Other Deputies emphasised the dictatorship idea. It is becoming rather popular with Deputies of late. We are told that Hitler is not dead yet, that Mussolini is only sleeping and that Stalin has been re-born in the Department of Local Government and Public Health. What are the facts? Will Deputy Mulcahy, ex-Minister for Local Government and Public Health, or any other Deputy, show me where, in this Bill, we have deprived local authorities of powers they enjoyed when he was Minister? On the contrary, in this Bill, local authorities are being given extensive powers which they do not enjoy to-day. Under Section 28, they are being given a power regarding disinfection which they have not under the existing law. In Section 30, they are being given power in relation to the burial of infectious-disease patients dying in extern institutions. In Section 34, they get a very extensive and important power— power of payment for the maintenance of persons suffering from infectious disease and for the maintenance of their dependents. The importance of that power has been adverted to by most of the speakers who were not blinded by vicious opposition to the Government Party. Its importance has been recognised inside the House and will be recognised outside it. Yet, we are accused of completely denuding the local authorities of any vestige of power that remains in their hands. Section 45 gives power regarding the apportionment of cost of drainage works as between owners of premises —a completely new power for local authorities. Section 46 gives power to prevent nuisances pending a decision as to the making of a drainage order— a completely new power. Section 51 gives power regarding the making of a water system on certain lands—a new power. Section 53 gives powers of apportionment regarding water systems —a new power. Section 54 gives power of contribution to the cost of private water supplies. That is the provision about which Deputy O'Donnell was so enthusiastic—and quite properly. Section 55 gives power in relation to the repair of water pipes on certain lands—a completely new power. If I had time, I could go on reciting the list of additional powers. The matters I have mentioned represent about half the new powers which this Bill confers on local authorities.
While on this subject, I should like to direct attention to the Third, Fourth and Fifth Schedules to the Bill. The Third Schedule refers to matters for which provision may be made by by-laws in respect of the use of temporary dwellings. These by-laws will be made by the local authority and not by the Minister. The making of these by-laws is a reserved function, so that we cannot be twitted with giving this power to the manager under the managerial system. The Fourth Schedule deals with matters for which provision may be made by by-laws in respect of public bathing. Deputy Costello paraded here on that subject, but Deputy de Valera dealt with many of his misrepresentations. One of his misrepresentations, made in a sneering kind of way, was that the Minister was to decide, let us say, the anatomical areas of bathers which were to be covered. He was in great form about that and seemed to think that it was very funny. It is the local authority which will make these by-laws and decide this matter. I do not know what Deputy Costello's particular tastes in this regard are. I am not a prude. I am rather broad-minded in these matters, but I think that most local authorities would agree that by-laws should be made regarding this question. I think we ought not to allow in this country, and I think that local authorities would not permit, such modern innovations as nudist colonies, for example. If you want to avoid that sort of thing, you have to have statutory powers to prevent it, and the local authorities are given statutory powers.
Another of the matters in the Fourth Schedule is "The regulation, so far as decency requires, of the costumes worn by bathers and persons exposing their bodies to sun or air and the manner in which such costumes are worn." We are interfering with the liberty of the subject—the right of the individual to go nude. I think it is a proper provision, and if the House thinks it is a proper provision, it can support me when Deputy Mulcahy brings us into the Division Lobby, as I am sure, or, at least, as I hope, he will.
In discussing our new mother and child service, he talked about our interference with the family doctor. He tried to convey the impression that the family doctor would be prohibited from attending a family in future. Could anything be more nonsensical? We are not interfering with the family doctor. We are providing a free service for the mother and her child—ante-natal, during birth and following birth, until the child is 16 years of age. It is a full free service, with a specialist service attached to it, but nobody is bound to avail of it. If people want to make other provisions for their families; if anybody wants to say: "I do not want the district medical officer attending my children and I do not want him attending my wife. I will make my own arrangements and bring in my own doctor," nobody will interfere. Surely Deputy Mulcahy knows that nobody will interfere, or perhaps he hoped that a little misrepresentation on this matter, too, would have some good effect.
He talked at length, and repeated himself many times, about the new constabulary. It is not a great tribute to the medical profession and not a great tribute to our county medical officers of health that the Leader of the Opposition, who was at one time Minister for Local Government and Public Health, should describe them now as the new constabulary because we give them the statutory powers necessary to enable them properly to discharge their duties to the community. I wonder did the Deputy consult Deputy O'Higgins on this matter? Deputy O'Higgins, as a county medical officer of health, will be a head constable under this scheme. I feel pretty certain that, although he is Deputy Leader of the Fine Gael Party, he will scarcely agree that we have done anything wrong.
Deputy Mulcahy, of course, blazed the trail and others loyally followed, and he is outraged that we should talk about taking compulsory powers to isolate. "An unprecedented attack on personal liberty." He talks about police methods and about the rights of parents. One would think that compulsory powers in relation to the control of infectious diseases had never been heard of before, that they were entirely new. He bitterly complains about the Minister taking power to declare by Order that a disease is infectious. It is very interesting, in the light of the fact that Deputy Mulcahy was Minister for Local Government for quite a long period. The type of unprecedented attack which we are now about to make on the liberty of the subject is the statute law of to-day and has been for many long years. It was the law when Deputy Mulcahy was Minister for Local Government.
I do not know if it is necessary to quote, but perhaps it is. If Deputies are interested in this matter and refer to Sections 148 and 149 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, they will find that, by these two sections, the Minister is empowered to make such regulations as to him may seem fit with a view to the treatment of persons affected with any epidemic, endemic or infectious disease and to preventing the spread of such infectious disease. "Such regulations as to him may seem fit"—absolutely unlimited power, and exercised by Deputy Mulcahy himself when he was Minister for Local Government, and he was not a dictator. He was the gentle, cooing General, who coaxed everybody along. I think he signed some of these orders himself, and I may perhaps turn some of them up at a later time.
We have had a lot of talk—again following the lead of Deputy Mulcahy —about the provision to deprive parents of what they consider to be their right, according to their spokesman here, to send their children to school when suffering from infectious conditions. If anybody wants to know the law on that at present, I refer him to Section 146 of the 1878 Act, which prohibits under penalty the sending of a child to school who, within the space of three months, has been suffering from an infectious disease or who has been resident in a house in which a case of such disease existed. I may be told that we are going further inasmuch as we are now dealing with verminous children. If we are dealing with verminous children and taking the powers regarding verminous children which are enshrined in this Bill, there is a very good reason for it.
Other Deputies have referred already to this matter, but I presume I would be expected to refer to it in further detail. The fact of the matter is that the louse—and we have to talk in plain language here—is the vector of typhus fever. That is a fact. A further fact is that epidemics of typhus fever have been traced to infested children in schools. What are you going to do about it? Is that something which ought to be stopped? Would any Deputy like to take the risk of having his child infested with the body louse from a carrier and having that disease brought into his home, in the name of the liberty of the subject? I do not think he would.
Again the rights of parents ought to be respected, and on that there can be no disagreement; but, once again, the rights of the community must come before the rights of the individual. On the question of all these dictatorial powers that we are taking, I have, because of the attitude adopted by Deputy Mulcahy, to delay the House in referring in some detail to the actual provisions that the Deputy himself signed when Minister for Local Government and Public Health. This document is entitled "The Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations, 1929". On page 3 we find this:
"Commencement of Regulations.
"These regulations shall come into operation on the first day of April, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-nine, and shall then and thereafter apply and have effect throughout Saorstat Eireann."
Listen to this, ye democrats:
"and shall be enforced and executed by every sanitary authority."
That was the coaxing way of the Deputy. All existing regulations were revoked.
"The sanitary authority shall forthwith cause notice to be given to all medical practitioners resident or practising within the district of the sanitary authority of the duties imposed on them by these regulations, and of the alterations which have been effected by these regulations in the duties which were imposed upon them by the regulations of 1919."
Due warning; look out, boys. On page 5 we find that:
"The duties of a medical officer of health on becoming aware of a case or cases in his area of malaria, typhus fever or relapsing fever, diphtheria or enteric fever or dysentery shall..."
shall, mind you——
"... in addition to those set forth in Article 10 above, comprise the duties set forth in Parts I, II and III of the Second Schedule to this Order respectively.
"Any expenses incurred by a medical officer of health in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by these regulations shall be defrayed by the sanitary authority of the district in which he is medical officer of health."
Article 14, provides that:
"A person to whom a notice is given by the sanitary authority under the provisions contained in the second Schedule hereto shall observe and perform any instructions lawfully given in such notice."
That was Deputy Mulcahy's cooing way of securing the co-operation of the local authorities and of the public Article 15 deals with immunisation against diphtheria. We heard a good deal in the last couple of days about the tyranny of immunising people against a preventable disease, and of trying to prevent them contracting it in the interests of themselves, their families and the community. Deputy Mulcahy seemed to think, as far back as 1929, that that was a good sound policy. In Article 15, it says:
"A sanitary authority to which this article applies, may, from time to time, in accordance with the advice of their medical officer of health and shall, if at any time required by the Minister, do all or any of the following things."
and he proceeds to tell them the things they are to do. They are to provide for an immunisation scheme and supply themselves with the necessary materials and so on.
"A medical officer of health shall perform such duties as a sanitary authority may assign to him for the purposes of this article with the approval of the Minister.
This article shall apply to every sanitary authority, being the council of a county borough, etc."
We then come to Part II, that was referred to earlier, under the heading "Typhus fever and Relapsing fever." Article 1 of Part II says:
"In any case of typhus fever or relapsing fever occurring in his area of which the medical officer of health becomes aware, he shall immediately send the name and address of the patient to the Minister, and if he is satisfied that it is necessary he shall report accordingly to the sanitary authority.
"The temporary segregation, for a period to be specified in the notice, of other inmates of the building or of other persons recently in contact with the patient until their persons and clothing have been completely freed from lice."
A very proper order, very properly made by the former Minister for Local Government. We did not accuse him of dictatorship when he made it. He was acting in the best interests of the community when he did these things. Similarly, when we enact these powers, and extend them to deal with present circumstances, we claim to be acting in the best interests of the community. In Part III we find that:
"If a medical officer of health has grounds for suspecting that any person in his area who is employed in any trade or business concerned with the preparation or handling of food or drink for human consumption is a carrier of enteric fever or diphtheria or dysentery infection, he shall report accordingly to the sanitary authority, who may give notice in writing to the responsible manager of the trade or business concerned certifying that for the purpose of preventing the spread of the disease they consider it necessary for the medical officer of health or a medical officer acting on his behalf to make a medical examination of such suspected person."
Listen to this:
"and the responsible manager and all other persons concerned shall give to the medical officer of health all reasonable assistance in the matter."
That seems to me to be fairly wide and to cover almost everything. This Order is given under the seal of "Risteard Ua Maolchatha, Minister for Local Government and Public Health," and is dated "the 6th March, in the year of Our Lord, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-nine". Then there is this postscript. We heard a good deal during the debate about the harshness of the penalties incorporated in the Bill before the House for an infringement of the public health laws. This is the postscript under the heading "Notice":
"Section 1 (3) and Section 4 (b) of the Public Health Act, 1896, provide that if any person wilfully neglects or refuses to obey or carry out or obstructs the execution of any regulation made under Section 148 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £100, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty not exceeding £50 for every day during which the offence continues."
That was very persuasive and bound to get results. It is something like that that we are attempting to do, though the circumstances have changed somewhat since Deputy Mulcahy was over in Custom House in that particular capacity. Deputy Mulcahy actually complained that the Minister would dare to take power to declare that a disease was infectious. He wanted to know were we going to consult the outside medical world about it, and if it would be possible that the Minister would sign such an Order declaring a disease to be an infectious disease on his own authority in the discharge of his ministerial duty.
Again, we find that not only was it the legal procedure and that not only is it the law to-day, but that Deputy Mulcahy himself exercised the function and apparently did not know about it. I cannot help that. It is no new power to give to the Minister to declare that a disease is an infectious disease. As I have said, Deputy Mulcahy enjoyed the power and exercised it, but I cannot just say what enjoyment he got out of it because apparently he did not know that he was exercising it.
In connection with this question of compulsory isolation of persons suffering from an infectious disease, I just want to develop that aspect of our problem by giving a few examples that perhaps may bring the matter more clearly to the attention of the House.
I said already that we have had recent epidemics that were traceable to many of the causes that we are trying to remove. The Deputies from the area are probably aware of the recent Spiddal typhus outbreak. It was traced to an infested child in a national school. Typhus. Human life was lost. We have to ask ourselves the question, does that matter We had a recent outbreak in Donegal. It was traced to a contact in a cinema, and yet we are being blamed for taking steps to see that that will not occur again. There was a recent outbreak of typhoid which got a good deal of publicity. I need not give any further particulars that might identify the particular outbreak, but, at any rate, through an admirable process of medical detection, this outbreak was traced back a long distance, but definitely traced back to a carrier. When we had all the circumstantial evidence that appeared to establish the case, we said, "We must bring this lady into hospital and we must have her examined; we must establish beyond any doubt, scientifically, that she is a carrier. Having done that, we must do everything possible that medical science can do to rid her of the carrier condition." But the lady, acting within her statutory rights, said, "You will not examine me or you will not bring me into your institution to investigate my condition or to try to cure me of the condition so that I will no longer be a danger to the community."
I do not think that that position ought to obtain. I think that we ought to have power to bring that lady along, whether she likes it or not and to say, "We cannot allow you to endanger the general body of our people. We cannot even allow you to endanger your own family. You must come in for treatment. If we cannot cure you, at any rate we must provide such conditions and train you in such a manner that it will be safe to release you to your own home and that your release will not endanger the community." That is what we aim at.
There is another matter that we are aiming at, a delicate matter, to which I think I must refer. We have heard a lot of talk about this drastic power, this dictatorial power, that is going to be exercised by the bureaucrats in the Custom House, the Hitlerites and the Mussolinis, and the rest of them. I want to put this type of case to the House, apart from the typhus case, apart from the tuberculosis case, about which a lot may be said, apart from the typhoid case or from the diphtheria case. Bear in mind that this Bill provides the necessary statutory machinery to make venereal disease an infectious disease. It is a serious problem. It is a difficult and a delicate problem. But suppose that through our venereal disease clinics it comes to our knowledge that almost beyond doubt a certain lady, leading a promiscuous life, has a very serious form of venereal disease. Deputies may have different views on these matters Some Deputies may be concerned with the moral aspect of it. Other Deputies may have views as to how such a problem ought to be handled. I too have views and I ask Deputies to believe what I believe—in the first place, that a considerable majority of these unfortunate women are the victims of society. They have broken the Commandments, I grant you. They have outraged the conventions, I grant you; but, if they have, bear in mind that our civilised society treats them more harshly because of the fact that they have violated the conventions than because they have violated the laws of God. And bear in mind that if every case were traced back to the original downfall of that unfortunate person, it would be found that society had treated her harshly.
In my opinion, we ought to exercise Christian charity towards these human beings. Instead of treating that unfortunate outcast from society at the present time as somebody untouchable, we should make an effort to reclaim her. While I do not want to preach morality—that is not my function here—I do say this, that if we can go to such a person and say: "We want to cure your unfortunate, broken body, we want to restore you to health," and if we could get these people to undergo treatment and if we could restore healthy bodies to them, it would be an easier matter for the Church, for example, to restore a healthy soul to that healthy body. That is my opinion.
We have to face the facts. Some of these people will be hardened and some of them will say: "I owe nothing to society. Your civilisation and your society have brought me to what I am", and they may continue to create the havoc that is being caused by these carriers of venereal disease. Remember, that havoc is very terrible when an unfortunate man has lost the higher controls of his moral standards, perhaps through inebriation, and falls a victim and his innocent wife becomes a victim and innocent children are brought into the world with that hereditary disease, and we have there the material for our mental defective institutions for the future. That is a problem that has to be faced and has to be handled with tact and care and understanding, but we can never hope to solve that problem unless we can say to the recalcitrant carrier: "We will not allow you to remain at large while you are a carrier of that disease." That is my policy. If Deputies do not agree with it, let them go into the Division Lobby with General Mulcahy and back him up, but I think that it is a sound policy, that it is a Christian policy, and that it is a policy which, if not calculated completely to solve that problem, because, I suppose, we can never completely solve it, is calculated at any rate to mitigate it.
Deputy Coogan, in the course of his remarks, complained that no figures had been put before the House as to the magnitude of the problem we are trying to solve. I did not think it was necessary. I thought I made a fairly exhaustive statement on the Second Reading. If I had thought it was necessary to quote figures, they certainly would have been quoted. He wanted figures to show the extent of the various infectious diseases and so on. It would be a long story. I will give them to him in bulk and, if he wants them in regard to any particular infectious disease, I can supply them to him.
The fact of the matter is, anyhow, that in the year 1944, excluding tuberculosis, 2,211 people died in this country from infectious diseases. If we add the 3,839 deaths from tuberculosis, we get a total of 6,050 people. These are the people who died. The number of people infected was 54,000. Is not that a problem which calls for drastic action? Is the extent of the problem sufficient to justify me in coming to the House and asking for the admittedly drastic powers that I am seeking? Has human life any value, or are we merely bluffing when we talk about the sanctity of human life? These diseases are, in the main, preventable diseases and, if the public health authorities got the backing that they ought to get from all responsible citizens in this State, then, if we could not completely eliminate infectious diseases—and we could not—we certainly could make substantial inroads on that terrible toll.
Deputy Mulcahy and many other Deputies—they all followed the General, whose troops are becoming depleted, they followed his lead in the debate; how many of them will follow him into the division lobby we have yet to see—complain that we did not consult medical opinion outside. I might, I think, reasonably ask Deputy Mulcahy how often did he, when he was Minister for Local Government and Public Health, consult outside medical opinion? When he was making the Order declaring the diseases which were to be regarded as infectious diseases, he certainly did not consult any outside authority. I would say this, that I have had more consultations with medical scientists in the past 12 months than Deputy Mulcahy had in his entire period of administration, and I think he was there for five years or more. During the time he was Minister for Local Government, he had one conference with county medical officers of health.
I presume Deputy Mulcahy is aware that some two or three years ago, when we were faced with a very serious problem, which, unfortunately, we have not got rid of—the terrible toll of deaths in the City of Dublin from gastro enteritis—I presided at a conference of all the leading medical specialists and bacteriologists and authorities in Dublin City on that particular ailment in the hope that, by pooling our joint wisdom, knowledge and experience, we might be able to solve that problem. Tribute was actually paid in this House by the Minister and by me to those eminent scientists who voluntarily placed their services at our disposal and worked very hard to help us in the solution of the problem. It seems to have passed over Deputy Mulcahy's head. Perhaps the fact is that it got under his skin.
Deputy Mulcahy must be aware that, in 1944, we had in the Custom House a two-day conference with the county medical officers of health. I do not know if he is aware, but, if not, I will tell him now, that for four days in the week ending on 14th April, 1945, for four whole days, a conference sat here in Dublin, presided over by the chief medical officer in my Department, and attended by six representative medical officers of health, ten pathological experts, six specialist medical practitioners, five university professors and two public analysts. Much valuable information has been furnished to my Department and on such information are measures such as this based.
We have not consulted anyone, according to Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Mulcahy must know—he is in a position to know—that we have been in the closest touch with medical scientific thought over a very long period and that, even in relation to the Bill before the House at present, the association of county medical officers of health met and discussed it and expressed approval of it in principle. I do not know whether Deputy Mulcahy knows these things or not. If he does, I would have to charge him with dishonesty, I think. Perhaps it is only that he has not been particularly well-informed. But I would be entitled to complain that he has not taken more pains, at any rate, to ensure that he would be properly informed.
I find myself in a rather strange position here. On the one hand, the policy enshrined in this Bill is violently attacked by Fine Gael, presumably in the hope that the country will be misled as to its real intent and purpose. But, on the other hand, over a period of years, a campaign has been conducted in the section of the Press opposed to this Government blaming us for not dealing with the problems with which this Bill is calculated to deal. Even Deputy Dockrell pretended to be puzzled as to the inspiration behind this Bill or the need for it or the public demand for it. Surely Deputy Dockrell reads the Irish Times. I presume he does. I will not delay the House in reading the articles in the Irish Times on the subject of venereal disease, but I would refer Deputy Dockrell to the issue dated 24th May, 1944. We have heard lots about it. I would also refer to the issue of 2nd June, 1944. That article summarises an article on the control of venereal disease, in the current Journal of the Medical Association of Eire, which we heard a share about in the course of this debate. The article in the journal is quoted as saying that venereal disease has now reached almost epidemic proportions in Eire. It refers to the system of compulsory notification in England and to the special laws in force in Sweden. The special laws in Sweden are something along the lines of the special provisions we are trying to make here.
I also refer to the Irish Times of 27th October, 1944. I hope the other papers will not be jealous that I have quoted so much from the Irish Times: I could quote also from other papers hostile to the Government. The Irish Times in that issue reported a meeting of the T.C.D. Philosophical Society and a paper read by the President, Mr. P.R. Oliver, B.A. I think that anybody who will read the Press report will say that there was a volume of opinion in favour of taking the measures in relation to venereal disease that we are proposing to take in this Bill.
Coming to the question of the control of foods, we find another Press campaign conducted against us. Nearly all the papers took a hand in it. Even the Irish Press did not like to be left behind. The Irish Times of the 11th July, 1944, reported an interview with Dr. Elcock, Resident Medical Superintendent, Clonskea Fever Hospital. The need for the examination of hotel, restaurant, etc., staffs at definite intervals by bacteriologists was stressed in that among many other things. Dr. Elcock is a medical authority of high repute. The Irish Times of the 16th August, 1944, published the views of the mysterious person called a “well known doctor”. Who he is is not disclosed, of course, if he is attacking Government policy or public health policy. I do not know whether they would allow him to be identified if he said anything by way of praise. This “well known doctor” was given very considerable publicity. He talked about the desirability of having some measure of control over carriers of infectious disease and suggested the compilation of a register of carriers. He said local authorities were hampered in controlling outbreaks, as they had not the legal powers to take steps in regard to the disease. Again there is an article in a newspaper—it is time to give the Independent a show now—on the 30th November, 1944, when the Irish Independent came out very strongly on the limitations of the existing law in regard to the handling of food. Further articles have been published in the Irish Independent and I fully approve of them, and I think they are very sensible and constructive articles. What I wish to emphasise to the House is that we are attacked by the Press opposed to the Government for not making provision, and we are accused of dictatorship when we come to the House and ask for the necessary powers.
