Committee on Finance. - Mental Treatment Bill, 1944—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 10, to insert before the definition of the appropriate assistance officer the following definition:—
"the word `addict' means a person who—
(a) by reason of his addiction to drugs or intoxicants is either dangerous to himself or others or incapable of managing himself or his affairs or of ordinary proper conduct, or
(b) by reason of his addiction to drugs, intoxicants or perverted conduct is in serious danger of mental disorder;
This amendment might, perhaps, be related to amendments Nos. 13 and 241, the three of which together provide the necessary machinery for bringing addicts within the terms of the Bill. The word "addict" is defined in this amendment. Deputies who are interested in this matter are, I am sure, satisfied that addiction to drugs, particularly to alcohol, is one of the most widespread and most potent causes of mental disorder. Indeed, it may be said—it is held by some authorities—that the addiction itself is evidence of mental ailment. Similarly, moral pervertion is a potent contributing cause, and is often due, in fact, to a disordered mental state.
Most medical men have from time to time been confronted with a very difficult problem in relation to these matters. I myself, in my years of practice, have on many occasions been confronted with great difficulty in connection with the classes of people that this amendment is intended to deal with. Some of these unfortunate people get well, sometimes the case ends in death and sometimes it ends in tragedy. As the law stands at the present time, we have no adequate machinery for dealing with that particular social problem.
Some four or five years ago—five years ago to be correct—when I first devoted my attention to the construction of a new mental code—it seems a long time ago but, in fact, it is five years since I began the structure that is now before the House—I raised this matter of drug addicts with the advisers in the Department. To my surprise, I found that a Departmental Committee had been set up by the Right Honourable J. H. Gladstone as far back as 1908. It reported in great detail and made certain recommendations. Nothing, however, was done in the matter of giving effect to these recommendations. As the machinery of our new mental code began to take shape, it became evident to me that in our new approach to the whole matter of mental disorder, and the machinery that we proposed providing, we could very properly fit into that machinery provision for dealing with drug addicts and persons of perverted conduct. I have since consulted the Medico Psychological Society and the Medical Association of Eire, as well as various people, both medical and lay, and everybody seems to approve of the proposals that are now before the House. I should tell the House that, at this stage, we can only provide the necessary machinery, and that until such time as suitable institutions are available we cannot deal adequately with the problem that this amendment is intended to deal with. It will only be in case of urgency, or particular emergency, that addicts will be received in the ordinary mental institutions. In the course of time it is hoped that we may be able to provide special institutions, and that, as soon as we are able to make the necessary institutional provision available, we shall have the administrative machinery which will be necessary effectively to deal with the matter.
I think the introduction of this amendment adds to the value of the Bill. It is, in a way, I think, peculiar that it was not in the original draft. The Parliamentary Secretary has explained that, as the new attitude towards the treatment of mental diseases came to be appreciated, it was realised that there were certain other additions to the Bill that were required. I intervene for the purpose of raising a question with regard to the actual wording of the amendment. One phrase in it seems to me to be too general. The amendment says that the word "addict" means "a person who by reason of his addiction to drugs or intoxicants is either dangerous to himself or others, or incapable of managing himself or his affairs or of ordinary proper conduct." It seems to me that the final three words "ordinary proper conduct", when taken in conjunction with the machinery provided later in the Bill for the examination and certification of persons requiring treatment could, in certain circumstances, be open, I will not say to abuses, but to a certain degree of loose application.
When dealing with a Bill of this character one thing that is absolutely essential is to provide that there should not be the slightest loophole for any class of treatment being meted out to persons which is not fully warranted by their mental state and the requirements of the law. I feel that in relation to these last three words "ordinary proper conduct" it is possible to envisage a situation where they could be open to abuse. Take, for example, a person addicted to intoxicating liquor. We are all familiar with a person who, by reason of continuous abuse of that kind, has to a large extent become almost an addict in every sense of the word, but yet, in many ways, is not incapable of managing his affairs. He is not in any way dangerous to himself or others though he may be an annoyance to persons charged with carrying out other provisions of the law. On a far-fetched, or even on a personal interpretation of these three words in the amendment, I can quite readily see individuals being regarded as coming within the definition—as being classed as addicts—and, therefore, subjected to treatment under this measure, regardless of their own wishes in the matter. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, while the wording of the first part of the amendment is quite acceptable, these three words might be further considered, so that there will be no danger of this provision being applied in a manner in which, I think, we all feel it should not be applied.
I do not think that, when the Deputy relates the proposal to the machinery of reception in an institution, he will have any anxiety as to the probability of abuse. There are very few laws passed through this House under which abuses cannot take place. If we were only to pass such laws as could not, under any conceivable circumstances be abused, I am afraid we would have to neglect the passing of a lot of very useful legislation. This definition is, in fact, based upon the recommendation of a commission that reported about 36 years ago on this social problem. The definition is, "amongst other things, incapable of managing himself and his affairs or of ordinary proper conduct by reason of his addiction to drugs". It is easy, I suppose, accurately enough to predict the possibility of a person not conducting himself properly while under the influence of a drug, but I think it is foolish to assume that immediately a man does such a thing he is going to be dealt with under the terms of this Bill and is going to be run into an institution.
Perhaps the Deputy will allow me. In the first instance, the appropriate medical officer will have to examine him and will have to certify that he is satisfied that he is a person suitable for reception. The resident medical superintendent of the institution, who is a trained psychiatrist and a specialist in such matters, will examine the patient before the patient is received and the patient will not be received unless the resident medical superintendent is satisfied that he is a person suitable for reception. There is the further safeguard of the frequent visits and inspections of the inspector of mental hospitals and of the machinery for appeal to the Minister if any person considers that he is being wrongfully detained. I think that the safeguards that are afforded to the community in that way, and to the classes of persons who may find themselves within the scope of this Bill, are adequate. While I quite appreciate that the point Deputy Larkin makes is a good enough debating point, I think if we try to meet it, we may defeat the purpose of the amendment.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has not at all met the point put up by Deputy Larkin. I think it will be admitted that this is a very wide amendment and I, as an ordinary layman, would like to have some definition of what is meant by "ordinary proper conduct". Most of the safeguards to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred just now arise only when the person has been committed.
No. There is no committal in this case at all.
Because he is not committed.
If that is so, where do the medical superintendent and the inspectors and everybody else come in?
The Deputy will find that in the machinery of the Bill.
We have to keep at the back of our minds that this matter has been under consideration by the Department for over five years, that it was not put into the Bill as presented to the House, that it is now put in and the wording is taken, we are told, from the report of a commission which reported 36 years ago.
Therefore, it would seem to be a complete afterthought, although there was five years' consideration. It is very necessary to see that any person who should be confined will be confined but it is equally important, perhaps more important, to see that a person whom this House never intended should come under the Act will not be brought under it. Again we come to the old thing that happens here—what the Minister intends should happen and the interpretation of the Bill when it becomes law, will be two completely different things. The Minister may have in mind that such a thing should happen; inspectors may do this and superintendents may do that, but they are, of course, bound by the terms of the Act as it leaves the Oireachtas and not by what the Minister's wishes may be, unless the Minister's wishes are carried correctly into the Bill. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should, if possible, clarify this further.
I notice in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that the definition is confined to drug addicts. In the case of a drug addict, there is, in my opinion, a prima facie case for treatment, but, although I am a teetotaller, I do not admit that the same ground exists in regard to a person who takes intoxicating liquor. I can envisage a situation arising where a person who is addicted to taking too much liquor may leave himself open to being brought under the machinery of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary says there are many safeguards in the Bill to prevent persons being regarded as coming within the Bill who should not be so regarded. He overlooks the fact that we are dealing here with a disease that is peculiar in the sense that there is a very fine balance between the mentally sane and the mentally ill. I have in mind one particular case of a boy who recently in Dublin was a member of a crowd watching an ordinary incident in the street. The boy was subject to fits, and when the Gárdaí came to move the crowd along, the boy became excited and took a fit. The Guard thought he was being obstreperous and had him removed to the station. Subsequently the boy went into Grangegorman. He had become a person who needed treatment. I would submit that there are many border-line cases where all that is required to make them persons of unsound mind is the knowledge that they have been brought under this machinery, even for a short period.
The purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of persons of unsound mind, not to add to it, and I think that if it is only a question of getting some formula or some tighter drafting, it is worthy of consideration. I think it would be a difficult task to get a definition of "ordinary proper conduct" which would satisfy the ordinary person that it does not leave many loopholes. It is quite true for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that we cannot make perfect Acts, but at least we can try. The expression "ordinary proper conduct" is so wide that I think many of us on many occasions would be liable to the same fault with which we are going to charge other people. Even the ordinary normal person, under certain stresses, perhaps through drink, drugs, emotion or economic pressure, very often is guilty of improper conduct. I do think a further attempt should be made to get a more clear definition, at least of these final three words in the sub-section.
Has the Parliamentary Secretary any statistics to show that the drug habit is on the increase, and that there is a necessity for this legislation at the moment?
No, no. I mentioned that the Medico Psychological Association, the Medical Association in Éire, and all the social workers that we have been in consultation with, are all in agreement that such an amendment of the law is a matter of urgent necessity.
I understand that the extract which the Parliamentary Secretary read from a 36-year-old report dealt only with addiction to drugs. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned intoxicants in that connection.
Alcohol is a drug, of course.
Was it meant in that sense in the report?
It is recognised as a drug.
That is not an answer to the question.
That does not arise at all.
It is not a drug for the purpose of the Control of Drugs Act?
No. It is a drug in the sense in which it has been discussed here to-day.
In the purely narrow medical sense.
Am I to take it then that the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the machinery of the Inebriates Act, 1908, has completely broken down and that there would not be a sufficient remedy, if that Act were enforced, to meet the case of addicts to intoxicants? My own experience is that the 1908 Act is a dead letter.
I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary has come to the conclusion that it is a dead letter and that this provision is really to provide an alternative means of dealing with such cases.
The Inebriates Acts provide that a man has to be brought before a court and found guilty of drunkenness and be committed to an institution, having been convicted on three occasions before the court. We are not, of course, repealing the Inebriates Acts. They do not deal with the problem we are trying to deal with. We are trying to deal with addiction to drugs as a predisposing cause of mental disorder. We are trying to remove one of the predisposing causes by dealing with a type of case which will never come before the criminal courts in the ordinary course of events.
I take it the position is that a man addicated to intoxicants may find himself, at the instigation of a malicious relative, committed to an institution for his own safety.
He has a remedy in law against the malicious relative.
The Parliamentary Secretary is assuming a lot there because he is assuming that he is incapable of managing himself or his own affairs.
He is not capable of taking the necessary legal steps. Take the case of an habitual drunkard who is provided for within the law. That is the type of individual whom you would normally have to deal with under this provision, rather than the tippler.
That type of individual is dealt with as a criminal.
Take the tippler as distinct from the man who takes an occasional drink.
The Deputy can theorise as much as he likes.
Is he to be committed under this Bill?
That is a very wide and dangerous provision.
If he was wrongly committed, he would have redress.
That is doubtful. Not until he is discharged anyway. What redress will he have if he is committed?
He can appeal to the Minister right away.
Has he the right of appeal?
I think, in addition, that the definition of relative—the application may be made by a husband or wife or relative—in the definition section is very broad. It includes a lineal ancestor or a lineal descendant or a lineal descendant of an ancestor not more remote than the great-grand-father or great-grandmother. Any of these could make an application perhaps to a pliable dispensary doctor. An obnoxious relative, shall we say an individual who had some nuisance value in the family, may be conveniently got rid of in this fashion. I am not trying to defend that type of individual, but it is a very wide power to place in the hands of a relative.
Would you not need a pliable resident medical superintendent?
Not necessarily. Once a person is presented to the resident medical superintendent for admission it is difficult for him, without having some period of observation, to come to a conclusion as to what the mental condition of that particular individual is. I take it that the resident medical superintendent from a casual observation could not satisfy himself as to the mental condition of an ordinary tippler. I think he would require some weeks' observation in order to come to a conclusion.
You have not very much faith in him, apparently.
I have plenty of faith in him but I cannot see how he can.
You cannot see, of course, but he can. It is his job.
How many times in the courts have we had experience of the matter of deciding when a man is drunk and when he is not drunk, and of medical experts getting up to say: "He is drunk," and "he is not drunk."
It is not a question of his being drunk or sober.
It is a question of his being addicted to drink. The authorised medical officer may have a very remote knowledge of the individual. He may have to accept what an irate husband or wife or relative has to say about the matter. If he is sufficiently pliable, he may slip up and let that person in. I think it is very wide. I have no objection with regard to drugs. That is an entirely different matter. I think the other matter is open to abuse, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, and that it would need a certain amount of tightening.
The draftsman has been operating on the tightening process for the past six weeks or so.
Is it the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that a medical superintendent would be able to decide on the spot that a person came within the definition set out in the proposed amendment; that on the spot he would be able to decide that, by reason of his addiction to drugs or intoxicants, he was dangerous to himself or others, or incapable of managing himself or his affairs, or of ordinary proper conduct? Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how a medical superintendent can decide that on the spot without having the person under observation?
The Parliamentary Secretary will not, nor will he tell the Deputy how a resident medical superintendent would determine that any person should be admitted to a mental hospital. That is his responsibility.
If we are to take the Parliamentary Secretary's interjection, when Deputy Coogan was speaking, seriously, the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that he can so decide without placing a person under observation.
The responsibility is his.
With all respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, that is mere quibbling.
It is not a question of whether the responsibility is his or not. The Parliamentary Secretary has asserted that if a person is brought to an institution, or brought before the medical superintendent, the medical superintendent can there and then, without placing that person under observation, decide that he is a case under this proposed amendment. Does the Parliamentary Secretary still assert that?
The Parliamentary Secretary still asserts that it is his business to decide whether he ought to discharge or receive the patient.
That is heel-tapping. Does the Parliamentary Secretary assert——
The Parliamentary Secretary asserts that what he said is what he has asserted.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated that the medical superintendent can decide that without having the person under observation for any period of time. Does he assert that he did not make that statement?
He decides whether he is to receive or whether he is to discharge him.
He can do that without keeping him under observation?
He must do it. He must either discharge or receive him, just the same as he must either receive or discharge any other patient.
The Parliamentary Secretary is shifting his ground. It is a big advantage to the House in dealing with this Bill that we have in charge of the Bill a medical doctor. That can be very helpful. But, if we are to approach the consideration of this measure purely and solely from the point of view of a medical doctor, it may not be so helpful.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the machinery under the Bill for the medical examination is suitable. The point, I submit, is that it is possible, under the section under which these persons may be brought up for examination, for any person to make an application to have an individual examined. That individual may leave himself open to that by reason of certain conduct. That person may be one of the border-line cases who, if no undue stress is placed on his mind, may never require treatment. But the fact of his being examined as a person of unsound mind, his examination and certification, may be the actual thing which would cause his mind to become temporarily diseased.
The person who is to be examined already knows that he is under suspicion of either being a person of unsound mind or, to use the more common phrase, a lunatic. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, as a medical man, will realise that that in itself may be sufficient to sway the balance. If we leave the definition as wide as it is here, I submit that it is possible that many people guilty of what we would call unusual conduct, but still quite capable of carrying out "ordinary proper conduct" in the major portion of their lives, will find themselves drawn within this net.
I have mentioned the case of this boy who was not going to be a patient in Grangegorman, but who is a patient there because of an unfortunate set of circumstances. I am quite sure that the doctor who examined him was quite satisfied that, at the moment when he examined him, he was a fit and proper person for treatment, but if he had examined him before this incident arose he would say that all he required was ordinary medical treatment for his body and not treatment for his mind. I have already said that our task is to reduce the number and not make it possible to add to it. I think it is an ordinary fair submission of the definition of what is right conduct and, quite clearly, the ordinary words having an ordinary application may give rise to possible abuse and it should get further consideration. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that one should spend time trying to find a better definition. It is quite clear that any person sitting on the problem in seclusion, and not having submitted it to the test of debate, cannot see all the implications. I am convinced that enough has been said in this matter to make a case for further consideration of these final words.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 11, line 4, to delete the words "for the reception of chronic patients".
This is a drafting amendment. It is proposed to amend Section 22 to provide that the auxiliary mental hospital is for the reception of patients, instead of chronic patients. It is conceivable that, by retaining the term "chronic patients" as being the only type to be received in an auxiliary mental hospital, we might be unduly restricting ourselves. Amendments Nos. 25 and 27 also deal with this point.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 11, to delete the definition of chargeable patient and substitute the following definition:—
the expression "chargeable patient" means a patient who is receiving mental hospital assistance and who (with the persons, if any, liable to maintain him) is unable to provide the whole of the cost of such assistance;.
This is merely a drafting amendment, to make it clear that the chargeable patient is a patient actually receiving mental hospital assistance, instead of a patient who requires such assistance.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 11, to insert before the definition of the inspector of mental hospitals the following definition:—
the expression "the Dundrum Central Criminal Lunatic Asylum" means the central criminal lunatic asylum established in pursuance of the Central Criminal Lunatic Asylum (Ireland) Act, 1845;.
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 11, to delete the definition of local authority and substitute the following definition:—
the expression "local authority" means—
(a) a local authority for the purposes of the Local Government Act, 1941 (No. 23 of 1941), or
(b) a sub-committee appointed by a local pensions committee under Section 8 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, or
(c) a vocational education committee, or
(d) a committee of agriculture;.
This is a drafting amendment, too.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 11, to delete lines 46, 47 and 48.
Amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 17 hang together. The term "paying patient" has now been deleted from the Bill and we have only private patients.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why the change is being made?
We will have only private patients. The other term is redundant. Paying patients will be private patients in future.
But why is it necessary to make the change?
Because it was unnecessary to have the first classification. It is only a drafting amendment.
But the Bill sets down that paying patients, in the original definition, should be able to pay for their maintenance. It says: "...able to pay the whole of the cost of his treatment, maintenance, or advice in a mental institution;". It is on the word "advice" that amendment No. 7 was put down. We are commencing under this Bill a new procedure, namely to set up clinics to give advice to persons who may require it in regard to their mental state. It is a new and modern departure from the old practice, and the feeling that we had in these benches was that we should regard this as a general public health measure in so far as giving advice was concerned. We should not, in relation to this principle of giving advice, confine it in any way by the stipulation that payment must be made for it. It is agreed that, in so far as treatment and maintenance are concerned, those in a position to contribute towards the cost should be required to do so. As an ordinary public health measure, however, we feel that it is good public health policy to provide all the advice possible free of charge to any person who feels he is in need of it. It was in order to enable us to raise that matter later in the Bill on the appropriate sections that amendment No. 7 was put down at this stage.
Amendment No. 6 agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 11, line 51, to delete the words "the expression `person of unsound mind' means a lunatic".
This is a drafting amendment. It is unnecessary to retain the definition of a person of unsound mind as meaning a lunatic. It is desirable that the word "lunatic" be taken out. This is the only place in the whole Bill where the word appears and there is no real need to retain it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 12, lines 1 and 2, to delete the words "carried on wholly or mainly for the care of persons of unsound mind gratuitously or at less than cost" and substitute the words "for the care of persons of unsound mind which is supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions and which is not kept for profit by any private individual".
There is no new principle involved in this. It is simply a redraft to emphasise that a private charitable institution is not kept for profit by any private individual. It is a redraft of the original definition.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary make this matter a little clearer? As far as I can see, the main qualifying clause is "for profit". Has the Parliamentary Secretary in mind any machinery to determine actually when that particular phrase would apply—whether the institution is being run for profit or otherwise? In the earlier definition it was easy to arrive at a conclusion, because it was a question of treating patients gratuitously or at less than cost. But profit does open a wide field. Whether there is any machinery, I cannot see, except that there may be through the visits of the inspectors of mental hospitals. Whether that would be the form of machinery to arrive at a decision on this matter, I do not know.
If the Deputy will refer to Section 149, he will find that before 31st March in each year there shall be submitted to the Minister in respect of a private charitable institution an abstract of the accounts of the institution. Private institutions will be under a statutory obligation to submit an abstract of accounts, and the Minister would determine whether the institution was being run for profit or not. There was a difficulty about the original definition—"carried on wholly or mainly for the care of persons of unsound mind gratuitously or at less than cost." The draftsman's difficulty, when it came to a close examination of the definition, was that some patients might be maintained at more than cost, and others at less than cost or perhaps free; but, on balance, that the institution as a whole would not be run at a profit. It was for that reason that the re-draft was submitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 follows on No. 6?
Yes, amendments Nos. 6, 11 and 17. I move amendment No. 11:
In page 12, to insert before the definition of private patient reception order the following definition:—
the expression "private patient" means a patient other than a chargeable patient;.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12.
In page 12, to insert before the definition of reception order the following definition:—
the expression "public assistance district" means a public assistance district under the Public Assistance Act, 1939 (No. 27 of 1939);.
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 12, to delete the definition of temporary patient and substitute the following definition:—
the expression "temporary patient" means a patient either—
(a) who is—
(i) suffering from mental illness, and
(ii) is believed to require, for his recovery, not more than six months suitable treatment, and
(iii) is unfit on account of his mental state for treatment as a voluntary patient, or
(b) who is—
(i) an addict, and
(ii) is believed to require, for his recovery, at least six months preventive and curative treatment;.
This is a new definition of the term "temporary patient". The definition is extended in the Bill to include an addict.
Does that mean that under paragraph (b) the minimum period for an addict will be six months?
Addicts will be treated as temporary patients only, but we are making provision for the extension of the period on the recommendation of the resident medical superintendent. An application can be made to the Minister for an extension of the period, if it is considered necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In sub-section (2), page 13, line 49, to delete the words "or sister, step-sister or sister-in-law" and substitute the words "sister, step-sister or sister-in-law, or guardian or trustee".
It is proposed to add to the list of persons disqualified to act as medical officers, a guardian or trustee.
It is largely a question of completing paragraph (b) so as to make it all-embracing in regard to relations. The Parliamentary Secretary has found some exceptions, and I found some also.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In sub-section (2), line 49, after the words "sister-in-law" to insert the words "or uncle, aunt or cousin in the first degree".
If there is an argument in regard to the inclusion of sisters-in-law, guardians and trustees, surely it applies equally to aunts and uncles or cousins in the first degree, who might also have an interest?
We have to draw the line somewhere. Uncles and aunts by marriage—that seems rather wide and seems to call for the inclusion of nephews and nieces. I am not aware that there has been any abuse on that score. I do not think there is any abuse on record.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
On behalf of Deputy O'Sullivan, I move amendment No. 16:—
In line 53, after the word "being" to add the words "unless it can be shown that he was ordinarily residing elsewhere in the State during the previous two years".
The purpose of this amendment is largely in reference to a condition that arises in the City of Dublin, where we have a large number of persons coming in to reside in the city and, in the ordinary course, they require the benefits of the various social services or, as in this case, treatment in a mental hospital. It is suggested that in relation to this section, which states that a person of no fixed residence shall be regarded as ordinarily resident at the place where he is for the time being, it should be qualified to the extent that "unless it can be shown that he was ordinarily residing elsewhere in the State during the previous two years".
I submit that if we have a person coming to Dublin from one of the outlying counties and subsequently requiring treatment, it is imposing a burden on the local mental hospital authorities to have that person regarded as being a resident of Dublin because he happens to reside here at that particular moment. It would be preferable, where it can be clearly shown that he has been ordinarily a resident in another area, to have him regarded as being a resident of the area where he was residing during that period. It is for that purpose the amendment is moved.
I think Deputy Larkin is misconceiving the position. This refers to persons of no fixed residence —vagrants, for instance. I do not see any point in the Deputy's argument. You have to take it the person has no home in any particular locality.
The person might have no abode this week, but perhaps he would have last week.
You would have to get a history of his migrations through the country. He would be ordinarily resident wherever he is found, and that cuts both ways. It is likely to hit the country just as much as Dublin. Persons coming to Dublin to reside here for a short period are in a different category.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 17.
In page 13, line 55, to delete the word "paying" and substitute the word "private."
This follows on amendments Nos. 6 and 11.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 18.
In sub-section (2), page 14, line 22, to insert before the word "of," where that word occurs secondly, the words "of sub-section (1) and paragraph (b) of sub-section (2)."
This is a drafting amendment and it goes with amendment No. 65 and, I think, amendment No. 66.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (4), page 14, to delete in line 45 the words "for all purposes".
This also is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
With regard to sub-section (2) which provides that the Minister shall from time to time appoint a registered medical practitioner as inspector of mental hospitals, there is no question of past experience or qualifications.
That would rest with the Minister. It is the Civil Service Commissioners who will make such an appointment. We do not specify the qualifications.
It could happen that a man without any experience of mental diseases would be appointed.
This merely puts a statutory obligation on the Minister to make such an appointment, but the qualifications of the persons to be appointed remain to be worked out as between the Minister and the Civil Service Commissioners.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In sub-section (2), page 14, lines 56 and 57, to delete the words, "while acting under the directions of the Inspector of Mental Hospitals,".
It may not always be possible for the inspector to give directions to the assistant inspector. There is no great principle involved in the amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (1) says that the Minister may appoint such and so many registered medical practitioners to be assistant inspectors as he thinks proper. There is no restriction as to numbers?
There is no restriction, but he has to have the consent of the Minister for Finance, and I think that is safeguard enough.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In sub-section (3), page 15, to add the following paragraph at the end of the sub-section:—
(d) the transfer of patients.
This is a drafting amendment. The Minister rearranges mental hospital districts, and, where he does so, it is necessary to provide for certain adjustments and transfers which are set out in sub-section (3).
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 15 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In paragraph (e), page 17, line 1, to insert before the words "the same" the words "subject to the provisions of this Act,".
This, also, is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 23:—
To insert before Section 19 and before Part V a new Section as follows:—
PART IV.
General Duty of Mental Hospital Authority to Provide Treatment, Maintenance, Advice and Services.
19.—Where—
(a) a person is ordinarily resident in a mental hospital district, and
(b) such person requires, by reason of mental illness, any treatment, maintenance, advice or service, and
(c) such person (with the persons, if any, liable to maintain him) is unable to provide the whole of the cost of such treatment, maintenance, advice or service,
the mental hospital authority for such mental hospital district shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, provide such treatment, maintenance, advice or service for such person.
This is a new section, in substitution for the existing Section 19, to define more specifically the duties of mental hospital authorities in relation to chargeable patients. It involves the deletion of Section 19 and is really an expansion of that section.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 19 ordered to be deleted.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In sub-section (1), page 17, line 35, to delete the words "chronic patients" and substitute the words "patients who, not being dangerous to themselves or others, are certified by the resident medical superintendent of such district mental hospital not to require special care and treatment in a fully equipped mental hospital".
This follows on amendment No. 2. It relates to the use to which auxiliary mental hospitals will be put. Amendment No. 27 also follows on amendment No. 2.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26, in the name of Deputy Norton:—
In sub-section (2), line 37, to delete the words "if the Minister so directs".
The purpose of the amendment is to try to retain for mental hospital authorities at least sufficient power to enable them to carry out their duties with a reasonable sense of responsibility. The sub-section states that an auxiliary mental hospital shall be either a separate hospital, or, if the Minister so directs, a part of the relevant district mental hospital, and we feel that, inasmuch as the local mental hospital authority has responsibility for dealing with the whole of the mental hospital district, it should be sufficient to leave it to its discretion to decide whether the auxiliary hospital can be adequately provided as part of the relevant district hospital or whether it requires a separate institution. If the words which we propose to delete are allowed to stand, we feel from experience that the matter will be regarded more from the point of view of economy than any other, and that the view the Minister would take would be somewhat contrary to that of the committee. We suggest that inasmuch as the committee is charged with responsibility, it should not be confined in any niggardly fashion, but should be allowed to decide whether an auxiliary mental hospital should be provided within the confines of the existing hospital or as a separate institution.
I do not think the Deputy need press his amendment very strongly, because it is unlikely that the Minister will have to direct a mental hospital authority in such a matter, but, at the same time, such an occasion might arise, and if the Minister had not power to give such a direction, the best possible facilities might not be provided. I have never heard of any complaint on the score that the Minister abused the power. The Deputy may not be aware that it is not a new power. The Minister has had this power under Section 76 of the Local Government Act of 1898, and there has never been any complaint as to the manner in which the power was exercised.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In page 17, to delete sub-section (3).
This is a drafting, amendment. It follows on the previous amendments Nos. 2 and 25.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 23.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 17, lines 46 and 47, to delete the words "who are chargeable patients".
The object of the amendment is to enable the mental hospital authorities to provide accommodation for voluntary patients who are not chargeable.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 24.
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1), lines 1 and 2, to delete the words "may, with the consent of the Minister and shall, if the Minister so directs" and substitute the word "shall".
We are dealing here with one new phase of mental treatment, namely, the establishment of consulting rooms and clinics. The section provides that the mental hospital authorities "may", with the consent of the Minister, and "shall" if the Minister so directs, provide clinics and consulting rooms and so on. We feel that, instead of leaving the matter optional with the mental hospital authority, it should be made mandatory. There should be a primary responsibility placed on the mental hospital authority to give effect to what is now recognised as probably one of the most valuable features of the Bill, namely, that before persons are brought within the atmosphere of a mental hospital they can go there voluntarily of their own free will to receive advice and treatment which, in many cases, may be all that is required to keep them normal people. This is such a valuable public health measure that there should be no ambiguity about the wording of the section.
I submit that the section, as it stands, provides better machinery —machinery that is more likely not to break down—than that which is proposed in the amendment. It is all right to assume that the mental hospital authority will provide these clinics, but we have to envisage the possibility that, in certain instances, they might perhaps be reluctant to do so. Apart from that, there is a more important issue at stake in the section as drafted. It is necessary that the Minister should be in a position to co-ordinate the provision of such clinics. The type of cases that may be catered for in different clinics will not always be the same, and if the mental hospital authority, in their enthusiasm, were to establish clinics without any co-ordinating control or direction, the results might not be as satisfactory as they otherwise might be. I would draw Deputy Larkin's attention to the fact that the section gives the mental hospital authority power, with the consent of the Minister or at the direction of the Minister, to provide mental treatment either in their own district mental hospital or elsewhere. Co-ordination within their own district is all right, but, once they go outside their own district to provide clinics, we might find two or three mental hospital committees providing the same type of clinics in the same area. I think, therefore, that the case for retaining full Ministerial control is complete.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1), page 18, lines 4 and 5, to delete the words "where persons can obtain advice and treatment" and substitute the words "for affording advice and preventive and curative treatment in cases of mental disorder (including cases of suspected or incipient mental disorder) and for the investigation of such cases".
The object of the amendment is to make it clear that the consulting rooms and clinics are intended for the investigation of early cases as well as other cases, and for affording advice and treatment to those cases. The extension of the section is intended to provide machinery under which juvenile delinquency might be dealt with. Deputy Dillon, who is not able to be here, has been particularly interested in this problem. Following on the circulation of the draft of the Bill, he made strong representations for an extension of the provisions of the section. It is to meet those representations that the amendment is being moved.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In sub-section (3), page 18, line 17, to insert before the word "will" the words "clinic, dispensary or health centre".
This is merely an extension of the type of clinic that can be provided.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:—
In sub-section (4), page 18, to delete lines 21, 22 and 23 and substitute the words "persons to attend at the consulting room or clinic as private patients and may charge for such attendances fees in accordance with a scale approved of by the Minister".
The object of the amendment is to provide that the fees charged to private patients for attendance at the consulting rooms or clinics shall be in accordance with the scale approved of by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 34 not moved.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what the word "staff" in the section is intended to cover? Does it apply merely to the officers of the institution or to the personnel generally? It is well known that in several of these institutions there is a grave lack of accommodation for married attendants. Do officers and servants come within the definition of "staff"?
"Staff" is not defined, but it would be taken to include "officers and servants".
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 35:—
In page 18, lines 51 and 52, to delete the words "ground for the burial of chargeable patients dying," and substitute the words "place for the burial of the remains of patients who die."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Mr. Corish
On behalf of Deputy Norton, I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 18 to delete all words in lines 52 and 53 after the word "authority" in line 52, and substitute the words "may with the sanction of the Minister."
This amendment raises the same old principle as to whether the Minister should have the power to direct. There is a similar provision in the Public Assistance Act of 1939, in relation to institutions, and no objection has been taken to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 30, 31 and 32 agreed to.
SECTION 33.
I move amendment No. 37:—
Before Section 33, page 19, to insert a new section as follows:—
33.—A mental hospital authority may, with the consent of the Minister, and shall,. if so directed by the Minister, contribute to the capital cost of providing a clinic, dispensary or health centre in which the authority (whether of their own motion or in compliance with a direction of the Minister) propose to arrange under Section 24 of this Act that accommodation will be available as a consulting room or clinic.
This is a section to provide that where a mental hospital authority proposes to arrange that accommodation shall be available for a consulting room at a clinic, dispensary, or health centre, they may contribute towards the capital cost of the provision of such clinic, dispensary or health centre.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:—
In line 18, to delete the words "plan or contract" and substitute the word "proposal" and to delete in line 23 the word "contract" and substitute the words "specification relating to the proposal".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Corish
I move amendment No. 39:—
In line 19 to delete the words "five hundred" and substitute the words "two thousand".
We consider that owing to the fact that the cost of everything has increased so much, the figure mentioned here is too small. We think greater scope ought to be given to the local authority. When one starts on a job of renovating it is very difficult to know where it will end. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the sum of £500 is ridiculously low. Decoration at the present time costs an enormous amount of money.
Under Section 33, ordinary decoration would not be covered. Section 33 says "a plan or contract for the erection at a cost exceeding £500 of an institution to be maintained by the mental hospital authority".
Mr. Corish
Is not there something about renovation?
There is restoration, enlargement or other alteration, but it does not envisage day to day maintenance.
Mr. Corish
What would restoration mean? Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to remove the word "restoration", on Report Stage? I will withdraw the amendment if the Parliamentary Secretary agrees to look into it.
Amendment 39, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 19, to delete in line 26, the words "plan or contract" and substitute the word "proposal" and to delete in line 32 the word "contract" and substitute the words "specification relating to the proposal".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 41 not moved.
Section 34, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 19, to delete in line 35 the words "plan or contract" and substitute the word "proposal" and to delete in line 39 the word "contract" and substitute the words "specification relating to the proposal".
This is a consequential amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Section 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 44:—
Before sub-section (1), in page 19, to insert the following new sub-section:—
(1) A mental hospital authority may provide and maintain a laboratory for pathological research in connection with mental and nervous diseases.
This amendment is put down for the purpose of getting an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. He will appreciate that the inference to be drawn from the section as it stands is that facilities for pathological research will be available only when two hospitals combine for that purpose. He is aware of the fact that certain hospitals already have this facility. It should be open to every hospital to have this most important facility available to it and the condition should not be superimposed that two hospitals must combine for the purpose. I move the amendment so as to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I have not any rooted objection to the principle that the Deputy the Lord Mayor is aiming at, but if I accept the principle, it would have to be subject to the consent of the Minister; otherwise we might have duplication, if every mental hospital set out to establish its own pathological laboratory. However, I think I will be able to deal with it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 45 not moved.
I move amendment No. 46:—
In sub-section (1), page 19, line 54, to insert before the word "provide" the words "and shall, if the Minister so directs,"
The principle has been argued fully. Two or more mental hospital authorities may be required by the Minister to provide and maintain a laboratory.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:—
In sub-section (1), page 19, line 55, to delete the word "pathological".
It was felt on further consideration that the word "pathological" might be restrictive, and, by the deletion of the word "pathological", two or more mental hospital authorities can then maintain a laboratory for research in connection with mental and nervous diseases. It might not always be pathological research.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 48 not moved.
I move amendment No. 49:—
In page 20, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:
(3) A joint authority through whom a laboratory is managed under this section on behalf of any mental hospital authorities may permit the services afforded by the laboratory to be available for a mental institution not maintained by any of those authorities, and may make such charge as they consider reasonable where any service is availed of under such permission.
It is intended to permit private institutions to partake in the services of a laboratory established under Section 37.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 37, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Mr. Corish
I formally move amendment No. 50, in the name of Deputy Keyes:—
In line 5, after the word "may" to insert the words "after consultation with mental hospital authorities".
There is not much point in putting a statutory obligation on the Minister to consult the mental hospital authorities. It would be a very cumbersome machinery if he had to consult with each mental hospital authority before he could make general regulations. If two or three mental hospital authorities raised pernickety questions it might take him a long time to make his regulations effective. I do not think it is necessary to put that restriction on the Minister. In fact, he may have to enforce his regulations on certain mental hospital authorities.
The amendment does not interfere with the final power of the Minister to make the regulations. It only requires certain consultation and if, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, certain pernickety questions are raised, he still has power to ignore or to cut through them.
It is the length of time it may take that I am concerned about. These are general regulations.
I understand, but I take it that if the amendment is not pressed, where it is practicable the Minister would consult in the ordinary way and consider the views that might be submitted to him by a mental hospital authority.
As a matter of policy, yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Would it be possible to include in the general regulations the principle of standardisation of conditions of service for the various mental hospital authorities throughout the country? It is hardly within the scope of this Bill, but does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to introduce standard regulations at an early date governing conditions of employment?
Would the Deputy elaborate?
There is a great lack of uniformity in conditions of employment.
Does the Deputy mean salaries?
There is also discrepancy in salaries. Of course, that does not arise on this Bill.
We could not deal with it on this Bill.
Could we deal with the conditions in this Bill, apart from the question of salary?
No. The Local Government Act, 1941, would govern conditions of employment.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 51:—
In sub-section (3), page 20, line 28, to insert before the word "sub-section" the words "proviso (b) (repealed by this Act) to".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendment No. 52 is out of order.
I move amendment No. 53:—
In sub-section (3), page 21, lines 5 and 6, to delete the words "average daily number of" and substitute the words "net cost of maintenance, determined by the prescribed method, of the".
This amendment is to provide that, where a mental hospital district consists of more than one county, the expenditure shall be supplied by the councils of the counties in proportion to the net cost of maintenance of chargeable patients from their respective functional areas. Deputies will appreciate that chargeable patients embrace patients paying part of the cost of maintenance, and, consequently, if it is based on the number of patients it may not be equitable, because in some mental hospitals a number of chargeable patients may be paying the greater proportion of the cost of maintenance. This is a more equitable method of approach.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:—
In sub-section (4), page 21, line 17, to delete the words "average daily number of," and substitute the words "net cost of maintenance, determined by the prescribed method, of the."
Amendments 53 and 54 hang together.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 41, as amended, agreed to.
Section 42, 43 and 44 agreed to.
SECTION 45.
I move amendment No. 55:—
In sub-section (1), line 57, after the word "board," to insert the following proviso: "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall require a patient to remit a payment direct to the treasurer."
The aim of this amendment is to make it clear that payment to any authorised person will be regarded as discharging the liability; that it will not be necessary that the payment should be made directly to the treasurer, but to any body acting on his behalf.
I think paragraph 3 of sub-section (1) of Section 45, if the Deputy reads it carefully, will satisfy him that his point is covered. It says: "the receipt of an officer of a joint board duly authorised," etc.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45 agreed to.
Sections 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 agreed to.
SECTION 51.
I move amendment No. 56:—
In sub-section (4), page 23, to delete lines 41 to 45 and substitute the words "been given under this section by a mental hospital authority may, not later than 14 days after the giving of such notice, apply, on notice to such mental hospital authority, to the justice of the District Court having jurisdiction in the district in which the land is situate for an order prohibiting the entry, and upon."
This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 51, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 52, 53, 54 and 55 agreed to.
SECTION 56.
Question proposed: "That Section 56 stand part of the Bill".
The time there is rather short, it says within three weeks.
I will look into that between this and the Report Stage. I think it is the usual period provided.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 57 agreed to.
SECTION 58.
I move amendment No. 57:—
In page 26, to delete in line 20 the word "payment" and substitute the words "annual payment payable" and to insert the word "annual" before the word "payment" in line 23 and in line 25.
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 59 and 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
I move amendment No. 58:—
In sub-section (1), page 26, line 51, to insert before the word "who" the words "whose duties relate to the functions of a mental hospital authority under this Act and".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:—
In sub-section (1), page 27, line 8, to insert before the word "who" the words "whose duties relate to the functions of a mental hospital authority under this Act and".
Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 hang together.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 60:—
In sub-section (1), page 27, line 18, to delete the word "overtime".
The purpose of the amendment is to secure that in the calculation of the value of emoluments overtime should be included. I know that in a number of Acts there has been a tendency to exclude overtime. But, as overtime does constitute payment for work done and emoluments are based in part on the salaries set down for the normal work performed by persons coming within the section of the Act, I think it is invidious that the value of the portion of the work they perform under that heading of overtime should not be taken into consideration in regard to emoluments. It is quite possible in relation to certain servants of mental institutions that they would normally be engaged on very consistent overtime. I have in mind such persons as those engaged on maintenance duties in connection with the building itself and the equipment; persons engaged in attending to boilers, electricians, plumbers, etc. Subject to correction, I believe that in one of the earlier Acts governing superannuation for this class of employment overtime is included. I submit that it is not equitable to exclude it in arriving at the value of the emoluments for superannuation purposes.
I must oppose the principle in this amendment, because I do not think it is a sound social principle, apart from any other aspect of it. Persons who are in a privileged position now, having ordinary normal employment, plus overtime employment, are considerably better off anyhow not only than people who have no employment but than people who have normal employment. I think that the principle of overtime is a bad one, and that, if it is made attractive, it must inevitably have the result of producing less employment and creating more and more overtime employment and that our aim ought to be to discourage overtime rather than to encourage it. A man who gets periods of overtime has the extra cash income during the period he is so employed, and if he can also look forward to higher superannuation when he retires, the inevitable result of that must be to endeavour to get as much overtime as he possibly can. On the ground that the principle of overtime is unsound, I am opposed to this amendment.
I am even more opposed than the Minister is to the principle of overtime, but it is one thing being opposed to the principle of overtime and it is another thing, when the overtime is actually worked, not giving the individual proper credit for the actual work he has performed. After all, persons who are going to work overtime have not the final say as to whether they will work the overtime or not. If there is proper conduct of the institution and proper supervision, it is quite clear that only necessary overtime will be worked, and overtime cannot be artificially created.
The Parliamentary Secretary is quite aware that in many of these institutions overtime arises, say, in the case of an electrician or a plumber where there is a breakdown, or in the case of attendants in a boiler-house or engine-house, or where the work of a carpenter cannot be performed during normal hours. All these are cases of overtime over which the individual worker has no control, and in many cases he may have a personal objection to performing the work because of the inconvenience. To suggest that to include overtime in the definition of emoluments is to make a superannuation so attractive as to encourage the working of overtime is to strain the argument to a very considerable extent. It means that the individual is going to look some 25 or 30 years ahead and calculate to the nearest penny how much his superannuation is going to be increased if he works so many hours overtime each week at the present time.
I am with the Parliamentary Secretary in opposition to overtime, but I think a great deal more could be done, possibly, by the Government than by those who speak on the Opposition Benches. So long as overtime is worked, it is not contrary to principle that equity shall be given to the individual who has to perform that overtime. In so far as that overtime does constitute portion of his wages or salary for work performed and in so far as his superannuation is calculated on his salary or wage, in all equity he is entitled to have the whole of his remuneration for work performed—I am leaving out altogether such items as travelling expenses and additional allowances—included in the calculation of superannuation. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment upon what I mentioned before—that, in earlier Acts, overtime was included and that this is a departure. I think I am right in that.
Do not ask me to comment.
I have enough to comment on here.
Mr. Corish
The Minister says it would be an incentive to people to work overtime, but I say there is another side to the question. It may be an incentive to the committee of management itself to prevent overtime, thereby giving more employment to other people.
Question—"That the word proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin.)
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Healy, John B.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarty, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnalt.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Beirne, John
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Leary, John.
- Everett, James.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Heskin, Denis.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Murphy.
Question declared carried
I move amendment No. 61:—
Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
A mental hospital authority, when calculating the period of service of an officer or servant, shall take into account any period spent on probation previous to appointment
I would like to inquire if it is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, on amendment No. 64, to meet the point in my amendment?
I do not know that it fully meets the point that Deputy Pattison has in mind. Deputy Pattison's amendment provides that a mental hospital authority, when calculating the period of service of an officer or servant, shall take into account any period spent on probation previous to appointment. I am conceding that principle, but it is subject to the payment of contributions.
In amendment No. 64 you have the words "established officer". Will the definition "established officer" mean a person who acted in a temporary capacity for five or six years?
He would be an established officer if his temporary employment were continuous and merged in the subsequent permanent employment.
If he was continuous in a temporary capacity, would he automatically become a permanent official?
His temporary service would, in such circumstances, count.
Mr. Corish
Would his probation period count?
Yes, subject to the payment of contributions covering the period when he was temporarily employed.
He would have to pay up arrears?
Mr. Corish
Does that mean that the probation period counts?
Yes, subject to the payment of arrears.
A case was mentioned to me of a dairymaid in a mental hospital who was working in a temporary capacity for ten years, and eventually was approved by the Minister. Will that person now be entitled to pay into the fund contributions covering all her period of service in order to have the whole period qualifying for superannuation purposes?
What is the occupation of this person—in what capacity is she engaged?
Yes, I should say so, subject to continuous employment and subject to the payment of the arrears.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 62:—
To delete sub-section (4) and substitute the following new sub-section:—
(4) For the purpose of this Part of
this Act, service rendered before the coming into force of this Part of this Act to a committee of management of a mental hospital provided under Section 9 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall be deemed to be service under a mental hospital authority and in case the service or any part thereof was service with a committee to which a joint board are a successor, the service or the said part of the service shall be deemed to be service with the joint board.
This amendment is proposed because it is felt that there is a certain ambiguity in the drafting of sub-section (4). It arises because we have the new definition coming into existence under the Act and also varying dates for the coming into force of the different parts of the Act. The sub-section relates to the service of an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority which was given before the commencement of this Part of the Act. There may be a gap between the coming into force of the main Act and this particular part referring to superannuation, and yet, once the earlier parts come into force, we have the new definition of a mental hospital authority which is set out in the measure. The point has been raised that when the Act comes into force the earlier parts up to Part VII. with this new definition also come into force. Does that give rise to any difficulty in so far as service given to a mental hospital authority would technically commence only from the commencement of the earlier parts of the Act?
There will be no break. I shall have the point looked into, but it is not intended that there should be any break.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 63:—
In sub-section (4), page 27, line 48, to delete the word "paid" and substitute the word "made".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 64:—
In page 27, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority gave service before the commencement of this Part of this Act in respect of which he would have made contributions under the Act of 1909 but for such service having been given while he was regarded as not being an established officer or servant within the meaning of the Act of 1909, such officer or servant may elect to make such contributions after the commencement of this Part of this Act notwithstanding that the Act of 1909 has been repealed and, on so making such contributions, they shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part of this Act as contributions made under the Act of 1909.
This amendment is intended to provide that probationary service given before the commencement of Part VIII in respect of which contributions were not paid shall be reckoned as pensionable service, if the officer or servant makes the appropriate contributions for the purposes of the Act of 1909.
Might I ask, in connection with the payment of contributions in a case such as that mentioned by Deputy Everett of a person who is becoming qualified after a period of ten years' service in a temporary capacity, what provision will be made for the payment of the ten years' contribution which may amount to a substantial sum?
That would be a matter for arrangement. I quite see the Deputy's point—in fact, I raised it with the technical advisers—that it might constitute a burden which the person concerned could not shoulder in one year, but I am assured that arrangements can be made for the payment of the arrears over a period. The question of the position with regard to an officer or servant coming into benefit before the arrears were completely discharged is one that I shall have to have further examined.
Might I refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Board superannuation scheme under which the arrears are spread over a period and made part of the future payments so that they are automatically worked off by the time they qualify for superannuation?
There will not be many of these cases, but I would prefer to get the arrears discharged at the earliest possible date, because, if there was death or disablement, we would probably find ourselves up against legal difficulties. I should prefer to see them coming into full benefit in the shortest possible time.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 61, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Could the Parliamentary Secretary make a statement as to the distinction which now obtains in the Bill between an officer and a servant? Under the old dispensation, certain officials were regarded as officers and I think there was an order of the Lord Lieutenant defining who was and who was not an officer of a mental institution. Will this now affect this question of the perquisites of officers?
There were no privates in the army.
There is now, apparently, only one officer, the registered medical officer. Does that sufficiently cover the persons who were designated officers up to now?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 62.
I move amendment No. 65:—
To insert at the beginning a new sub-section as follows:—
(1) Where a person who, upon the commencement of this Part of this Act, is an officer or servant of a mental hospital authority was, immediately before such commencement, subject, by virtue of Section 20 of the Act of 1909, to the provisions of the enactments repealed by the Act of 1909—
(a) this Part of this Act (with the exception of this sub-section) shall not apply to such person, and
(b) such person shall continue to be subject to the said provisions repealed by the Act of 1909.
The Act of 1909 gave existing officers and servants the right to decide not to avail themselves of the Act and such officers and servants as well as officers and servants who were not established at the time of the commencement of the 1909 Act remain subject to the enactments as regards superannuation repealed by the Act of 1909. The effect of this amendment, which stands with amendment No. 18 and amendment No. 66, is to preserve the pension rights of officers and servants who opted out of the 1909 Act.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:—
In page 27, line 55, to insert before the word "may" the words "and who, immediately before such commencement, was not a person subject, by virtue of Section 20 of the Act of 1909, to the provisions of the enactments repealed by the Act of 1909" and in page 28, line 1, to delete the word "section" and substitute the word " sub-section".
This is consequential on the previous amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move, on behalf of Deputy O'Higgins, amendment No. 67:—
To add at the end of the section a new paragraph as follows:—
provided that a person who signifies his intention not to avail of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall have his superannuation under the 1909 Act calculated on the average salary for his last three years of service.
The amendment is self-explanatory and I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on it.
I support this amendment. There would undoubtedly be cases of people who would avail of the provisions of Section 62, and who some few years before their retirement might have been promoted. By taking the basis of ten years as in the 1909 Act, they would suffer some slight loss, while they would get just compensation on the three years' basis set out in the amendment.
I should like to support the amendment also. The principle has already been recognised in the case of certain State officials. There is nothing new in it, and it is only fair that men who were promoted within a year or two of their retirement should have the benefit of that promotion spread over the three years period suggested.
I do not want to resist this amendment very strongly. It would perhaps be true to say that my reaction to it is more psychological than logical. I do not like the idea of amending the 1909 Act, seeing that we are providing another code. The position I should like to see is that the officers and servants affected will either remain under the 1909 Act, or accept the terms of the new Act. While I say that, a very strong case can be made, and has been made, in very brief terms in favour of the aggregation of the three years instead of the ten provided in the 1909 Act. I will circulate an amendment for Report Stage, which I think will meet the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 63.
I move amendment No. 68:—
In sub-section (1), page 28, line 11, to delete the word "normal" and substitute the word "usual".
Sub-section (1) sets out that "the mental hospital authority shall maintain a register of the officers and servants employed by them who have the care or charge of patients in the normal course of their employment". It is proposed to substitute the word "usual" for the word "normal". The word "usual" appeared in the old Act, and there was no particular purpose in changing from "usual" to "normal" except that "normal" appeared to be the better term. Representatives of workers in the mental hospitals have been a bit disturbed as to the possibility of a new interpretation being put on the new word. In order to put their minds at ease, it has been decided to restore to them the word under which they felt so happy.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:—
In page 28, to delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following subsections:—
(3) No name, other than the name of an officer or servant whose employment consists solely of the care or charge of patients, shall be entered in a register maintained under this section save with the consent of the Minister.
(4) No name shall be removed from a register maintained under this section save with the consent of the Minister.
Sub-section (3) of the section provides that "no name shall be entered in or removed from a register maintained under this section save with the consent of the Minister". On further examination, it appeared to us that this machinery provided for cumbersome administration: that the consent of the Minister would have to be secured for the entry of every name on the register. It appeared desirable that the mental hospital authority would maintain their register in the ordinary way by entering the names of people who were normally employed in the care and charge of patients, and that only when a name was to be removed would the Minister come into it, or that where a person felt aggrieved because his name was not included, he would be given the opportunity of appealing to the Minister.
I take it that under the amendment there is envisaged the possibility, subject to the consent of the Minister, of a person being registered whose duty would not consist wholly in the care of patients. I think that was the purpose of a previous amendment put down by Deputy Keyes.
There is the border line case that is always difficult to deal with. Take the case of a tradesman who is perhaps in charge of patients in connection with occupational therapy. It might not be held that, in the normal course of his duty, he was mainly engaged in charge of patients. You cannot have any hard-and-fast rules about these matters. Each case has to be examined on its merits. The idea is that the mental hospital authority will compile its register and that the names of those normally engaged in the care of patients will be entered in it. In the border line cases, that is, of those who are occasionally so engaged, they will be determined by the Minister. At least, their names will not be entered without the consent of the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 70 not moved.
Section 63, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 64.
I move amendment No. 71:—
In sub-section (1) (c), line 33, page 28, to delete the words "fifty-five" and substitute the word "fifty".
Under the section a nurse, male or female, entering the service of a mental hospital at the age of 20 years would have to serve 35 years before he or she qualified for a pension. The Parliamentary Secretary will realise the heavy strain and boredom attached to mental nursing. Many of the nurses, male or female, may like to carry on until they reach the age stipulated in the section, but there may be others who, due to nervous strain or other cause, may not be able to do so. They should have the opportunity of retiring on a pension at the age of 50. I do not want the age of 50 to be a permanent thing, or that nurses should be compelled to retire at that age. What I am anxious about is that if they desire to retire at 50 they should be able to do so and be entitled to receive a pension.
I support the amendment. Those nurses, male and female, have a very trying time. They are subject to injury and disease. I think that after 20 years' service in a mental hospital they should be able to retire on pension.
It is surprising to find this amendment supported—in fact, fathered—by the Farmers' Party. I am not finding any fault with them for that. I welcome their enlightened outlook. It would be well that Deputies should realise what the amendment means. The representatives of the Farmers' Party are asking the House to concede the principle that an able-bodied man should be permitted to retire when he reaches the age of 50 years if he is in the mental hospital service. I suggest that is a rather early age to retire—that it is too early. I think that the age set out in the Bill is not an unreasonable age, taking into full consideration the onerous nature of the duties that mental hospital nurses and attendants are called upon to discharge. A number of us would feel quite disturbed if we were told that at the age of 50 we had ceased to be of much further use, and that we should become a charge on the community. It is well, apropos of something that I read in to-day's newspapers, to remind the House that a principal plank in the platform of the Farmers' Party in particular is that the rates must be kept down.
It is well that we should advert to the fact that acceptance of this amendment is going to bring an increased charge on the rates. On other sections of the Bill I hope to demonstrate to the House, and I hope to have the full support of the Farmers' Party, that the effect of this Bill as it stands is going to be a very substantial increase in the demand that will be made on the rating authorities. People may say that this is a contributory scheme. It is nominally contributory. Do not forget that 84 per cent. of the cost of superannuation, notwithstanding the fact that it is deemed to be contributory, is borne by the rates. Consequently, we have to bear in mind that as we add to the burden, in a welcome spirit of generosity, we are passing on 84 per cent. of it to the ratepaying community.
That issue will arise perhaps in a more acute form on other sections of the Bill, but I do suggest to the House that whatever may be said—and a lot can be said—for particularly generous treatment of the officers we are dealing with in this Bill, much cannot be said in favour of allowing them to retire at the age of 50, after 20 years' service, if they are in good health. Bear in mind that if they are not in good health, they can retire, and there are provisions in the Bill for the addition of years to their service if their health has broken down in the service. In fact, I think nearly every possible contingency has been covered in the Bill. I do not know if the Deputies who have moved this amendment intend to press it to its logical conclusion, but I may indicate right at the outset that I would have to oppose it.
I am rather sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has seen fit to introduce that spirit into the debate which, happily, up to this has been absent from it.
Look at those two happy men on the Farmers' Benches. Do not worry about them.
There are two men over there who have not as long experience of the Parliamentary Secretary as some of us. We have been going along so nicely and I may say, so rapidly, that I would not like to see anything introduced that might endanger the harmony we have had this evening. The Parliamentary Secretary is sufficiently long in this House to know that it is not so much what is said on one side as what it causes to be said on another side that creates the trouble here. One would imagine from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that if this amendment were accepted every officer concerned would immediately on reaching the age of 50 years take advantage of this new section and retire. He said that provision had been made whereby they could retire on the grounds of illness, broken health, and so on. It is easy to understand certain circumstances that are not covered by anything in the Bill and which probably could not be covered by anything that could be put into the Bill. It might not only be in the interest of the particular servant or officer that he should be permitted to retire at the age of 50 years, but it might also be in the interest of the institution and the inmates of the institution. A person in one of these very onerous positions might have his nervous system in such a state that it might not be either to his own advantage or to the advantage of the inmates that he should be continued beyond 50 years of age if he had a right to retire and yet his condition might not be sufficiently obvious to permit him to retire under the section dealing with broken health.
I think the principle in the amendment is a good one and should be welcomed particularly by the Parliamentary Secretary, with the greater knowledge that he must have of the exceptional strain that is put on persons employed in institutions and dealing with patients of the type with which they have to deal.
The Parliamentary Secretary reminded me of the fact that the amendment would mean an increase in the rates. He also reminded me of something which appeared in the Press as regards our platform policy. That is beside the point. He will have noticed that I asked that the mental hospital charge should be a national charge, in which case it would not fall on the ratepayer.
That does not arise on this section.
I am just reminding the Parliamentary Secretary, as he reminded me.
The Deputy cannot ride away on that horse.
I agree with much of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. Nevertheless, there exists a case for these people. The man or woman who takes up this very heavy responsibility, does so as a vocation of a very high order. They enter, we will assume, at the age of 21. We all appreciate the difficulties connected with the environment in such institutions. We can appreciate that after, say, 20 years, such persons may begin to lose health. They may not be exactly ill, but they may be in such a condition that they are no longer of benefit to their patients. Their condition may be due to nerves and may not be covered by the section to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred.
It may mean, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, an increase in the rates if these people are allowed to retire at the age of 50 years. There are circumstances in which the ratepayers have to face an increase in rates. They generally accept that if the reason for it is genuine and good. The only time when people are opposed to an increase in the rates is when there is, perhaps, no sound reason for the increase or when they feel that there could be economy or that administration could be from a different angle. I do not think there would be any objection to the increase which would result from providing for voluntary retirement at 50. From information I have received from nurses in Castlebar County Hospital and from the local secretary of the union there, I understand that most of them are quite willing to continue until 60. The officers who would desire to retire at 50 would be few and far between. Therefore, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment. I think it is reasonable and should be accepted.
This amendment is a most important one. These young men and young girls enter into the service of these institutions at an early age and, owing to the nature of the duties, nurses are exposed to injury and to disease and to a continual strain on mind and body. For that reason I think 30 years' service is long enough and, when they go in at 19 or 20 years of age, they should be able to retire at 50. I think that the amendment should be accepted in the interest of all those engaged in nursing in mental hospitals.
In this Bill there is one thing which stands very much to the credit of the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is, as he stated in his introductory remarks, that he is applying a completely new modern outlook to the treatment of mental disease. As he indicated that he was to a certain degree in sympathy with the amendment, I think he should also try to apply a modern outlook to the men and women who have to take care of these unfortunate persons and who have to carry out our ideas of treatment. When we recollect that the age which it is suggested should remain in the Bill is the same retiral age as under the 1909 Act passed over 35 years ago, I think there is a point to be made that we should change our attitude and try to accept a more modern outlook.
One thing which has struck me about the work of nurses and attendants in mental hospitals is that I never met a layman yet who, when he came in contact with the conditions under which these people have to perform their duties, did not express amazement that any normal person would undertake such work, and that was without any detailed knowledge of the conditions of stress and strain that the attendants and nurses have to undergo. I held the belief for some time, although I am told I am wrong, that the conditions do have a certain effect upon these men and women even in a mental way. I am told that the figures do not bear that out. From my own experience, however, I think it is undeniable that the long-service men and women in these institutions, while they may be quite as normal as I am—and I hope I am normal—do get into certain grooves of thought and, particularly, grooves of worry and strain. It is amazing to find the petty questions which seem to agitate their minds and give rise to worries and perplexities.
In this part of the Bill we have provision for retiral for different causes such as injury, illness contracted in the course of duties, etc. We have also provision for retiral by voluntary resignation under certain conditions, where they have got less than 20 years' service. But, in the case of those going out with less than 20 years' service, we provide a much lower basis of superannuation than in the case of those going out on full pension. Therefore, we automatically place a disability on any persons who feel that conditions have become such that they can no longer wait on to comply with the full requirements in regard to superannuation.
The point has been made that this would mean an addition to the rates. Possibly we on these benches are not open to the same challenge as was levelled at those behind us. But I think it is a good point to make that a complaint is never made by responsible citizens against an increase in rates where it brings benefits. The ordinary layman, who has any knowledge of the conditions under which men and women work in mental hospitals—even the best conditions; and there is a great diversity of conditions in the different hospitals—feels that these people are performing a duty which is peculiar in itself and open to special consideration. So far as female nurses are concerned, I understand that they are particularly anxious to have the amendment accepted so as to afford them the opportunity of retiring at an earlier age. They feel that, in the case of women, special conditions and circumstances arise which make it more necessary in their case than in the case of men that this provision should be available to them.
As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated a certain sympathy in principle with the amendment, I believe that he should give further consideration to the possibility of accepting it. I am aware that he has also expressed a fear that it is not our task to provide such conditions as would be conducive to retiral at an early age; that we should give these persons fair and adequate superannuation and, so long as they are physically and mentally capable of performing their duties, we should expect them to carry on even beyond the minimum age set down in the Bill. That is perhaps a proper feeling, because many of us realise that an early retiral age can be abused. But, from my own experience, seeing the age at which men and women have gone out on retiral from the institutions around Dublin—one man I know is completing 44 years' service—the argument in the main is not against too early retiral, but rather a continuation in the service of men and women who, because they have got into a habit of life, are reluctant to break their association and to go out of the service. They have become fixed in their habits, and to take upon themselves the initiative of making a break, even when they reach 40 years' service, is an act that they are not capable of. They hang on until finally an official decision has to be made that they must go out. While I think that that is the general tendency, there are other men and women who feel that they cannot, for certain personal reasons, continue to the full age limit of 55, which in the ordinary way would bring them into the definition clause of the Bill, and that they should be entitled to retire on equitable conditions in or about the age of 50. I submit that as we are trying to adopt a more modern and enlightened outlook with regard to mental diseases we should not confine it to the unfortunate persons whose care we are dealing with, but also should have regard for the men and women who are giving a special type of service to the community in looking after these unfortunate men and women.
I am quite in agreement with the various sympathetic suggestions made by Deputies. In County Tipperary we have a visiting committee which goes through the institution occasionally. I feel sometimes it is not a very pleasant task, but it is a matter of duty, and we go. When I finish the visit, I feel very glad I am able to remain outside. Sometimes there is very little difference between the people inside and those outside—perhaps only the walls.
Those engaged in the medical profession have the duty of trying to prolong life and ease pain. Doctors have that duty in a very high degree, and the nursing profession carries out the doctors' instructions. Those engaged in the care of the mentally afflicted have a difficult task, and I do not know how the young men or women take it on at all. There must be some great religious motives behind those people, and they must be imbued with the highest ideals. I would recommend that to the consideration of the Parliamentary Secretary. He should let them retire at 50 if they wish. Deputy Larkin suggested that many of those attending on the mentally weak become slightly so themselves. I would not be surprised at that. They are the finest type of men and women I know, and I have met them. It is a hard life, and nothing could be more beneficent than for us to place on our Statute Book a provision to give them the chance of retiring at 50 if they wish.
If the Parliamentary Secretary has no greater objection than he has stated, that it is likely to cause an increase in expenditure, though not of an alarming or serious nature, he should accept the amendment. He says that 50 is a very young age to retire at, but he should also bear in mind that there is no other job in the country where the officers undertake such strenuous work. The spirit of this amendment is more or less to give a loophole or a chance to those under the strain to retire. In spite of Deputy Larkin's statement that the figures do not bear out this point of strain, I do not think I am wrong. From what I have heard in my county, I would say they do certainly bear a strain, and indeed a nervous strain, much greater than those in any other type of work. The majority of those who retain their health right through will not take advantage of this provision, but will continue in enjoyment of their salary to the full term, that is, up to 60, if allowed. The amendment is designed to give them a chance and not above out in the cold those who, through sheer bad health, acquired as a result of their service, seek superannuation.
The only point to be dealt with, if it is necessary to reply at all, is the point made by Deputy Blowick. He appears to be under the impression that people who have broken down in the service mentally or physically cannot retire on pension until 55. That is wrong. It is only the able-bodied who are in full enjoyment of physical and mental capacity who are asked to remain in the service until 55. If they are physically or mentally unfit to remain in the service, not only can they retire but they get added years for pension purposes.
I support most of what has been said on this amendment. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should examine the matter from the angle of the fundamental object of this measure, namely, better and more efficient treatment in mental hospitals. We can all understand that members of staffs may desire the option of retiring at 50, and if that is denied to them it will not be a helpful element in the plan we are making for a better future for these afflicted people, and it is from that angle that the matter should be examined. I can see the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view, the fear of inciting a rush for early retirement. I will say there is a desire in the service —not a wholesale desire—for a provision of this kind. One Deputy mentioned the case of somebody who had 44 years' service. From the point of view of the future welfare of the patients and the better running of the hospitals, there ought to be some optional provision to meet this request.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to give us anything?
I am giving a lot in the Bill.
You will consider this, then?
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Daly, Francis J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Furlong, Walter.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hoaly, John B.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Davin, William.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Heskin, Denis.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy, J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Leary, John.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Ta: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy; Nil: Deputies Cafferky and O'Leary.
Question declared carried.
Amendment No. 72 not moved.
I move amendment No. 73:—
In sub-section (2) (a) (i), line 40, and in paragraph (a) (ii), line 43, to delete the words "twenty-eightieths" and "two-eightieths" respectively and substitute therefore the words "twenty-sixtieths" and "two-sixtieths".
This amendment was put down because we believe that under this Bill the mental hospital attendant or nurse would be worse off than under the 1909 Act, in so far as remuneration is concerned. If you take the pension that this measure will give on retiring from service, plus the lump sum that the officer will get after a little less than five years, the lump sum will be neutralised in so far as under the 1909 Act the mental hospital nurse was entitled to a pension of £40 per annum. According to this Bill a mental hospital attendant will get an allowance for life, the annual amount of which shall consist of twenty-eightieths of his yearly salary or wages. On the basis of a salary of £100, that would represent a pension of £25. Under the 1909 Act, the mental hospital attendant had a pension of £40, or twenty-fiftieths, so that he suffers an annual loss of £15. If he dies within the first two or three years, he is, of course, better off, but if he lives to the age of 65, which I would not consider very old, having retired at 55 he suffers a loss of £15 per annum after the first five years and in the last five years, a loss of something like £8. Five years after retirement, his pension is roughly £125, plus a lump sum of £66 13s. 4d. on the basis of a salary of £100, or £191 13s. 4d. He has £125 pension from the local authority and £66 13s. 4d. lump sum under this measure, whereas, in the other case he would have benefited to the extent of £200, so that there is a net loss to the mental hospital attendant of £8 6s. 8d. for five years, followed by a continued loss of £15 per annum.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in presenting the Bill to the House, told us that it would, when passed, be the most progressive piece of legislation in Europe, so far as mental hospitals and their patients are concerned. I understood that when making that statement he had taken into consideration the attendants who would have to shoulder these responsibilities, but we now find that these attendants are to suffer a loss, if this amendment is not accepted. If the attendant dies—and that is a poor look-out—within five years, he will be better off, so that I think the mental attendant would far prefer the old to the new. He has no lease of life, and no guarantee that he will die in two, three, or four years time, but he has a guarantee of being better off if he continues to live under the 1909 Act than under the 1945 Act, and the 1909 Act was a measure introduced by a foreign Administration.
While I welcome the Bill in general, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this amendment in the light of the arguments I have put forward, and to ask himself if it is fair, by introducing this measure, to deprive these people of a considerable sum so far as pensions are concerned. A sum of £5 to a mental attendant on retirement is something to be concerned about. It means something to him, and over a period of five years, it means a lot more. The amendment is reasonable, and I think should be accepted, and I should like to hear what arguments the Parliamentary Secretary can put up against it.
I should like to point out that the decision on this amendment No. 73, will govern amendments Nos. 74, 75, 79, 83, 84, 90 and 95, so that all these could be discussed together.
The Parliamentary Secretary should accept the amendment. It will then be all right.
There are too many implications in it It is not as simple as all that. Deputy Cafferky has told the House that the officers and servants of mental hospital authorities were substantially better off in the matter of superannuation under the 1909 Act. The Deputy may not be aware of the fact but I have been in the closest consultation with the representatives of mental hospital attendants and nurses, both directly and through the Transport Workers' Union and to a lesser extent, through Deputy Larkin's union. In those consultations, there was no division of opinion that I could find as to the merits of the superannuation proposals enshrined in the Bill and the merits of the 1909 Act
In principal and interest. Now, it is true that when we consider the new provisions, including a lump sum plus a lesser annual allowance, if you live to be 100 after you get that lump sum and annual allowance, unless you invest it to great advantage, you will probably lose. It has already been stated in the House that it is unusual for attendants to retire until they reach the age of 60 years, notwithstanding the fact that the House was asked to reduce the retiring age to 50, so that if you happen to die within a reasonably short time after drawing your lump sum and superannuation allowance, well you have the lump sum. At any rate, your dependents will have that consolation. All these things have been weighed up very carefully by the attendants and their representatives. They examined them very closely, and there was no doubt in their minds as to the desirability of substituting the code set out in this Bill for the superannuation conditions in the 1909 Act.
There is another aspect of this whole question which the House will have to direct itself to in order that it can see it in its proper setting. If Deputy Cafferky can speak for the Farmers' Party: if, in fact, he is speaking for the Farmers' Party I welcome it, because I have certain proposals in mind in relation to mental hospital employees that will inflict a very heavy burden on the ratepayers. I am looking forward to the support of Deputy Cafferky's Party on the local bodies when these proposals come before them. I hope I will get it, though I have certain reasons to doubt whether I will or not.
Deputies who are interested in this question know that, for upwards of 12 months, I have been in negotiation with Labour organisations representing the employees in mental hospitals throughout the State, and with the representatives of the employees themselves, on the matter of salary, emoluments and conditions of employment. Their real grievance has not been adverted to in this debate so far, that is that there is no uniformity in their terms and conditions of employment, and that men who are giving corresponding service in such places as Letterkenny, Monaghan, Enniscorthy and Ennis are not paid a corresponding rate of wage. I am trying to remedy that, and to such extent as I succeed in remedying it, to such extent will it be reflected ultimately in the superannuation available to those people. I would like the House to realise, and particularly Deputy Cafferky and the members of his Party, that if and when the new proposals become fully operative, an additional charge on the rates of £80,000 per year will come into operation. I am glad to have the support of the Farmers' Party here to-day, because I feel almost certain that, when these proposals go down to the mental hospital authorities throughout the provinces, the members of the Farmers' Party will get up and say: "Oh, look at the increase in the rates; these men are well off; they are better off than we are, and we cannot afford it". I may be wrong, but, as I said at the outset, I have reason to anticipate this type of difficulty. In a local paper circulating in my own county, the Farmers' Party have already thrown the hat into the ring.
They are always doing that in Monaghan. You had not to wait for the farmers to do it.
It was only lately that the farmers there got a separate hat to throw into the ring. There is a paper called the Northern Standard which circulates in the County Monaghan. In its issue of the 23rd ult. there is a report of a meeting of the Farmers' Party.
Your Party. I am not going to weary the House by reading the whole report, though I must say it is fairly entertaining. But it would take too long to read. I will read the part which concerns us here. According to the report, the chairman proposed a resolution protesting against any attempt to increase the rates this year: "Mr. P. Duffy seconded the motion, which was passed, requesting all farmers on the county council to support it." In face of that, what am I going to do when I go to the County Council of Monaghan to ask them to give effect to this much more generous scale of salaries than that which is operating at the present time? I am quite sincere in this, that I would like to see better conditions of service and uniformity of emoluments and salary, but we cannot bring that about if the representatives of the Farmers' Party, or of any other Party who advocate an increase in rates and taxes in this House for this or any other purpose, do not assist us down the country by bringing the same enlightened outlook to bear in the debates which take place on the local bodies.
Take the example of the four mental hospitals which I mentioned— Letterkenny, Monaghan, Enniscorthy and Ennis. What will be the actual effect of the new scale of salaries in their cases as compared with the present scale of salaries? In the case of Letterkenny, a male attendant after 35 years' service will, under the new scheme, have drawn £721 more than he would draw under the existing scale. In Monaghan he will have drawn £640 more. The attendants do not fare so well there. In Enniscorthy, he will have drawn £1,088 under the new scale, after 35 years' service, more than he would draw under the present scale. That is the sum the attendant will have drawn in cash, leaving out altogether any question of emoluments. In Ennis, he will have drawn £954 more. These increases will be reflected not only in the rates of pay but in the superannuation when those attendants retire.
Thirty-five years' hence?
No. They will not wait the whole of the 35 years to retire.
But they will not get the full benefit that the Parliamentary Secretary is talking about until 35 years' hence.
Every attendant that retires after this Bill has become law, if he opts for the terms of this Bill as against the 1909 Act, will immediately benefit.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what they get after 35 years' service?
Let us consider how it will affect their actual pension. Let Deputy Larkin listen to me and let Deputy Cafferky listen to me because it is of the greatest importance that the facts I am reciting to the House should sink in, because I do believe that I will get co-operation and assistance from the Farmers' Party in this matter, and I am particularly anxious about it. Taking the same mental hospitals again—Letterkenny, Monaghan, Enniscorthy and Ennis— we find that under the superannuation code set out in this Bill, and when the new uniform scale comes to operate, a male attendant will get an annual allowance of £97 10s., after 35 years' service, and a lump sum of £292, in Letterkenny. The same male attendant to-day, under the 1909 superannuation code, and under the scheme of salaries and emoluments that is already operating, will get £80 per year and no lump sum. Is that a generous improvement or is it not?
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give me the figures for superannuation in Letterkenny, Monaghan and Enniscorthy?
If I get this new uniform scale adopted, with the assistance of the Farmers' Party, the annual allowance to a male attendant after 35 years' service would be £97 10s. The lump sum would be £292 10s. Let us forget about that and let us come to superannuation based on two-thirds of the annual value of his salary and emoluments under the 1909 Act, that Deputy Cafferky seems to think so much about. How would these men fare to-day? In Letterkenny they would get £80 a year and no lump sum. In Monaghan, they would get £82 13s. 4d.; in Enniscorthy, £83 6s. 8d., and in Ennis, £100. The figures are more striking in the case of the female attendants. In Letterkenny, a female attendant would get £92 10s. pension per year, plus a lump sum of £277 10s. under the provisions of the Bill.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary is he basing the superannuation under the British Act on the level of the wage to which he intends to raise the mental hospital officers under this new Bill?
I am trying to explain to the House the effect that the new salary scale will have on superannuation, when the new superannuation code comes to operate and when the uniform scales of salary come to operate. I can provide the uniform scales of salaries with Deputy Cafferky's and Deputy Blowick's assistance, when they rally their men throughout the country behind me. That is the trouble. I would not emphasise this point at all were it not for the fact that I scent danger when I read that resolution of the Farmers' Party in County Monaghan. A female attendant under the new scale within the new superannuation code would get £92 10s. and a lump sum of £277 10s. To-day, under the 1909 Act, the same female attendant would get £69 4s. and no lump sum; the Monaghan lady would get £69 6s. 8d.; the Enniscorthy lady would get £75 6s. 8d., and the Ennis lady £83 6s. 8d.
Deputies who are genuinely interested in this matter ought to direct their attention towards helping me to secure that uniformity of remuneration, that increase in the standard conditions of service, that will ultimately reflect itself in the superannuation code that we are providing here to-day, and they should drop all the nonsense here that cannot secure equitable treatment for all the people employed in the mental hospital service.
One is gratified to hear of the Parliamentary Secretary's intentions with regard to certain mental hospitals that have not, apparently, been giving as good conditions of service to their staffs as others. One hopes that the Parliamentary Secretary will get that support for which he so eloquently pleaded from Deputy Cafferky and his colleagues. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clear my rather befuddled mind a bit further. He quoted a whole lot of figures and was very eloquent about this potential increase but, so far as I could follow the Parliamentary Secretary, he was relating the 1909 Act to the existing rates of pay and emoluments.
And he was relating the present Act to what he hopes will be the rate of pay and emoluments, if he gets Deputy Cafferky's assistance.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that is fair?
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with existing realities. Will the Parliamentary Secretary spend a few moments relating to existing wages, salaries and emoluments, the proposals in the Bill and what is contained in the 1909 Act? It is not quite fair, I suggest, that the Parliamentary Secretary should take a set of figures under the 1909 Act and relate them to existing salaries and then tell us how much better off people will be if something which the Parliamentary Secretary hopes will happen, does happen.
It depends on how long they live. I am trying to provide for them while they are still alive.
It probably is, but what bearing has the Parliamentary Secretary's statement about what people will get under the terms of this Bill when something happens in the future?
Does not the Deputy realise that you cannot determine what they will get under this Bill or under the present law unless you know how long they are going to live?
Yes. Let us take, for instance, the people who become qualified under this Bill within a year, or two, or three, of the passing of this Bill. To what extent, if any, will the Parliamentary Secretary's new proposal affect them?
They need not accept it. They are given the option of retaining the 1909 proposals.
That is not quite definite.
That is there in the Bill.
There is an earlier amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has promised to consider.
Existing officials are given the option all along. The question that the Minister is asked to consider is whether or not future entrants will be given an option.
Yes. I may not be able to follow this as clearly as other Deputies.
It is like a Chinese puzzle, anyhow.
I should like to know, supposing there is no change in the rate of pay and existing officers were given the option of having the 1909 conditions or the conditions contained in this Bill, which is the better for them?
It depends on how long they live.
It is rather amusing to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary. His reply to my point was based upon an assumption, assuming that he is going to get co-operation and that he is going to raise the yearly income or salary of the attendants upto a certain standard. On that assumption, he began to give us figures. He told us that in Letterkenny, if an attendant had 35 years' service, after the first 20 years and on to 35 years he or she benefits to the extent of £721. Is that correct?
I gave the figures and they were correct.
That on retirement, in addition to the £721, he or she received a pension of £97 10s., plus a lump sum of £292 10s. I am not arguing as to what the Minister will do with regard to an increase in salary. My point is the relation between the 1909 Act and this Bill so far as superannuation is concerned. The Minister cannot quote to me what will be the uniform scale of income for mental attendants. He has not given that I have read the Bill and I cannot find what will be the annual salary of mental attendants after it becomes law.
The Deputy can work it out from the figures I have given. I have given the superannuation after 35 years, and from that he can calculate the salary.
The Parliamentary Secretary has given a sum of £292 10s. and a sum of £97 10s., and the total of these is £390. He said that under the British Act it was only £80. In five years, under the British Act, an attendant would get £400 and under the Irish Act £390. There is a loss of £10. The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to build his argument on the fact that he proposes to increase the yearly wage.
Will the Deputy tell us why do mental hospital attendants prefer the code set out in this Bill to that in the 1909 Act?
Why all the amendments then?
I am improving on the 1909 Act, and I have improved on it as far as it is possible to go.
I did not put down this amendment for the sake of talking. We have been approached, and I suppose other Deputies have been approached, by mental hospital attendants and by the local secretary of the union. They went to a lot of trouble to point out their dissatisfaction and they have asked us as representatives to fight their case here. That is what we are doing. We are not trying to prevent this Bill passing or placing obstacles in the way of the Parliamentary Secretary. We are trying to help him. My contention is that, under the new Bill as it stands and comparing it with the 1909 Act, mental hospital attendants will be worse off so far as superannuation is concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary has not proved anything to the contrary.
It seems to me that we should try and discuss this whole series of amendments in broad outline, and approach them from the point of view put up by the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing the Bill; that we should try to appreciate what he has given us in the Bill as being, as he said, a new code of superannuation. I believe he is right when he says that that code as a code is appreciated by mental hospital attendants, and that they value it as against the code in the 1909 Act. That code provides for an annual allowance and a lump sum. When he was speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, and explaining the new provisions, he dwelt at some length on the reasons why he thought it advisable that there should be a lump sum, and why there was, and had been for some years, a growing opinion in favour of granting to persons going out on superannuation a lump sum which would enable them to tide over the initial break after leaving the service until they had set themselves up in their new conditions. Everybody appreciated that approach to the question. I do not think it would be fair to deny what the Parliamentary Secretary says: that, in respect of these principles, the code has got the support of the attendants. But there are one or two questions which he has left unanswered. He tells us that he is going to bring about an upward improvement and uniformity in regard to salaries and the general conditions governing the remuneration of those men and women in mental hospitals where conditions have been below what should be recognised as a fair standard. No one will quarrel with him in regard to that. I hope also that he will get the support of the Farmers' Party. Possibly some of the outcry may come from the local members of his own Party.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not suggest that, if it is shown that on the basis of the details of the code of the present Bill there is a financial loss to the men and women going out under this Bill, that is justified by the fact that we are going to improve the conditions of other men and women which should have been improved many years ago. He tells us that if a man goes out on pension at 60 or 65 and lives to 100, he will be a loser under the existing code. I agree with him that a man will also have gained by the fact that he has received a lump sum. But why quote such lengthy periods to sustain his argument? Why not let us keep to a reasonable period? The Parliamentary Secretary, I am sure, is in a position to tell us what is the average age at which mental nurses and attendants retire.
What is the average number of years they live afterwards?
I could not tell the Deputy that.
You can make a calculation on the existing wages or, as Deputy Cafferky said, on the basis of a unit of £100. I think the financial benefit of the lump sum commences to be wiped out in the eighth or tenth year.
It depends on what use is made of it.
Take the case of a £100 unit. The man goes out on a lump sum of about £130. Someone has said to me that, in calculating the differences under the 1909 Act and the present code, we made no allowance for the interest on the lump sum. I would like the Minister for Finance or someone else to calculate the interest which can be got on £130, and lay that off against the annual loss of £15 per £100 unit of salary.
Supposing you bought a wee farm with it?
It would be a very wee one.
Farmers will tell you of the profit they would make on it.
Whether he buys a farm or uses it in any other form, the question still remains that, after a period of eight or ten years, the benefit will be wiped out. I agree with the point of view—which has not been put by the Parliamentary Secretary at all—that we cannot have it both ways we cannot have the lump sum and also have a pension of two-thirds, calculated on the basis of the 1909 Act. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
