Yesterday I was dealing with one particular section of this Bill, the section which provides for the isolation and internment of persons suffering from infectious disease. I pointed out the grave danger involved in the enforcement of this section with out adequate protection for the citizen. I candidly admit that there is need for far-reaching power in regard to cases of this kind. On various occasions, when the Estimate for Local Government was under consideration, I have suggested that there was need in certain cases for special powers, but I never envisaged a Bill such as this which provides no safeguard whatever for the citizen except an appeal to the Minister. I maintain that an appeal to the Minister from a decision of the local county medical officer of health is not an adequate protection for the citizen. The Minister has many important functions to perform, many responsibilities, and in matters of this kind he is forced to rely to a great extent on the advice of his Department. When I raised that point yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary rather sneeringly suggested that the type of appeal board might be a farmers' organisation. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is wise in referring sneeringly to farmers. Farmers are a rather formidable clan, as the Parliamentary Secretary must know as a result of the recent elections, and they have a habit of cropping up in all constituencies, even the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency. But, while the Parliamentary Secretary may have put that suggestion forward by way of a sneer, I think it would be better to have an appeal board comprised exclusively of farmers rather than an appeal exclusively to the Minister because in a matter of this kind a board comprised of impartial, independent laymen, even though they might be farmers, would be preferable to an appeal board comprised of a Minister who must rely to a very great extent upon his Department for advice.
But I do not suggest that the appeal board which would give protection to people affected by this Bill should be composed exclusively of farmers. In my opinion, the proper appeal board would be one upon which various important interests would be represented. The Parliamentary Secretary in his opening statement referred to the spiritual and material aspects of life which this Bill affected. I think, in administering this Bill, provision should be made not only for the material aspect of life but for the spiritual aspect of life. In my opinion there is nobody more suitable for membership of an appeal board of this kind, which would consider the rights of the citizen as against the rights of officialdom, than the clergy of all denominations. On such a board the Churches should be represented because this is a matter into which the moral law comes to a great extent; it is a matter in which the rights and dignity of the human personality are deeply concerned. There is no one more fit to decide what the rights of the citizens are and what the moral responsibilities of the State are than those who have been divinely appointed to the sacred vocation of religion.
I suggest, therefore, that on a board of this kind the clergy should be represented. Probably the medical profession should be represented and ordinary laymen should also be represented. Thus you would have a board to which the citizen who felt aggrieved could appeal with some confidence; that would provide at least some safeguard to the person who feels that, in the Bill as it stands, he would be exposed possibly to injustice. Injustice arises not only in connection with the arrest and internment of persons suffering from infectious diseases but also in connection with the interference with the rights of parents in respect of their children. I think an appeal board established in each county would be absolutely necessary because quite a large number of cases would probably require to be considered. I suggest that such an appeal board should be a purely voluntary body. We do not want to add to bureaucracy in this State.
Having condemned that particular section of the Bill as it stands, I think it is only fair to say that this measure, while it has many bad points, has some good features also. It is only fair to say that it is a measure which has received considerable thought and it is a thought-provoking matter. It is a measure which I am sure will set everybody who has the best interests of the country and the best interests of social development at heart furiously thinking. That is why I suggest that it would be undesirable to force the Second Reading through the House. It would be better to postpone the Second Reading until after the recess.
The good features of the Bill which we must place on the credit side are the provisions in it for mother and child welfare, for improvement and establishment of bathing facilities, for the regulation of itinerants and people camping out, and so on, and also the regulations which are made for the protection of human food. All these provisions are good and desirable but against them we must weigh the disadvantages and dangers which are definitely and expressly contained in the Bill. We have, first of all, interference with the rights of citizens and the rights of parents. We have also the serious burden which this Bill must inevitably place on local taxation. During the past 12 or 13 years the burden of local rates has increased enormously. In 1931, £4,600,000 odd was collected from the local ratepayers. Last year £7,500,000 was collected. That is a very formidable increase in the burden of direct taxation on the people and, when we consider how inequitably the burden of direct taxation is distributed, we must take cognisance of the fact that a severe burden is placed on our people which it is difficult to justify.
It is particularly difficult to justify this increased burden in view of the fact that a very comprehensive scheme for social services, which included many of the things contained in this Bill, was recently propounded and published by the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan. In that plan there was provision for the financing of better social services out of a scheme of social insurance. I personally believe that it would be better to have any further extension of the social services financed by means of a social insurance scheme rather than that it should be thrown on the rates. For a variety of reasons I think that would be desirable. It would be desirable in the first place because, in the case of social insurance, the burden would be more equitably distributed and, in the second place, it would relieve those benefiting by the scheme from the stigma of pauperism which is to a certain extent implied in the relief schemes which we are at present administering, particularly of the type advocated or prescribed in this Bill. I think it was very unwise and altogether wrong to have ignored completely the plan put forward by the Most Rev. Dr. Dignan and that at least good reason should have been given for rejecting that plan and substituting the provisions contained in this measure.
There is also implied all through this measure a formidable increase in bureaucracy and bureaucratic control over the lives and activities of our people. Provision is made in this Bill for an enormous increase in the staffs of the medical services throughout the country. The Bill will tend to bring more and more of the medical profession directly under the control of the State. The Parliamentary Secretary would have been wise if he had given some attention to the statement recently made by Most Rev. Dr. Browne, Bishop of Galway, when he warned against the increased interference on the part of the State with the rights of parents. He made it very clear that, even where parents were neglectful of their duties, that in itself did not justify the State in taking children away from their parents. There should at least, first of all, be a far-reaching attempt on the part of the officials of the State to persuade the parents to do their duty and, under no circumstances, should we have the hasty removal and the forcible removal of children from their parents and the breaking up of home life.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, of course, in reply tell me that State officials do not act hastily, do not act drastically in matters of this kind. But everyone who has experience of administration on public boards knows that State officials are just as temperamental as anyone else, just as temperamental as politicians, and even as temperamental as Ministers, and that we have had cases in which officials have interfered to an extent which could not be justified in any circumstances. Only recently I had to protest very vigorously against a State official forcibly removing boarded-out children from foster-parents who were treating them properly. The children were being removed on the grounds that they were being transferred to a more prosperous home. But, notwithstanding that, force was used, and the Guards were brought in to take these children away from their foster-parents.
I have no doubt whatever that, if this Bill goes through as it is without amendment, force will be used, and used extensively, in the breaking up of families and the taking of children away from their parents, and in the removal of citizens to places of detention. I have grave reason to fear that the drastic powers we are giving to the Minister and his Department will be used extensively. I do not think that we, as members of this Parliament, can stand over such provisions unless the safeguards which I have suggested are provided. If we ensure that the necessary safeguards are provided, then we will have taken some steps to preserve the rights of the citizens. If the Minister wants to get those powers without any check or control whatever, I think the House will have to refuse to give him those powers.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, will devote some time towards extolling the integrity and high standing of those people who will be called upon to enforce the drastic provisions of this Bill. As far as the medical profession generally is concerned, its members are of the highest standard. The medical profession is one of the noblest professions in existence. Its members have inherited a high tradition of devoted service to the community, and particularly to the suffering members of the weakest section of the community. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking increased powers of administration over the medical profession and bringing it more and more under his control, I hope he will take adequate steps to preserve the high traditions of that profession, and will see that its status and dignity are not only maintained and preserved, but are increased.
Weighing up the pros and cons of this Bill, I think we will have to decide that the balance is against it. It sets out to tackle one of the joint evils which beset humanity—sickness and disease—but it proposes to tackle the evil by methods which cannot be justified either on moral grounds or on grounds of expediency. It is always better to seek to achieve good by inducement rather than by force. I commend the sections which provide benefits and compensation and inducements of that kind to people who have to be taken to sanatoria or otherwise interfered with or detained. These features of the Bill are desirable, but nothing that can be said in regard to the evil of the diseases it is sought to eradicate or with regard to the danger they are to the public, can justify the drastic provisions we have here.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill and reconsider the whole matter, not only in the light of what has been said in this House, but in the light of the Doctor Dignan report. I am sure that, if the Parliamentary Secretary is given an opportunity to introduce another Bill in the near future, it will be a vast improvement on the one before us now. If this House passes the Second Reading of this Bill, it will be the duty of the House to seek to amend it drastically, but I believe we would not be doing our duty to the people we represent if we were to allow the Bill to pass its Second Stage in its present form.