a specified Department is not a question that can be raised on the Bill. I raised it on the Second Reading.
I considered these points, Senator. An amendment of similar subject matter if put forward on the Second Stage in the form of a reasoned amendment, would I should think, have been in order, but certainly could not be accepted on the Committee Stage. It would give rise to a new situation entirely.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No 1:—
In sub-section (5), page 2, line 37, to delete the words "immediately on the passing of this Act" and substitute therefor the words "on the first day of April, 1947".
On the last occasion, when this Bill was before the House, a question was raised by the Minister in relation to the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of implementing this Bill. It seems to me that that difficulty would be overcome if we were to delete from the Bill the words indicated in the amendment, that is to say, the words "immediately upon the passing of this Act" and insert instead a provision that the Bill would come into force on the 1st April, which is the commencement of the financial year. I think that would get over the difficulty which the Minister had in mind and to which he adverted on the last occasion. Both these amendments are linked. There is not much point in making an amendment to Section 2 unless we make a corresponding amendment to Section 3, so I take it that whatever decision is reached by the House in relation to one will govern the other.
Very well, Senator.
I do not think there is very great point or weight in the amendment, apart from the fact that it meets the difficulty adverted to by the Minister last week. I think that that would assist him and avoid the need for Supplementary Estimates. There would have to be two Supplementary Estimates under this Bill if the wording of sub-section (5) of Sections 2 and 3 were to stand.
Mr. Hawkins
I should like to have a further explanation from the Senator of this amendment. I understand that its adoption would mean that the Bill would be left in cold storage until the 1st April. That would be tantamount to holding up the passage of the Bill.
I am sorry, but I did not hear a word the Senator said.
The Senator has pointed out that the effect of this amendment would be to hold up the Bill.
That is incorrect. There is nothing in the amendment which prevents the Minister making an Order under sub-section (1) of Section 2. In that sub-section, it is provided that the Government "may by Order, appoint a day to be the appointed day for the purposes of this section." It seems to me that there is a distinction between "the appointed day" and the provision of sub-section (5) under which the office of Minister for Health "shall be deemed to have been established immediately upon the passing of this Act". It is not proposed that the Minister for Health shall be deemed to be appointed on the appointed day.
I think that this amendment would make the Bill rather ridiculous. Under sub-section (2) of Section 2, it is provided that "on the appointed day a Department of State to be styled and known as An Roinn Sláinte or (in English) the Department of Health shall stand established". Senator Duffy brings in an amendment to delete the words in sub-section (5) "immediately on the passing of this Act" and substitute the words "on the first day of April, 1947". The Bill reads quite properly as it is but there will be a contradiction of terms if these amendments be carried. I say that because the same remark would apply to the next amendment. The whole thing would be inconsistent and, as Senator Hawkins has pointed out, it would hold up the operation of the Bill. Apparently it is necessary to rush the Bill through. Yet it is proposed to insert an amendment to hold it up until the 1st April, before the new Estimates would be brought in.
This amendment is directed to a question raised by the Minister on the last day. He emphasised the difficulty of introducing Supplementary Estimates when stating that he wanted the Bill immediately. If there is such difficulty, the easiest way to avoid it is to have the Ministries established on the 1st April, the beginning of the financial year.
Mr. Hawkins
So far as I understood, the point made on the last occasion was that it was essential that this Bill should pass into law as early as possible so that the Ministers to be appointed to undertake the various functions allocated to them would be in a position to do so. That would make possible the introduction of Supplementary Estimates later in the year. The amendment, as proposed by Senator Duffy, would have the effect of holding up the operation of the Bill until 1st April, 1947. The result of that would be that it would be necessary to bring in Supplementary Estimates later in the year to cover up the position. He is creating the difficulty which he stated he was trying to avoid.
Perhaps the Senator will explain the distinction between the two provisions in Section 5. One relates to the appointed day while the other states that the Ministries shall be established on the passing of the Act— that is, before the appointed day.
Surely the onus to explain his amendment rests on the Senator. The amendment specifies a certain day which appears to be a red-letter day in the Senator's calendar. It would defeat the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Bill by making the Act become operative for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1939 only on the 1st April, 1947. I should have thought that the Senator would be good enough to explain why it was necessary for that purpose to defer the date upon which the Department of Health would be deemed to be established until 1st April. I have not heard any explanation from him. I am quite willing to discuss the question reasonably—if there is any reason behind this amendment—but I have not heard from the Senator any real justification for it, nor have I heard what purpose it is intended to serve.
He did say, I admit, that it was designed to meet a point which had been made by me on the Second Reading of the Bill. I adduced a number of arguments on the Second Reading of the Bill in support of my request that this Bill should be dealt with as an urgent measure and that the Seanad, having accepted the principles of the Bill by passing the Second Reading, should not defer consideration of the remaining Stages until some time early in the new year. The first argument I put forward in support of that request was that critical questions of principle remained to be decided by the Ministers who would be ultimately in charge of the new Departments and that, until the Bill would be passed, it would not be possible to appoint Ministers; so that no person with any sense of fitness would take responsibility for deciding those questions to the preclusion of the Ministers who would be ultimately responsible for submitting the policies to the Oireachtas.
The second point I made was that very large administrative questions remain to be dealt with, some of them involving the allocation of very large sums of money, and that neither the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who might be concerned in relation to some of these matters, nor the present Minister for Local Government, would feel justified in deciding them when he was well aware that, within a comparatively short period, somebody else would find himself committed by those decisions taken in advance—decisions which he might not, in the exercise of his own judgment, think proper.
Those were the two major arguments which I submitted to the Seanad as the justification for my request that, notwithstanding the decision which I understood had been arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and notwithstanding any inconvenience it might involve—and I readily admit that it would have been inconvenient— members of the Seanad ought, before the adjournment for the Christmas recess, to consider all stages of the Bill and allow it to become law, if possible before the end of the year. These were the two major grounds upon which, as I say, I made that request and I fail to see how the Senator's amendment would meet either of them. It is quite true that, in the reports which appeared in the newspapers, these two very vital arguments were completely omitted, and in an editorial one of our Dublin newspapers the other day thought fit to criticise the course I was urging last week upon the Seanad, and gave the impression that I was urging it merely on the ground that it might facilitate the House in dealing with financial questions during the next financial year. But the real grounds for asking the Seanad to deal with this question as one of urgency were the two I have referred to. Both of these intimately affect the welfare of the people. I know that, when this matter was before the Seanad last week, Senator Hayes was quite jocose about it, and said that we had waited so long for the establishment of these Ministries——
Are we discussing the amendment or Senator Hayes? Would the Minister allow me to make a point? This is a season of peace and perhaps the most urgent need in this country at the moment is peace. The more the Minister says about this amendment, the longer this Bill will take, and the more urgent the Minister represents the Bill to be, the longer it will take to pass the Bill. If the Minister would only consult Senator Hawkins and be a little like him, this Bill would go through in no time.
I should like to be able to accept that assurance on the part of Senator Hayes, but I am afraid he cannot speak for Senator Duffy.
I can speak about Senator Duffy and can shorten the proceedings by that process.
It is quite clear that Senator Hayes, whatever other affiliations he might or might not have with far-eastern Europe, at least does believe in the iron curtain of misrepresentation.
Oh, for heaven's sake!
I was about to point out that this matter should not be taken jocosely or lightly, that everybody knows that there is an urgent need to provide for increased hospitalisation and everybody knows that there are urgent public health problems awaiting attention. I suppose it is not known to the Seanad, but it has been indicated to the Dáil that a review of a number of social welfare measures has already been made and that it would be possible, within a comparatively short period of time, to submit amendments to some of our existing social legislation for the benefit of the people. Some members of the House apparently think that people who have been clamouring to get into sanatoria, people who want to get into hospitals, can wait another month, two, three or four months, as they have waited so long, to suit the convenience or the particular foibles of some Senators; but that is not the point of view of the Minister, of the Government, or, I am sure, of the majority of the members of the Seanad or the people of the country.
Or indeed of anybody, because nobody believes that.
I am not trying to misrepresent the Senator in any way; I am merely pointing out that, even if it were true—and it is not—that as we waited for 20 years, we could afford to wait for another two or three months, the fact of the matter is that the moment this Bill was introduced, the moment it was accepted by the Seanad, a peculiar situation was created. A sort of interregnum exists in which at least two important Ministers of the Government cannot function fully and in which other people who have urgent and great work to do are being held back. I am making that case because it seems to me that it should be quite clear to everybody that it is not out of pique or out of impatience, but out of nothing but a real concern for the public welfare that the Minister and the Government have asked the Seanad to come here this evening to consider the remaining stages of the Bill. I am very grateful to those Senators—members of the Opposition as well as those who habitually support the Government— who, at some personal inconvenience, have come here to assist us in this matter. No doubt the Senator who put down these amendments is as anxious as I am that the best thing possible should be done, but he has not, in the course of his remarks recommending these amendments to the Seanad, shown in what way his amendment to Section 2 will help me in dealing with the situation as I have outlined it, or in what way it will render it possible to take these important decisions of principle and of administration which are now being held up awaiting the passage of this Bill.
I do not want to delay the enactment of this legislation by one hour and nothing I have said or done contradicts that statement. I am, however, concerned about the fact—and I am sure that other members are equally concerned—that while there is ample opportunity in the Dáil to discuss Supplementary Estimates, there is no such opportunity in this House. Once this Bill passes through the House to-day—and no doubt it will pass, without any unnecessary delay— we lose control with regard to anything being done under it until we get the Finance Bill some time in 1947.
The Dáil is in a different position. When these Departments are established and the two new Ministries created, it will be the first duty of the new Ministers to approach the Dáil with Supplementary Estimates in which everything concerned with the establishment of the Ministries—their policy, their hopes and their fears— will be open to discussion. You, Sir, realise that that is not our privilege. We have no opportunity of discussing the establishment of these Ministries until we get the Finance Bill or perhaps the Appropriation Bill, and it seems to me, therefore, not unreasonable on the part of a member of this House to place on the Order Paper an amendment to both these sections so that we might have some enlightenment from the Minister as to what is proposed.
The Minister has not thought it desirable to discuss anything except merely the urgency of this measure, and I do not intend to criticise him for the line he has taken, although, if one were tempted, one might point out that the Ministers who are carrying out these functions already—because they are not new functions—seem to devote considerable time and talent to their jobs and I do not think it likely that the public interest is neglected by the present holders of the various offices concerned, and I am not so sure that there would be a vast improvement immediately merely because these Ministries are established.
If there is nothing more to be said on the matter, and if the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to have these two new Ministries established on the passing of this measure, and if he does not desire to say anything more in regard to the duties which will fall on these Ministers, and, further, if we are to be denied the opportunity of discussing this matter until some time next year, well, I am satisfied. I have put my case to the House, and that is all I could do.
I do not agree with this amendment, but I think I do understand why it was put down. We had some discussion last Thursday evening as to when we were going to take this Bill. My date for the passing of it was January 15th, and I adhere to that. Senator Duffy last Thursday evening, when speaking in the House, at column 416 of the Seanad Debates, said:
"If it is necessary to get this Bill through before the end of the year, I am agreeable that the House should meet to consider the Bill."
That was his view last Thursday. I think that in the interval, he made up his mind that it would be a good thing to destroy the Department of Local Government utterly and completely. There are some good arguments for that, but owing to the decision which the Chair has given it was not possible for the Senator to move his amendment dealing with that. It seems to me that what Senator Duffy was doing was that he put down these two amendments to give the Taoiseach until the 1st April to get rid of the Department of Local Government, seeing that he would not be allowed to try to get rid of it on this stage of this Bill. The amendments do not make any sense, and therefore I think there is no use in arguing about them.
Senator Duffy's anxiety seems to be to have an opportunity of discussing certain matters arising out of these two Ministries when they are established between now and such time as the Estimates for the two new Departments may come before us. May I ask, is there anything to prevent him raising any matter that he may think fit by way of motion at any time between this and the time that the Estimate comes before us, or if any matter of urgency should arise could he not raise it by way of motion on the Adjournment? I think that, if the matter can be raised in either of these two ways, he has not any ground for such fears as he has expressed in the course of his speech.
If the Senator will give me an assurance that, in the event of such a motion being put down, the Minister will come to the House and discuss it, I am prepared to consider it.
The Minister will answer for himself on that.
In order to shorten the discussion, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Now that the amendment has been withdrawn, may I point out that Senator O Buachalla is quite correct in what he says. Any Orders made under Section 6 of the 1939 Act must be tabled before both Houses of the Oireachtas, so that this House will then have the opportunity of considering what merits the proposed transfers have.
Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, there is one matter that I want to raise. I hope I am in order in doing so. If the Chair would prefer, I am prepared to raise it on the Final Stage of the Bill. The matter arises directly out of the proposal in the Bill to appoint a specific Minister for Health. I have no doubt that the House and the Minister are aware that in April last I tabled a motion in this House. On that occasion the Taoiseach did the House and, perhaps, myself, the compliment of attending, and of speaking on the motion. The motion was in the following terms:
"That the Seanad takes note of the intention of the Government to appoint two new Ministers within the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and requests the Government to issue a Paper embodying the principles of the proposed change and further to afford the House an opportunity to debate the matter before the actual legislation is introduced."
There was a considerable debate on that motion, in the course of which the Taoiseach said that the motion was rather remote from my remarks. He did say this:
"The proposed changes in the public health system as we have it at the moment have been set out in the form of a draft White Paper. They have been circulated to Departments and are under consideration. In due course they will be considered by the Government. Is the White Paper going to represent the considered views of the Government? It must be close to the Government's intentions. Otherwise it would not have the same appeal and would not stimulate the type of criticism you want. It will not stir up public opinion if it merely expresses opinions which may or may not be adopted. You want to have it fairly close to the considered views of the Government—in fact, practically indicating the heads of a Bill which the Government would introduce. I have already told you that the Senator's demand is being met and that a White Paper will be circulated."
We still await the White Paper. I should like the Minister, if he will, to tell us when we may expect it. I am really not so concerned as to whether we should have the White Paper before or after this Bill is passed. This Bill, which is important, is mainly an administrative or machinery Bill. I do, however, press the point that it is very necessary, if we are to discharge our duties intelligently and with due regard to this problem as a whole, that we should have an outline of the Minister's proposals.
I am not going to take up the time of the House now by pointing out how the whole of our health services are due for early reform, how there is a very large element of chaos under which the sick poor are suffering so far as our health services are concerned, how our hospital accommodation is inadequate, and how our dispensary system in this city is almost, I might say, a disgrace, and how it is bearing altogether unevenly on the skilled services supplied in the outpatients' departments of our hospitals. I mention these matters only by way of reference. I do ask the Minister and the Government to let us see their proposals for the reform of the entire range of our public health services: to let us see them in a considered form. Although I may never have had actual administrative responsibility myself, yet I know enough about the way Government Departments work to know how inconvenient it is politically to have to think out a complete scheme and commit yourself to it. I know that from every point of view, including that of political tactics, it is better to work piecemeal so that you may be able to change your ground according to the way the political wind blows. That is not the business way of doing things.
I am asking the Minister now to say if he is going to carry out the promise given by the Taoiseach, which I have just read, and whether he is going to let us have a White Paper embodying his proposals in a considered form— proposals covering the whole range of our health services. These health services are long due for overhaul and reform. I ask him to let us see his proposals as a whole before we are committed to passing legislation so that we may have an opportunity of discussing them in advance, according to the new method. The new method by which democratic institutions work is to consider questions in advance before committing Parliament to specific legislation. I make no apology for referring to the procedure that was adopted by the Minister of Health in another place, or to the fact that British practice was called in in relation to the Statistics Bill. I say that the only way in which you can ever hope to educate a democracy is by giving a non-committal outline of your proposals so that they may be discussed in Parliament and in the Press. In the light of such criticism as these discussions give rise to, the Minister can then come along and introduce definite legislative proposals. In the case of our medical services, shall we proceed on these lines? I believe I am entitled to an answer to that question.
There is one point I would like to mention, and it applies to Sections 2 and 3. I think the Minister said in the other House that the establishment of these two new Ministries would lead to co-ordination but not to further expense. I think that is a pious aspiration and a hope— about further administrative expense. Is that wrong?
I said something like that, with certain qualifications. The first was that if there would be no expansion in the services, it would lead to no further expense. Naturally, an expansion in the services would probably lead to additional expense which may to some extent be set off by certain minor economies.
The very setting up of two new Ministries, with two new heads of Departments and all the necessary civil servants in each Department, is bound to lead to more administrative expense. I do not believe anybody would think it possible to have this kind of thing without spending money on it. The very setting up of the Departments is bound to lead to expense. No matter what hope the Minister may have, and no matter what step the Minister for Finance or his officers may take, the thing is bound to be expensive.
It means the addition of two new Ministers to the number we have already, and at one time, when the present Minister was in opposition, that number was thought to be too great. If the things—and I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that they are urgent things—which need to be done, are done, it is bound to put greater expense on Central Funds and, as it may well work out, very great expense on the rates. The operation of Sections 2 and 3 is bound to involve considerable extra expense. Even though at present certain services are scattered over different places and there will be certain economies in bringing them together, the net result will be an increase on the Central Funds and on local taxation.
When Senator Sir John Keane was quoting from the Taoiseach's statement here in the House, he mentioned what I think expresses the really critical element in this matter as to whether we should have the White Paper before this Bill, or the Bill first and the White Paper before the introduction of the measures which would be necessary to give effect to Government policy. The Taoiseach asked this question: "Is the White Paper going to represent the considered views of the Government? It must be close to the Government's intentions"—and, naturally, it must also express the intentions, in so far as they have been formulated in discussions with his colleagues, of the Minister who will be responsible for the development of the health services.
The House is not unaware of the events of the summer, which rather disorganised my programme and the programme of the Government in regard to this matter. Under my general direction as Minister, the programme of reform had reached a very advanced stage and, if matters had proceeded as we had then intended, it is possible that the White Paper would have been published before the Bill came to the Oireachtas for consideration. The reason why that would have been possible is that there were certain decisions which I would have been in a position to take, certain recommendations which I would have been in a position to make to the Government. In view of subsequent events, however, the Bill must now come before the White Paper, as it would be improper for me to submit to the Government in final form a programme which may have to be implemented by another person as Minister for Health. That is, in fact, the position.
It is essential, as I said in the other House, that whoever will be Minister for Health, or whoever will be responsible as Minister for Social Welfare, must have the last word with the Government and the first word with the Oireachtas in relation to the measures he proposes to submit to it. For that reason it has now become essential, and it has now become a matter of urgency, that we should pass this Bill, so that the proposals which are in a very advanced stage may be finally considered by the person who may be ultimately responsible for carrying them out. As soon as the measure is passed and it is possible for the responsible Minister to bring his independent judgment to bear upon the programme which already has been formulated, then the White Paper, if accepted by the Government, will be published, and I think it will be published very early in the new year.
I must confess I find it difficult to follow the Minister's reasoning in this matter. It will be very hard for him to convince the House that the Minister who will be in the Department of Public Health will come in on a whirlwind with all sorts of new plans for the overhauling of that Department. Such a thing is really fantastic and I rather assume that what the new Minister will do will be to implement the plans which the present Minister has formulated and which were ready to be put into operation if certain unpleasant events had not occurred.
There is another consideration. Surely the plans have been decided upon by the Government. We have the statement which the Minister has made, namely, that he had his plans in a very advanced stage early in the summer and his position would have been very different if certain things had not happened. One would like to believe that his plans had the approval of the Government. The position of the new Minister, whoever he will be, will surely be that he will be presented with something that his predecessor in office had already shaped for him. I think we can go down the line further and accept it that most of the plans already have been submitted to the Minister for his approval and that he will draw his blue pencil through what is not acceptable.
What Senator Sir John Keane suggests is both a practical proposition and a terrible necessity. If the new Minister will come in with a new Bill, it is important that the country should know what it will be committed to and it is essential that the people should be given whatever information is available to the Government. It is very unwise to introduce a measure the implications of which are so vast that nobody can calculate reasonably accurately what the cost of it will be to the country. I think that the Minister for Public Health will have every sympathy in the Oireachtas for his proposals; but the House and the country are entitled to know what the nation will have to spend on these services. The right way for the Minister to approach that is to carry out the undertaking given by the Taoiseach and let us have such a White Paper.
Earlier, Senator Hayes made reference to what the Minister stated in the Dáil with regard to what it will be possible to achieve in co-ordinating these services by the establishment of these new Ministries. That is just one aspect of the Bill about which I am most concerned. I think that you will have considerable overlapping and difficulties arising which cannot be easily straightened out which would not arise with one Minister running the three services as at present and that rather than co-ordinating the various activities, getting quick decisions and geting on with the work in a number of ways, you may very well hold up many decisions that should be taken urgently. I just want to emphasise what Senator Sir John Keane has said and to say that I think the White Paper should have been available to the country at the earliest stage and that all the plans and the reasons for them should have appeared in that White Paper before we were presented with the Bill.
I only want to refer to two aspects of Section 2. First of all, I want to ask the Minister to confirm, as I imagine he will confirm, that the position in regard to the Department of Public Health will be that, in so far as local authorities are concerned, the contact between the new Department and the local authorities will be through the local authorities, that it will not be a direct contact between the medical officer of health and the Department concerned. If there is to be any attempt to jump a step in that direction, I can see complete chaos arising. There has been some feeling that the step is to be jumped. Although I think that is unlikely, I should like the Minister to confirm that.
The other thing I should like the Minister to answer is this. Is it to be one of the functions of the new Minister for Health to have any relation or liaison with the Red Cross Society? Is the tightening up of that society under Governmental direction to be a function of the Minister for Health or has the Minister for Social Welfare, when we come to the next section, any say in regard to any particular branch under this Bill as it stands?
I should like to put a question on this section with regard to one matter. The explanatory memorandum circulated indicates the services which will be administered under the Minister for Health. I observe there is no reference in that memorandum to the position of housing. Where is that to come in? We have urban housing and we have, of course, rural housing—labourers' cottages. Both these services are now administered by the Department of Local Government and Public Health. There is no indication as to whether they are to be transferred under this Bill. It seems to me that they ought to be transferred. I think that housing is a part of a health service. It is inconceivable that a Department of Public Health would be equipped to deal with health problems which will arise unless it is in a position to control the housing policy of the State. There may be another view as to how that will be done; but I am anxious that we should have as little overlapping as possible.
The position as I see it under this Bill is that in all likelihood there will be three Government Departments dealing with the activities of the local authorities. We shall have a health Ministry dealing with the functions mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. That says that the services to be transferred will not include certain things but will include others. For instance, they will not include sanitation, but they will include the co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people. In respect to these services, the local authority will be responsible to the Minister for Health. In respect to services, such as home assistance or poor law assistance, the same local authority will be responsible to the Minister for Social Welfare. If, for instance, housing is to remain a separate and distinct service, the local authority will be responsible to some other Minister and some Department for its housing policy. It seems to me that that is a most undesirable situation and that it will not lead to efficiency in local administration.
One might ask whether this would involve three separate sets of inspectors having contact with the local authorities and the local officials, the county managers and the city managers being responsible for the carrying out of their duties to three bodies of inspectors. These inspectors will have all the peculiarities that individuals have and sometimes the jealousies and ambitions of individuals and one can see that in the giving of instructions there may be a conflict between the inspectors of the different Departments. The matter is one which ought to be considered. I do not know how far the Minister is in a position to say what the Government policy will be in regard to the matter; but I take it that as he is responsible for presenting the Bill he has a pretty good idea as to what is to happen when these new Departments are established and when, as I say, all these questions arise as to the relationship between the Departments themselves and between the local authorities and the several Departments to which they will be responsible.
Sanitation will be retained to be dealt with by the Department of Local Government. I do not know why it has been suggested that no White Paper has been issued. I have seen a White Paper dealing with this Bill. It is right, I think, that drainage and sewerage should be left to the same Department as deals with the maintenance of roads, that is, the Department of Local Government. It would be very awkward if you had two Departments, one perhaps making a new road, and the other coming along later and ripping it up to lay sewerage and drainage or for some other purpose. It is a very good thing to leave drainage and sewerage in the hands of the Department of Local Government as now constituted. Housing, I understand, will also be dealt with by the Department of Local Government and, in my opinion, that is a good thing. If the local authority must have engineers for the maintenance of roads and for laying sewerage works, that Department should also look after houses because, if there are grants or loans for houses, they will have to be satisfied that the houses are properly built and that they have been built to the satisfaction of the council's engineer. Therefore it is better that they should remain in the hands of the council and of the Department of Local Government as now constituted. I do not understand why Senator Sweetman asked the question he did ask.
Because he wanted to know the answer.
There have been Acts dealing with public health since 1878 all of which state that it is the local authority that must do what has to be done in compliance with these Acts. Therefore, unless there is a Bill introduced to repeal all these Acts that have been passed, the Senator need not fear that the works will be taken out of the hands of the local councils. Perhaps the local councils would be glad if they were taken out of their hands and that all the services should fall on the Central Fund.
Did the Senator read the White Paper? There is one sentence in it which implies that it is going to be taken out of the hands of the local councils.
May I see that sentence?
It is in paragraph 4 where it says "which are at present controlled by the local authorities", thereby implying that after the Bill is passed they will not be so controlled. The Senator has a copy of the White Paper containing the exact words.
It says: "These functions will include the supervision of the direct preventive and curative health services which are at present the responsibility of county councils, county borough councils, sanitary authorities and public assistance authorities." I cannot see how the Senator implies from that that they are going to be taken out of the hands of these authorities. That is merely a definition of the services, surely? I do not take any other meaning out of it and I do not think anybody else could.
We will wait until we hear the Minister. The Senator and I differed as to what a definition means the last day.
If the public health authorities have to raise the rates, naturally they must have estimates and must know what is the work that has to be done. If the work is to be taken out of their hands I presume that they will not be asked to raise any rate for the purpose but that it will all fall upon the Central Fund. I do not know whether or not that would be a good thing. I do not think it would be. It would be better that each local authority should bear the costs of its own social services and its own public health services. I will watch with interest the new Bills that will be introduced to see if they have any intention of carrying out what Senator Sweetman appears to think the White Paper implies. It will be very interesting.
The trend of the discussion has certain implications, at least to me, that I hope the Minister will recognise and deal with, for the incoming post of Minister. Certainly for the last ten years I have urged the appointment of a Minister for Public Health, one reason being, of course, that while we had a secretary, there were always the difficulties that arise when you had the relationship between a rather technical expert, that a Secretary must be, and a Minister who might not really be primarily trained in that subject.
Now that difficulty, I hope, is going to be abolished by the appointment of a man who will be technically qualified, a specialist and also a man of vision in undertaking the great tasks and great opportunities that this new appointment involves. I think it is latent in the trend of the discussion at present, how far one is justified in attempting to tie down an incoming man by an exact programme. I, for one, hope that the Government in appointing this new Minister will go to a considerable amount of trouble in getting the right man for the first Minister. Once a Ministry is established, we all know that Cabinets are so versatile that any Minister can take on any job in the musical chairs that occasionally occurs in Cabinets but I think it is very important to get the right man for the first appointment. It is said that the achievements of a country are the measure of the shadows of its early leaders. The workings of a Department are just the fingerprints of the first Minister.
My objection to the trend of paragraph 4 in the White Paper, which sets forth the functions of this Ministry, is that they are a little bit too passive. I have argued elsewhere that the right to health is implicit in the right to live. We have the right to live and I believe we have the right to be healthy and I think it is the duty of the Government to see that we are healthy. A Ministry of Health should not merely try to make us well when we are sick but should have as its first aim the purpose of keeping us well. Consequently, I hope when these functions are amplified, the subject of nutrition will get due prominence. There are many other aspects which can be dealt with later.
The second thing is the relationship of the proposals to the medical profession in this country. I hope the medical profession, organised, and not so well organised, will have a chance of discussing them. The now deceased Public Health Bill was to a certain extent discussed by the medical profession and it was asserted that some of them understood it. Well, they understood it in the sense that a person can recognise an egg but he cannot always tell whether it has a hen or a serpent in it. The medical profession is, of course, organised in the sense that its knowledge is available, and gladly available, to the Minister through certain channels.
I do not like to suggest a referendum card but I do think a certain amount of correspondence and circularisation could be conducted with the medical profession to see that no sections of it will feel that they have been ignored, overlooked, slighted or in any other way given a grievance when the actual drafting of this extremely important Bill comes forward.
The third thing is the question of expense. I believe that is going to be very great indeed if the incoming Bill is going to be worked properly. Health to-day is not a luxury; it is a necessity, but it is an expensive necessity and to be done properly we will have to count on spending a good deal of money. Whether that money is going to be diverted from some other source or whether it is going to come from our own pockets, I do not know but, in the other House, the Minister defined social welfare as the income-maintaining service. I hope the activities of the Public Health Department will not deplete our income in that sense.
These are the three points I wish to make: One is that I think it is exceptionally important that we should get a man of vision, character and positive drive for this Ministry, a man who will be able to leave a mark for subsequent Ministers to live up to; secondly, that the medical and possibly some of the other learned professions in the country be given an opportunity to make themselves heard and, thirdly, that expense be not stinted.
Before passing from this section I should like to emphasise one point. The term "White Paper" is becoming rather loose in its application. The last speaker also referred to the "White Paper". It was white and it was paper, but it was really an explanatory memorandum. I should like the Minister to bear in mind that a White Paper has a certain definite significance. I do not know whether the White Paper he has promised us early in the new year is going to embody that significance. A White Paper is generally an outline of proposals on which the Government would like the opinion of Parliament and of the country—in Parliament by resolution, and in the country by discussion by local authorities and in the Press, supplemented by wireless talks for those who can afford wireless sets, so as to get the reactions of the community generally on these proposals. That would be getting somewhere back to the old idea of democracy, as applied to civilised communities. That procedure would save the Government a lot of time and obviate a lot of criticism. It would obviate the possibility of their being called a lot of names and prevent their being charged with dictatorship and autocracy. The fact that we have been promised a White Paper does represent certain progress, but is this White Paper merely to contain the details of a definite policy on which the Government has decided? If so, it is going to involve Government prestige and all the difficulty of amendment of a Bill in which that policy is enshrined. It does, however, represent some progress that we are going to get something in advance of an explanatory memorandum, but I should like to ask the Minister whether we are going to get a document which will carry something more of the real import of a White Paper. I think it would be far better to have a White Paper that would give us beforehand an outline of the Government's proposals, even if it means that a Bill must be delayed for six months. I would far prefer to have six months' delay if the country were facilitated in that way. I do hope the Minister and the Government will consider that approach in dealing with important legislation, even if it involves the loss of time.
The question is that Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
Is the Minister not going to reply?
Would the Minister care to intervene?
If I am called on to conclude, I shall do so but I have already spoken twice. I do not think it quite fair that we should have this sort of Jack-in-the-Box procedure. I am entirely in the hands of the House, but if I am going to deal with the various aspects of the section, I should be very grateful if Senators would put questions, as they arise out of the section, in such a form as would enable me to deal with them in one comprehensive reply.
I fail to see how Senator Sweetman could possibly read into the sentence—
"These functions will include the supervision of the direct preventive and curative health services which are at present the responsibility of county councils, county borough councils, sanitary authorities and public assistance authorities"
—the suggestion that the local authorities are going to be ignored or are going to be passed over, with, I suppose, the corollary that the administration of health services would become the direct responsibility of the central authority. There is nothing in the explanatory memorandum which would give any ground for that assumption. It may be that certain special measures will be taken to provide suitable local administrative organs, but they would be local authorities. However, that is a matter upon which the Minister for Health will no doubt have definite proposals to submit to the Oireachtas in due time.
The Red Cross Society is not the responsibility of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. The Minister responsible for the establishment of the Red Cross organisation is the Minister for Defence and there is no suggestion that the existing statutory relations between that Minister and the Red Cross Society shall be interfered with.
I may have something to say about the Red Cross Society on the next section.
It is true that there is a certain liaison between certain sections of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and a certain auxiliary organisation of the Red Cross. There is no reason to believe that that liaison will be interrupted and no reason to believe that the new Minister for Health will not continue to maintain that liaison.
I do not know whether I can deal with the point raised by Senator Duffy. It was raised in the Dáil by a former colleague of his, Deputy Morrissey, who seemed to think that housing should be a function of the Minister for Health merely on the ground that good housing is conducive to good health. So is good milk and good food. By analogy, therefore, all the functions of the Department of Agriculture should be transferred to the Minister and the Department of Public Health. Street cleansing is conducive to good health. Therefore all the scavenging services should be made the responsibility of the health authority. The fact of the matter is that the need for housing was recognised before the need for a Ministry of Health. Housing serves a number of purposes. Good housing conduces to good health but the primary purpose of housing is to provide shelter, comfort and privacy. If these are provided in adequate measure, good health will ensue. Therefore there is no essential reason why housing must necessarily become the responsibility of the Department of Health. On the other hand, as Senator O'Dea has pointed out, there are good practical reasons why it should remain with the Department of Local Government—the Department that is going to have the responsibility for water supplies and sanitation, services which are provided, not merely because they are conducive to good health but because they are necessary for the convenience and the comfort of communities, because, in fact, they are essential and necessary for the ordinary economic life of the country.
The Department which is going to be responsible for sanitation services will also be responsible for town and regional planning, a science to which the Oireachtas has already given its approval by passing two Planning Bills, but which for one reason or another has not received that close attention from the local authorities which modern progress is going to demand. The encouragement and supervision of planning is going to become a most important activity of the Department of Local Government and, of course, the preparation of area plans—I propose that we should confine ourselves entirely to the physical aspects of planning—for the development of districts will naturally be very much concerned with the problem of finding suitable locations for the houses of the people. For that reason, as for the other reasons I have mentioned, it is more natural, more practicable and very much more advantageous that housing should remain the responsibility of the Department of Local Government.
I cannot profess to speak with any authority as to the steps which will be taken to select a Minister for Health. After all, that is the prerogative of the Taoiseach, who will, I am sure, make a wise choice, a choice which will be approved in due course by Dáil Éireann. It is not to be taken that the new Minister for Health, whoever he may be, will adopt a mere passive attitude in relation to our health problems, nor is it to be anticipated that he will confine himself within the limits hitherto allotted to the functions and activities of the health sections of my present Department.
In order to indicate to the Seanad the general programme which the Government envisages in relation to this matter, I think I cannot do better than quote from the speech which I made in introducing the Bill in Dáil Éireann. The reference will be found in column 1025, No. 7 of Volume 103 of the Official Debates. This is what I said, in outlining the general plans which we have in contemplation:—
"The best general mode of attack will be found in the introduction of a comprehensive health service scheme. The Minister for Health would naturally address himself first to the establishment of comprehensive and co-ordinated schemes for mother and child welfare, a complete tuberculosis service, including the payment, where necessary, of maintenance allowances to families of persons undergoing treatment or who are unable to carry on their ordinary occupations, and to the provision of new and improved health clinics and county and district hospitals. He would integrate all these with specialist and regional hospital services and with the undertakings in the same fields of numerous public and voluntary bodies, so that no person who needs it will lack anything that medical skill can do to make him well or to keep him well.
The second portion of the new Minister's tasks will be related to the modern scientific and technical developments to which I have referred. For instance, the laboratory facilities for essential biological and bacteriological work in the realm of public health are inadequate to meet the full needs of the field services and they fail to provide adequate opportunities for research. This matter and the corresponding need for stepping up the standard of medical education, including postgraduate training and research, represent essential prerequisites to the health reforms which are being formulated. Without adequate numbers of trained medical and nursing personnel and specialists, our plans would be useless. It will be the task of the new Minister to decide whether the higher training and research and the specialist services to which I have referred can be provided within the existing framework or whether new organisations such as State institutes will have to be created to provide them.
In brief, I may sum up what I have said by remarking that we have now in existence the blueprints of a health structure completely divorced from the old public assistance system, based upon a greatly improved family doctor service, and providing for every scientific agent that may be utilised for the preservation of health and the prolongation of life."
Senators will note the emphasis which was laid there upon the responsibility of the Minister for Health to do everything possible to enable the citizen to preserve health. That is a line of development which, while we have approached it tentatively and hesitatingly hitherto, will be pursued much more vigorously under the new Minister. The emphasis is going to be laid upon prevention rather than cure, but naturally, since we cannot hope that our preventive efforts will be uniformly successful, we have to provide the curative measures as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I think some attention might be given, in the setting up of the Department of Social Welfare, to the transfer to that Department of the whole of the statistical service. It is the common practice in most countries that Departments of Social Welfare are held responsible for the collection and compilation of statistics. Here we have the Statistics Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce doing that work and that carries rather undesirable implications. For instance, the Department requires information from a manufacturer in relation to some process in which he is engaged and the request is despatched, technically at any rate, not by an official of the statistics branch but by the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce — whose name probably appears a week before or a week later as a prosecutor against the person from whom he asked the information. I think that is a bad arrangement and I am suggesting now to the Minister that consideration might be given to the practicability of having the statistics branch transferred from the Department of Industry and Commerce to the new Department of Social Welfare.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6, Schedule and Title agreed to.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
Mr. Hawkins
I propose that it be taken now.
I object to taking the next stage now. I think that a motion should be made to that effect.
Mr. Hawkins
I move that the Report Stage of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill be taken now.
I object to the Report Stage being taken now. I do so not in a jocose or light-hearted way, as has been suggested, but as a matter of principle. This House has certain rights under the Constitution. We are entitled to demand from those in control of the business of the other House—and the Government is in control of the business and time of the other House—that they so arrange matters as to give us reasonable time to consider measures and an opportunity to consider them at a reasonable period of the year. That is not always done. I do not want to discuss the general question. It is a matter on which we are all agreed—though, if I were to challenge a division now, I should be beaten—that you cannot run this House, or any other House of Parliament, on written rules. You must run it on conventions and agreements. You cannot run it by using the majority in this House as a bludgeon to carry out what is wanted, irrespective of the desire of the House. We do not want the business of this House run in that way. We run the business of the House by meeting in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges in the most friendly and helpful manner and by agreeing in all cases—over a period of years, I think that the agreement has been unanimous—as to what our business is to be, as to when we shall take particular stages of Bills and so forth. I think that any suggestion which prevents that arrangement from running as smoothly as it has run heretofore is a bad one and should be resisted. Therefore I opposed, on Thursday evening, not for my own personal convenience and not in a spirit of levity, the suggestion that this Bill be taken through all its stages, at 11 o'clock at night, in the hour which remained. I do not think that any harm would result if the remaining stages had been postponed until after Christmas.
Naturally every Minister's particular goose is a very beautiful swan. This particular goose is no more beautiful and no more swan-like than the rest. I simply want to put on record the opinion that if the Minister, or any other Minister, wants to be specially convenienced, he should communicate with the Committee on Procedure and not come into the House and flout a decision of that Committee. By doing that, he gets us into a position in which we have to argue about the way we are going to do our business. We should argue about the merits of Bills but we should never have to argue in the House about the Order of Business. It is because I want to establish that rule that I make this statement.
Senator Hayes has told us that every Minister's Bill is a very urgent matter. I am sure that, when he was in that position, his Bills were very urgent, too.
I never had a Bill.
Perhaps the Senator will later. Stranger things have happened—but not much stranger. It was fairly generally agreed that this Bill was one of urgency. If the question had come before any Committee of the House—the Committee on Procedure or any other Committee—I am sure they would have agreed that the Bill was urgent.
The Committee unanimously agreed that the reverse was the case.
It is not the first time that all stages of a Bill were taken. It was Senator Hayes' Party which initiated that.
"We have sinned before; let us sin again."
I sympathise with the view expressed by Senator Hayes. My experience of this House, though not of Parliamentary procedure or tactics, is longer than that of Senator Hayes. Our consideration of Bills has always been secondary to Government convenience. We are asked to pass Bills at the last moment. That does not lead to satisfactory legislation. I ask the Government to consider whether it is compatible with the dignity of this House that business should be so arranged that we are asked to pass into law a number of measures straight away on the ground that they are urgent. After all, this Bill had seven sittings in the Dáil. Surely, it is utterly unreasonable that we should have been asked to pass it into law, on the ground of urgency, at 11 o'clock at night a short time before Christmas. I join with Senator Hayes in his protest.
Ní theastaíonn uaim ach a rá go bhfuil aiféala orm agus ar dhaoine eile gur tugadh an Bille seo os ar gcomhair inniu in áit é a fhágáil siar go dtí an athbhliain, mar a bhí socraithe ag an gCoiste Pribhléidí. Táim ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir O hAodha nuair a deir sé nach bhféadfaimís an obair a dhéanamh go ceart agus go rialta mura féidir linn bheith cinnte go gcomhlíonfar an réiteach a déantar ag an gCoiste sin.
Tá súil agam go mbeimid abalta, chomh luath agus a thiocfas an Seanad le chéile san athbhlian agus comh luath agus a thiocfas an Coiste Pribhléidí le chéile, formula éigin cheapadh a sheachnós a leithéid seo d'eachtraí san am atá le teacht. Bheinn go láidir i gcoinnibh an Bille a phlé inniu ach amháin gur thuig mé ó chuid mhaith Seanadóirí gur aithin siad gur Bill práinneach é seo, Bille gur riachtanach é a rith sa téarma seo. Maidir leis an prionsabal i gcoitinne, aontuim go mba cheart achar réasúnta a bheith idir an dara leamh agus an tríú leamh ach amháin i gcas Bille nach bhfuil prionsabal speisialta i gceist ann.
Mr. Hawkins
Senator Hayes has properly pointed out that, at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, it was unanimously agreed that only the Second Stage of this Bill would be taken before the Recess and that the remaining stages would be held over until the reassembly after Christmas. That decision was come to because we were not aware of the importance of having this measure passed before Christmas or of the Minister's desire to have this done. On the last day we met, and again to-day, the Minister explained the urgency and importance of having this measure passed forthwith. We adjourned the Seanad last week so that an opportunity would be given to members to put down amendments. After the lapse of a week, we had only two minor amendments down. It seems to me that we should not be fulfilling our proper functions if we did not give this Bill to the Minister to-day, so that the Ministries for which it makes provision can be set up and the important work to which the Minister referred may go ahead.
I want to say at the outset that I am not supporting Senator Hayes' motion.
I did not put forward any motion.
Senator Hayes has offered opposition to the motion that all stages be taken now. I am dissenting from that proposal.
It is not a proposal; it is opposition.
The Senator can have it any way he likes. I did agree on the last occasion that it was unfair to propose to take all stages of the Bill at one sitting, and I would take the same view with regard to, practically speaking, any Bill coming before the House. There are measures such as the Expiring Laws Bill which, in this House, at any rate, are usually passed at one sitting because there is usually only one section in them, the remainder of the Bill consisting of old Acts which are scheduled and continued by the Bill. As a general principle, I think we should not agree to all stages of any Bill being taken at one sitting, and, if I may judge by the speeches delivered by Senator Quirke and Senator Hawkins, they acquiesce in that view. In other words, there is, I think, unanimity in the House that, except in exceptional circumstances, there should be an interval between the Second Reading and subsequent stages of Bills.
I remember some time ago—I think, last year—a rather important Bill came up for Second Reading and the Minister then in charge urged that as there was nothing in the Bill which could be challenged, at least in this House, all stages should be given at one sitting. That was agreed to. Two or three days later, a Senator came to me and complained bitterly that, because he was absent, he had had no opportunity of raising a matter in which he was deeply concerned on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I want to say at once that I had no sympathy whatever with the proposition which the Senator in question wanted to raise here and I would have resisted his proposals as strenuously as anybody in the House; but, at the same time, I agree that he was perfectly entitled in a democratic assembly to have the opportunity of putting forward his views.
It is for that reason that I am disposed to say there should be a reasonable interval, except in exceptional circumstances, between the Second Stage and Committee Stage of a Bill. The remaining stages, in my view, are not so important. They are important only to the extent that members should have the opportunity of expressing their views on the Bill as it emerges from Committee, but I take the view that it would be very unfortunate if the House, having given a Second Reading to a Bill, were to vote against it and to reject it at a later stage. That would be entirely undesirable and would do no credit to the House. Therefore there is less need for an interval between the Committee and subsequent stages than there is for an interval between Second Reading and Committee Stage. I hope that, in making these observations, I will not be accused of adopting the tactics of Joe Biggar, although I do not regard that as any reflection. He was a man for whom I have a great admiration.
They were Seán MacEntee's tactics, but he did not make as good a hand of them as Joe Biggar.
As I say, I do not regard it as any reflection, but I suggest that it is a mistake for the Minister to take the view that, because some of us are so contrary as to raise these issues, we do so merely for the purpose of holding up legislation or of thwarting the desires of the majority of the House. That is very far from being my intention and I think there will be agreement amongst all the members with the general proposition I have expressed.
Mr. MacEntee rose.
Is this not a matter which solely concerns the House?
I readily agree with Senator Hayes that this is a matter which primarily concerns the House, but I happen to be, so to speak, the catalysing agent which precipitated the discussion and it might be no harm if I reminded the House of what the House was asked to do last week, because it seems to me that the manner in which my request has been commented upon has rather tended to create a wrong impression. I began— and I quote from the Official Reports— by addressing myself to the House in this fashion:—
"I should like to ask the indulgence of the House to stress that the Bill is a very urgent measure and that, so far as I am concerned, I should greatly appreciate it if the House could see its way to give me all the stages of the Bill this evening."
I do not see any sign of either the mailed fist or the bludgeon in that request.
It reads better than it sounded.
The trouble there is that it has come under the subjective influence of the Senator's mentality and I am not responsible for any distortion which it may undergo in the process.
It is not what he said but the way he said it.
Having pointed out what would happen if the measure did not go through all its stages before Christmas, I went on to say:—
"...all these grave disadvantages can be avoided if the Seanad agrees to take all stages of the Bill this week or, if not this week, all the remaining stages next week. I would urge very strongly...."
Finally, I summed up the matter in this form:—
"In view of the late hour, the Seanad may not consider it advisable to take all the stages of the Bill this evening. Even if that is the case, I would press the House to meet next week on Tuesday, 17th or Wednesday, 18th, to take the remaining stages then. I am not unaware that in asking this I may be putting members of the Seanad to some inconvenience but, as I have pointed out, public considerations for the urgent enactment of this measure which will so radically affect our services for preserving and maintaining health and for preventing and alleviating hardship and destitution, are so great that I am sure no personal considerations will be permitted to count in the matter."
That is the request—if the Seanad did not see its way to give me all stages of the Bill last week, at least to meet the wishes of the Government to the extent that they would meet this week and take the remaining stages of the Bill. I am grateful to the Seanad for the fact that they have met the Government to that extent, and I suggest that it is quite wrong to try to create the impression that there was any attempt on the part of the majority of the House to override the wishes of the minority. It is quite true, of course, that if there were an irreconcilable conflict of opinion, the majority would have to exercise its rights in the public interest.
I want to make one point perfectly clear, a point which has been befogged as a result of some of the speeches made from the other side. There are two very definite and very different things at issue. There is, first, the issue which was put very clearly by Senator Hayes, that the proper way for us to arrange our business is through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and the proper way for us to carry on the business of the House is in the manner in which we have always done it, that is, by arrangement outside the House.
That was the main point of Senator Hayes' remarks, and I think that in those remarks he was joined by Senator O Buachalla. If the Minister wanted to get all stages of this Bill on the last night there was nothing simpler for him to do than to get in touch with his own friends and ascertain whether the ordinary normal methods for dealing with the matter could be arranged. The fact is that the Minister did not carry out the ordinary normal procedure, and in that way brought all this trouble on his own head.
The second point is that, I think, we are all agreed that it is very undesirable that there should not be proper time afforded for the adequate consideration of Bills on their various stages. The reason why Standing Orders provide that time shall be allowed between the different stages of a Bill is that it can get proper consideration. What really brought me to my feet was the point that was made by Senator Duffy. He seems to think that, because we give a Bill a Second Reading, we should never challenge that Bill on any of its subsequent stages.
I did not say any such thing. My point was that when the House had agreed to the earlier stages of a Bill it would be a mistake to object to it on the Final Stage.
I was really thinking of the Fifth Stage of a Bill. A Bill might be sent to us from the Dáil which the House might think it desirable to amend. The House, in considering the Bill in its various stages, might find that it was not possible to amend it, but yet on the Fifth Stage the House might consider it desirable to reject the Bill. It would be entirely consistent for the House to do that. As I have said, I rose principally for the purpose of expressing my disagreement with the point of view put forward by Senator Duffy in relation to that matter.
I want to emphasise that Senator Hayes' objection was one of procedure. Senator O Buachalla echoed that. Therefore we should consider the future management of our business in this House. I think that we had better get that matter dealt with now. The Minister may not be aware, but Senator Quirke and Senator O Buachalla are well aware, that on many occasions various Ministers have been facilitated in getting their Bills dealt with in this House. They were facilitated in a way that members on this side of the House thought unreasonable. I remember on one occasion a proposal being made from the other side of the House that nine Bills should be dealt with in one day. In view of the fact that it was considered necessary that these nine Bills should be passed before the Recess, they were passed, even though we felt it was not reasonable to ask the House to do that. Therefore, I think that in future when there is something urgent to be dealt with, arrangements for dealing with it should be made through the proper channels and in a proper way. I think that in future Bills should be sent to this House in such a manner that they can be considered in their various stages in the way visualised by our Standing Orders.
Mr. Quirke rose.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has already spoken on this motion.
It is on a point of explanation arising out of what has been said by Senator Sweetman. I am quite prepared to admit that on numerous occasions we have been met with very great consideration by members on the other side of the House. Once in a while, the minority seems to get unreasonable. I suppose that is understandable. Senators have now made their protest, although I do not believe they are serious about it. At the same time, I do not think it should go on record that the House is in agreement with what Senator Sweetman has said.
As a back bench member of the House, I would like to protest against what I may describe as the hole and corner—in the dark—agreements which are arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Oh! Is it in order for a Senator to refer to a Committee of the House as "a hole and corner body"? I want to put that point of order.
I am in favour——
Will the Senator sit down while I am making my point of order?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Ryan must resume his seat while I am dealing with the point of order.
May I put it to you, Sir, that it is not correct for any member of the House to refer to a Committee of this House as a hole and corner Committee?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair thinks it is not.
I withdraw that remark. I did not intend it that way. I do say that a limited number of members of the House who, I am told—I have no knowledge——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Committee is impartially representative of the House.
Impartially representative? They are selected.
They are elected by the House.
Well, they are a limited number of members of the House. The point I am coming to is that some arrangements are arrived at by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges which, unfortunately, are not communicated to the House as a body. That is the point that I am trying to make. As an ordinary member of the House, I am in the dark as to these arrangements.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is a different matter. The Senator can always get in touch with representatives on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges if he wants to know what the arrangements are.
What I want to suggest is that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, when they arrive at their decisions, should arrange some method by which they could communicate their decisions to the House as a body so that the ordinary members would know about them.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That suggestion has never been put before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
I am making the suggestion now.
That can be done.
I make the suggestion so that we can know what the decisions are when we come here.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The House is not now discussing the terms of reference of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Senator can discuss these on a motion at any time.
I think it is relevant.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Not on the motion before the House at the moment.
I think that other members were allowed to discuss matters that were not relevant to the Bill. I bow to the ruling of the Chair, although I think, as I have said, that other members have been irrelevant.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The question is: That the Fourth Stage of the Bill be taken now.
Question put and declared carried.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On that question, owing to the course which the Second Reading took, there was no opportunity either for the House as a whole, or for individual Senators, either to welcome or anathematise this Bill, so I take the opportunity of the Fifth Stage to say that I certainly for myself—and I believe that in this I represent the views of a number of members of the House—profoundly welcome this Bill as a genuine and promising attempt to end the state of affairs that had become alike incredible and impossible. In the last decade the Minister for Local Government, for the time being, piloted through the Legislature a very large number of Bills constituting in themselves a huge programme of reform, a programme which was at least imaginative, constructive and forward-looking, although it is yet too soon to decide whether it was in all respects perfectly conceived. But if the Minister and his Department were active upon the legislative side, one could hardly pay the same tribute to certain branches of the executive and the administrative side. Indeed, I think it is a proposition which could well be maintained that for evasion, confusion, obstruction and delay, certain portions of the administrative side are without peer in Christendom.
This being the season of Christmas, I wish to speak with moderation; but, having said that, and having indicated that the true motto of the Department should be "The old lady says ‘no'", I want also to say that I think it was largely due to the fact that too many different classes of work were united in the one Department and under the one Minister and that the staff could not be sufficient either in numbers or in Departmental sub-divisions to give to them the attention which they required. I am quite certain that the Minister has viewed with horror things that have been done under his name, and, with surprise, the omission of important matters which should have been done under his name. I know that the Minister carried, possibly even to excess, the quality of loyalty to his collaborators and subordinates. I am not going into past matters, but the Minister knows, as indeed everybody else in the House knows, one instance which is at the back of my mind.
I hope, without harrowing a field which has already been ploughed, that when the new Ministers take up the reins of office they will have a peculiarly free hand to re-examine, and possibly to reverse, decisions which were come to when the various Ministries were undivided. Senator Fearon has pointed out the necessity of having, as Minister for Public Health, a person with exceptional and varied qualifications. I hope that he will be able to reconsider things which have been done, especially in certain branches of public health administration, from the point of view of securing the benefit of patients rather than the preservation of political prestige.
I hope the whole field will be open to everybody. I hope the Minister, if he retains in his own hands Local Government, may be able to devote to it greater time and a less harassed and trifurcate mind than was necessary when he had to be responsible for substantially three separate divisions. For that reason, among others, I welcome this Bill. I anticipate the Bill will be of the greatest possible good to the country, and I appeal to the Government to give the new Ministers as much freedom to institute fresh policies and as much liberty to annul what has proved wrong and incapable of being substaniated in past policies, as it is possible for a Government as a whole to give to an individual Minister.
There is one point about this Bill, now that it is about to be passed, that I think should be stressed. In dealing with our public health services we have to deal with particular agents. The public health cannot be improved without the goodwill of the medical men and women of the country. There was a principle adopted with regard to legislation in the Dáil that doctors would not be consulted about public health until the Bill had got a Second Reading. I do not know whether that was the policy adopted by the present Minister, whether it was Government policy, or whether it was peculiar to the Parliamentary Secretary, but, at any rate, I understand that was the policy.
Nothing can be accomplished with regard to public health unless the medical profession, which is a noble profession and which has done its job very well in very difficult circumstances, can be carried with the Minister and I suggest, when steps are being taken to improve matters or to arrange matters in a different way, that an early opportunity will be taken to consult doctors and other persons who are concerned, rather than that legislation will be introduced and the attitude adopted of saying: "Here you are now, take it or leave it". That is a method which is not conducive to the best results. Better results can be obtained in every case by prior consultation with experts and with the people upon whose goodwill and zeal the whole matter will ultimately depend. I rather think that would be the Minister's view, too, but it is certain that it has not been the practice heretofore in many instances. Before we pass the Fifth Stage, I would like to indicate to the Minister that that is a procedure which, for the good of the public health services and the country generally, should be adopted. I hope, whoever will be the person appointed to carry out these services, that he will adopt that procedure.
I appreciate what Senator Kingsmill Moore has said in support of the Bill. I am not, however, going to accept his suggestion that certain parts of the administration for which I have been responsible are without peer in Christendom. I think the administration in general is at least as good as can be got anywhere.
With regard to future policies, I would like to say that the new Ministers will have perfectly free hands and must be at liberty to review, and even to reverse, decisions already arrived at. They certainly will be free to review and to amend policies already outlined in considerable detail but not yet formally adopted. Speaking for myself, I have been so closely associated for the past five years with the development of a comprehensive programme for the expansion of our medical services that I would welcome a review of my proposals by another mind. I have no doubt that a close liaison will be established between the new Department of Public Health and the medical profession. I feel that our plans cannot be fully effective unless we secure the goodwill and warm co-operation of the doctors.
I have been anxious to secure the goodwill of the profession and I had, in fact, agreed to see the Medical Association in relation to the Public Health Bill, but as it became clear that it would be more desirable to have the new Department in being and to have the new Minister appointed before the White Paper could be issued and before the measures which we propose could be finally approved, I suggested that the Medical Association might wait until the appointment of the new Minister for Health. I have no reason to believe that the views of that Minister will be any different from mine in that regard. I cannot, of course, bind him, but I am sure that he will welcome the opportunity of discussing with the medical profession the problems for which he and they will share, though in different measures, common responsibility.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.