Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Mar 1946

Vol. 100 No. 4

Public Health Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 45:—

To delete sub-section (2).—(Deputies Sheldon and Cosgrave.)

Mr. Sheldon

I have really very little to say on the amendment. What this sub-section proposes to do has already been the subject of a pretty long debate. My objection to the sub-section is that it seems to confer very wide powers on the Minister, so wide that it is almost impossible to get an adjective to describe them. I could have appreciated this if, in some way, the Parliamentary Secretary had been willing to approve of a previous amendment of mine, limiting his powers partially under sub-section (1). I would suggest, however, to the Parliamentary Secretary that sub-section (1) should be quite sufficient, but that the very wide provisions contained in sub-section (2) are very objectionable. It seems to me to be very objectionable that the Minister, by Order, can direct a health authority to provide and maintain any institution which he orders them to provide and maintain, without any previous consultation or any references to the local authority concerned. There is no hint in that sub-section to the effect that the Minister will contribute in any way to the cost of providing and maintaining such an institution. I do not wish to use harsh terms with regard to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister; there has been a lot of talk about dictatorship, but I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that in connection with this matter he is not intending to bring about dictatorship in regard to these local health authorities.

I think it was suggested, in connection with an earlier amendment, that no local authority has ever refused to provide any institution which was considered necessary, and why the Parliamentary Secretary should now consider that he must have the means to force them to do so, I do not know. Of course, I can see the argument being put forward that the fact that a local authority never proved to be intractable in the past is no proof that it would not be intractable in the future, but I suggest, in that regard, that if in every Bill that comes before this House we should have to provide against that sort of thing, there will be more than one spot of trouble. I think that this sub-section is bound to be objectionable, and we ought to hear some justification from the Parliamentary Secretary as to why such very wide powers should be given as are provided for in the sub-section. Perhaps I am knocking my head against a brick wall, but it seems to me that no argument can be made for this sub-section at all. For that reason, I do not think it is possible for me to say anything more.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am opposed to this sub-section, primarily because it interferes with the right which members of a local authority had of striking the rate, where they had complete control of financial matters. Now, while this section, as it stands, does not directly interfere with the power of a local authority in that respect, I think that the section, and particularly sub-section (2), must be considered in connection with Section 27 of the Local Government Bill, which has already passed the Committee Stage. Under Section 27 of that Bill, the Minister, if the Bill is enacted in its present form, will have power, where it appears to him that the rate is going to be insufficient, to hold a public inquiry and, after the holding of that public inquiry, to strike a new rate, and, of course, he has also the other power, which he has already under the County Management Act, of abolishing the local authority. Now, I think that if this is going to be Government policy for the future, we should be clearly told that it is so.

If rates are going to rise as steeply as the recent rate in Dublin has risen, then it would appear that the Government thinks that central taxation will not be able to meet the burdens imposed on it and that some of these burdens will have to be met by the rates. If that is to be Government policy for the future, there should be a statement to that effect. As far as I can see, from reading this Public Health Bill and the Local Government Bill, it would appear that the Government proposes in future to supplement in certain respects the burden which would fall on the Central Fund for the maintenance of such institutions by unloading that burden, or a portion of it, on the rates, without giving the representatives of the ratepayers an opportunity of refusing these new imposts, if they considered it desirable to do so. I think that that is absolutely undesirable, and that it is departing entirely from the last power which still remains in the hands of the local authorities: the control of their own financial matters. I think that we should be very slow to give that power to the Minister, and certainly it should not be given in the form in which it is proposed to be given in this Bill.

Mr. Sheldon

It has just struck me, Sir, that certain other amendments should be discussed in connection with this, because once this is passed, we could not discuss amendment No. 51.

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes, you can.

An Ceann Comhairle

Oh, yes, Deputy, you can. Amendment No. 51 covers a specific point, which can be put.

Mr. Sheldon

It can?

An Ceann Comhairle

Certainly, it can. This is just a case of who is to pay for the maintenance of the institution. Amendment No. 51 can certainly be put.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I am somewhat in doubt about this amendment, because it seems to me that we are discussing the matter of rates here as well as the matter of public health.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, Deputy, but the question of rates is also involved here.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Well, Sir, we are not to blame for that.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not say that it would be quite out of order to discuss the matter here, as the matter of public health is more or less bound up with the question of rates.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Well, as far as the sub-section as it stands in the Bill is concerned, I can find myself very largely in support of it in principle because, if we are to have a national standard of public health in the country and make that standard applicable to all parts of the country, then it is essential that a certain minimum standard should be laid down in regard to these institutions, and a system of public health improvement laid down which will operate in all the different areas throughout the country. Now, while the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be somewhat backward in giving instances of local authorities having refused to provide such institutions in the past, I can envisage such cases arising. As a matter of fact, I have only to throw my mind back a few years, when there was a question of the provision of mental hospitals in certain areas, in order to realise the difference between certain local authorities and others. From that point of view, I think that in principle there is a necessity to have some central pivot around which standards of health in this country, as a whole, will revolve and in connection with which certain guides for local authorities shall be provided in the different areas.

It is quite conceivable that a situation might arise in a county or in a county borough where a majority of the local authorities might, for certain reasons, set themselves against providing certain health institutions, and, even if these health institutions were provided, against the provision of certain standards in them. I cannot see why the members of county council or of a county borough should be penalised for dealing with purely local circumstances in regard to what should be provided. When discussing this matter recently, as far as I recollect the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he was prepared to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage to provide for the holding of an inquiry. If we are going to have a health service it should not be related to the fact that there is a certain personnel in power, nor to the fact that there is dictatorship. After all, there may be changes in the controlling powers so far as legislation is concerned in future years, but it is quite clear from what we see going on elsewhere that existing legislation cannot be changed very rapidly, but has to be utilised for a certain period. Those concerned with legislation for health purposes should be concerned to try to get as good a basic principle as possible into the Bill, having regard to all the limitations and difficulties that have to be faced. We should not try to hammer out on a health measure what should be our rights on a rates question. We have other remedies at hand. If it is correct that the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to make provision for the holding of an inquiry before there shall be any Order issued for the provision of an institution by a local authority, I would be prepared to let the section stand until Report Stage.

Dr. Ward

I think it is a pity Deputy Sheldon should have reverted in his contribution to the debate to dictatorship. I thought we had gone away from that. I had hoped that that particular approach would not be adopted so early in the week. Deputy Sheldon approaches this amendment entirely from the point of view of what he calls the extraordinary powers given to the Minister over local authorities. He described these powers as being so wide that they actually baffled the imagination. It is scarcely necessary to say that if the occasion does not arise for the operation of the powers, they will not be operated. Speaker after speaker stated here last week, as did some speakers to-day, that they do not recollect an occasion arising when a local authority had definitely refused to provide an institution that was necessary. Deputy Larkin has some doubts on that. The fact of the matter is that, while it may not be necessary to issue an Order directing a local authority to provide a certain institution, there very often have been prolonged negotiations before local authorities could be induced to provide institutions that are, in fact, deemed to be essential. On the point of the exceptional powers being taken under the section, I cannot understand the attitude of the House on that. Time after time this House has given corresponding powers to the Minister in relation to local authorities' institutions. When the matter was under discussion last week I drew attention to the powers given under Section 31 of the Public Assistance Act, 1939. Deputy Sheldon may not have been here then. I was under the impression that he was, but I must have been wrong. Section 31 (1) reads:—

"Every public assistance authority shall provide and maintain within their district such and so many (if any) homes, hospitals and other institutions (in this Act referred to as district institutions) and at such places as the Minister shall from time to time by Order direct and shall not provide nor (save as is otherwise provided by this section) maintain any other home, hospital, or other institution."

Deputy Cosgrave took a different angle, that certain changes about to take place in local government will alter the position. I want to deal with the determination, apparent amongst certain Deputies, to keep harping on dictatorship and Fascist government. I read of that in certain papers that would not be friendly towards this Government. That does not do any good, and I urge Deputies to get away from it. Deputy Sheldon must recollect the Mental Treatment Act. It is a recent Act. Section 20 (2) reads:—

"Where the Minister is of opinion that a mental hospital authority have failed in any respect to perform their duties under sub-section (1) of this section, he may by Order require them to remedy their failure within the time and in the manner (if any) specified in the Order, and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the Order."

Section 22 (1) reads:—

"A mental hospital authority may, and shall, if so directed by the Minister, provide and maintain a mental hospital auxiliary to their district mental hospital for the reception of patients...."

Sub-section (2) reads:—

"An auxiliary mental hospital shall be either a separate hospital or, if the Minister so directs, a part of the relevant district mental hospital."

Section 23 reads:—

"The Minister may by Order require a mental hospital authority to provide within a specified time specified accommodation for temporary and voluntary patients and it shall be the duty of the authority to comply with the Order."

Lest we should have missed anything in passing over various sections, giving the Minister power of direction, we come to Section 26, which reads:—

"In addition to the institutions and accommodation specifically mentioned in this Part of this Act, a mental hospital authority shall provide and maintain such other institutions and accommodation in connection with the discharge of their functions under this Act as the Minister from time to time directs and shall provide such institutions and accommodation at the places specified by the Minister."

I am at a loss to know what we have done to justify all the talk about dictatorship since 1945. Even more recently than that, coming to the provisions of public health institutions, I might call the attention of the House to the fact that public health institutions in the strictly legal sense are very limited in number. In fact, this section that has given rise to all this discussion is comparatively limited in scope. Since passing the Mental Treatment Act we have passed the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Act dealing with public health institutions, where the Minister was given absolute power to provide as many regional institutions as he thought fit, of whatever bed capacity he thought fit, with whatever equipment he thought fit, and there was not even restriction put upon him in the selection of a site. He could go in on any property within the State and compulsorily acquire a site, and there was no redress. There was no talk about dictatorship when that Bill was before the House and I do not think anybody will suggest that the powers that were vested in the Minister under that Act have been abused. I do not think anybody will suggest that the powers that were vested in the Minister under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, have been abused. In fact, so far as the provision of public health institutions, which are in the main tuberculosis institutions, is concerned, the Minister has absolute power at the present time. It expires at the end of the three year period, although Deputies on the opposite side of the House urged me, when the Bill was before the House, to take a longer period than three years, for fear we would not have acquired sufficient sites and provided sufficient institutions, compulsorily, within the period. Bear in mind that under that Bill the local authorities were assuming an obligation, or an obligation was being imposed upon them, to bear such proportion of the cost of these institutions not exceeding one-third as the Minister might in his wisdom determine.

As to the type of institution that will probably arise to be provided under this particular Bill, remembering that so far as regional sanatoria are concerned, they are being provided under a different Act, remembering again that so far as voluntary institutions are concerned, they are being provided under the Hospitals Acts; they are not being provided under this Act, remembering that county hospitals, district hospitals, county homes, fever hospitals, public assistance dispensaries, are all provided under the Public Assistance Act, we are brought down then to the limited public health institutions that may come to be provided under this Bill. They will be of two types. The first type is sanatoria, if our three regional sanatoria prove to be insufficient to meet our needs. When the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill was before the House many Deputies urged very strongly that the 2,100 beds that it is proposed to provide under that Bill will be entirely inadequate. I was urged from the opposite side of the House to set out to provide 4,000 beds. I said we will provide the 2,100 first and it may be necessary in future to provide further sanatorium accommodation—I hope it will not—in addition to the 2,100 beds that we are providing. The other type of institution is the clinic or health centre. Rightly or wrongly, we are making provision in this Bill for a mother and child service. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that it is sound health policy to begin with the mother and child and I believe that, if we can build up a healthy child population, we are heading at any rate for a healthy adult population in the future. Consequently, we have made provision in this Bill to deal with that situation and to launch that scheme on which we have had a share of discussion already. It will be necessary to make provision in clinics, dispensaries or health centres—call them what you will—for this mother and child service. I think it will generally be conceded—it will be conceded by anybody who has a practical knowledge of the problem— that in the main our public assistance dispensaries are no credit to us.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Hear, hear.

Dr. Ward

That being conceded, unless we improve our public assistance dispensaries or, at least, that type of institution, our mother and child scheme will be a failure. Consequently, what we aim at in this particular section is to provide in the main clinics or health centres at which, so long as the medical assistance type of service continues in this country, medical assistance facilities will be provided in addition to the other public health facilities that we are aiming at. Already, in the City of Dublin, as I am sure Deputy Alderman Byrne is aware and as I presume Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Mulcahy are aware, preliminary steps have been taken to provide a number of clinics. These are public health institutions but the intention is that when we provide these institutions, and when we provide a considerable number of them, we will accommodate in these institutions the poor who are at present being looked after in these public assistance dispensaries that, as I admit, notwithstanding the fact that we are here 14 years, are a positive disgrace to us. I want to remedy that and if it costs money to remedy it I am prepared to spend money to remedy it. Now call me a Fascist; call me a spendthrift; call me a man with wild-cat schemes, if you like. I do not mind. I believe the policy is sound. I believe these reforms are overdue. The local authorities will have no great cause to complain because this type of institution will get priority and at least two-thirds of the cost of these institutions will be borne out of Hospitals Trust funds. I submit to the House that if we had no Hospitals Trust fund to fall back on at all, these institutions would have to be provided.

I would remind the House that local authority institutions to the cost of some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 have been provided within the past ten years and, of that total expenditure, over £3,000,000 came out of Hospitals Trust funds. I do not know whether or not I can convince the House that I can be right in anything but I assure the House, at any rate, that I have not rushed into this thing in any way as an enthusiastic reformer at all. I feel that these things ought to be done. I feel they should have been done long ago. If I can get the support from the public and from the various Parties in this House I believe that we will live to see them done. There it is. You can support me and you can help me with this Bill, if you feel so disposed. If not, we will fight on, but I will get the Bill anyhow.

Mr. D. Morrissey

If this amendment served no purpose other than to extract from the Parliamentary Secretary the speech to which we have just listened, it has served a very useful purpose. Perhaps, if the Parliamentary Secretary had been prepared from the beginning in connection with this measure to take the House into his confidence and let us know what he proposed to do, in the way in which he has just now, we might have had a different type of discussion. The only bit of advice, if he does not consider it an impertinence, that I would offer to the Parliamentary Secretary at this stage is that if he would concern himself only with this Bill and the amendments and the merits or otherwise of the Bill and the amendments, and forget about Fascism and all the other things and cease to hurl defiance at us on this side, we might have a better discussion. Whatever irrelevancies, as the Parliamentary Secretary considers them, there may have been, whatever accusations were hurled against him, I think he is not entirely blameless in the matter himself. We have no desire in this debate to continue along the lines that, unfortunately, it has taken up to the present. Personally, I welcome, and I think every member on this side of the House welcomes, the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that one of the first steps he proposes to take when this Bill becomes law is to deal with the present disgraceful dispensary system and the institutions under it. The Parliamentary Secretary, I think, knows that so far as that is concerned no member of this House, and indeed I doubt if any member of a local authority, will be other than helpful to him.

The Parliamentary Secretary tried to use against us the fact that we have already given rather extraordinary powers under the Public Assistance Act, the Mental Hospitals Act and the Tuberculosis Act. But there is a difference. We were then giving the Minister power to deal with a specific thing that we knew something about and to which at least limits could be fixed in one's mind. So far as this Bill is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary may know a lot more about it, and probably does, than we do. So far as we are concerned, we have got very little information and we have to keep at the back of our minds that this Bill is only one of a series which is to come. I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to draw from the fact that the House has given the powers which he cited here a conclusion different from the one which he is apparently drawing. If anything, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has proved that this House is not in any way unreasonable in giving even great powers to the Minister to deal with public health matters. But we cannot divorce this Bill from the Local Government Bill. When the powers which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned were given by this House, local authorities had certain powers which they will not have when the Local Government Bill becomes law. The Minister's position in relation to a local authority, so far as the refusal of that authority to carry out an Order or to vary an Order of the Minister is concerned, will be completely different. The Parliamentary Secretary says that nobody can say that he has abused the powers that he has got under the Public Assistance Act, the Mental Hospitals Act, or the Tuberculosis Act. I doubt whether he has got an opportunity yet of operating these Acts.

Dr. Ward

Yes, I have acquired three sites for regional sanatoria.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am not making any allegation that the Parliamentary Secretary has been in any way dilatory. But circumstances over which he has no control may not allow him to operate them to the extent which perhaps he would like to. Coming back to the point that we have got no indication as to the institutions proposed, the Parliamentary Secretary points out that we have a number of existing institutions, as if that were giving us a line on the limit of the operations of sub-section (2). May I draw Deputies' attention to sub-section (3) of the Bill:—

"A health authority shall, whenever the Minister by Order so directs—

(a) restore, enlarge or otherwise alter in accordance with the Order any institution maintained by them pursuant to this section,..."

Apart from the provision of new institutions, the interpretation of "institution" set out in an earlier section is so wide that it gives unlimited scope to the Department to impose on the local authorities, by Order, immense obligations. The fact is that the Parliamentary Secretary has the advantage that they have actually been set down on paper and he can see the whole scheme contemplated by the Department, but we cannot. We have got no indication as to the number, size, or variety of institutions which have to be erected and maintained. We have still less indication as to the cost of them.

I am not challenging the Parliamentary Secretary's sincerity when he says that two-thirds of the cost of erection of these institutions will be met out of the Hospitals Trust fund. But, with the best will in the world, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot guarantee that. It is not set down in any law. The present Government, or any Government that may succeed them, may have a completely different view as to how the money raised by the Hospitals Sweepstakes should be apportioned or disposed of. Nobody can forecast; particularly having regard to the present state of the world, what the future of the sweepstakes will be, what amount of money may flow in from them. That, I think, will depend to a considerable extent on the attitude of other countries in relation to similar sweepstakes run, say, by their own nationals. A whole lot of things will enter into the matter. So far as we are legislating at present, we have to keep before our minds that we are setting down here a legal obligation on local authorities the extent of which is not known to us. So far as I can, I should like to disabuse the Parliamentary Secretary's mind of the idea that this amendment is moved merely for the purpose of making difficulties or trouble or putting obstacles in his way. It is not. It is moved because we believe that we should not give to any Minister in any Government the complete, absolute and unlimited powers that are sought in this section.

Mr. Sheldon

I should like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation was very unsatisfactory to me. Deputy Morrissey has pointed out that the Parliamentary Secretary's intentions have no authority in law whatever unless expressed in the wording of the Bill. I am not suggesting that the intentions which the Parliamentary Secretary expressed are not genuine. But the difficulty is that some succeeding Parliamentary Secretary may take an entirely different view of matters and all that he will be bound by is what is in the Act. Oddly enough, one of Deputy Larkin's reasons for supporting the Parliamentary Secretary is that he envisaged a change of Government and that, however objectionable the powers might be under the present Government. under a possible other Government they might not be objectionable. My objection is that, with or without a change of Government, it is what is in the Act that counts, not what is in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind when speaking in this House. If the Parliamentary Secretary could find some way to make this more clear I would be satisfied. On the other point which he quoted against me, that it was silly to talk about objecting to a dictatorial sub-section when in other legislation we had already given equally wide powers, I should have thought that was an argument in my favour and not in his favour, because the Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I was only saying it in a light way and not attempting to make any bitter suggestion.

Dr. Ward

I am afraid the Deputy read yesterday's Irish Times.

Mr. Sheldon

I did not, as a matter of fact.

Dr. Ward

I did.

Mr. Sheldon

The quotation of half a dozen other instances by the Parliamentary Secretary does not prove anything. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not suggest that, because this House has given very wide powers in other Acts, I must agree with every section and sub-section in this measure. However, that is only a debating point. What I am suggesting is that the Parliamentary Secretary's point was a debating point, too. It was not material to the argument.

Dr. Ward

It was a good debating point.

Mr. Sheldon

I am quite satisfied with the explanation the Parliamentary Secretary has given. It removes, to a considerable extent, my objection to the sub-section. But the intentions of the Parliamentary Secretary are not in the Bill and, therefore, they are not binding. That is the point of the whole argument. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary smiles at that. But that has been upheld even in the House of Lords the judgments of which the Parliamentary Secretary's Minister is so fond of quoting.

Dr. Ward

It would be difficult to get all my intentions into an Act.

Mr. Sheldon

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary sees that the objection I am making is a fair objection. The local authority are, according to the section, to provide and maintain any institution which the Minister asks them to provide and maintain. That is a very wide power and can be read in a very wide manner by any future Minister. I am not making a personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary or his intentions when I say that that provision is too wide. I should object to it in any other measure as strongly as I object to it in this Bill.

Mr. Hughes

The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he cannot understand the attitude of the House to this matter. The attitude of the House is quite simple. According to the programme envisaged by the Parliamentary Secretary, an expenditure of £24,000,000 on the public health side is to be entered upon and, on the public assistance side——

Dr. Ward

That is not provided under this Bill.

Mr. Hughes

One cannot distinguish between the institutions which are to be provided for under the public assistance code and those to be provided for under this measure. This is a very general type of section. If the Minister wants to insist on a local authority providing an institution, although it might be classified in his own mind as a public assistance institution, there is nothing to prevent his doing so under this section.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy is wrong in that. There is no authority in this Bill to provide institutions under the public assistance code. The Bill refers to public health institutions.

Mr. Hughes

The Parliamentary Secretary says that this provision is limited to sanitary and public health centres. He felt that he was making a strong point when he referred to the sanatoria. Those are institutions of a national character and the same responsibility is not being imposed on local authorities in connection with them. What we want to secure is that the rights of the local authority in these matters will be protected. It is a very wide power which enables the Minister to insist on the provision of any institution he thinks necessary whether the local authority agrees with him or not or whether they think that his proposal is too extravagant or not. If we believe in going to the trouble of electing a local authority and charging them with certain responsibility so far as local administration is concerned, they should have some say in this matter. The people who elect that authority are the people who elect the Minister and members of this House. If they are good enough to elect the central authority, they should be capable of electing a local authority sufficiently competent to deal with their affairs. This section seems to suggest that the local authority are not competent to make a decision of this sort and that they must be directed by the Minister. If they have another viewpoint, they cannot question the Minister's decision. That is where we differ with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am delighted with the programme about which the Parliamentary Secretary has given us some information this evening. I do not think that it will meet with any opposition from the people or from any Party. But that is not the point at issue. The Parliamentary Secretary could hardly give one example to the House of refusal of co-operation or of opposition by a local authority——

Dr. Ward

In that event, the provision will not operate.

Mr. Hughes

Why should the House be asked to subscribe to this form of objectionable legislation in those circumstances? The Parliamentary Secretary is sure of the co-operation of the local authorities. The local authority would be more inclined to jib under a provision of this sort than they would if they had a voice in the matter. They are being denied the right to express an opinion on the question as to whether a particular institution should be provided by them or not.

Dr. Ward

They did not jib at the sanatoria.

Mr. Hughes

No, but that is a different matter. Those might be regarded as national institutions, provided by the Minister. The same responsibility was not imposed upon the local authority as is being imposed in this case in relation to public health centres. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants to secure the co-operation of the local authorities, he is going the wrong way about doing so. The Parliamentary Secretary compared this provision with provisions in the Public Assistance Act and other Acts. But we are withdrawing certain control over finance which the local authority has at present. The whole position is being completely changed under the Local Government Bill, which has passed through Committee of this House. Taking all that into account and the programme announced by the Parliamentary Secretary, this House would not be doing its duty if it did not strongly question the right of the Parliamentary Secretary to ask for this extraordinary power. It is simply dictating to the local authorities the institutions they must provide, without giving them, in law, the right to express an opinion. Whether co-operation is forthcoming or not, the Parliamentary Secretary is asking power to dictate to the local authorities. There is no use in talking about democracy and democratic institutions if we try to fit that sort of provision into legislation supposed to be democratic. If the Minister wants co-operation, I believe that that co-operation will be fully forthcoming in respect of the programme he has announced but he will not get it by compulsory legislation of this sort. Any man would be opposed to such a provision as this if he were a member of a local authority.

Mr. Coogan

The Parliamentary Secretary was at pains to try to score a debating point, to my mind, at the expense of the Opposition. In so far as we did give powers in the Public Assistance Act, the Mental Treatment Act and the Sanatoria Act to the Minister, we did so with our eyes open. We had some indication, at least, from the Ministerial side of the House as to what we were doing and the implications of what we were doing, but in this particular measure we have no indication beyond the very vague one relating to one aspect of the measure, the nursing service, as to what the general measure is going to cost the country as a whole in central taxation and the local authorities through the local funds. That was one reason why we were hypercritical in the early stages of the debate.

The second reason that we had cause to approach this measure on the lines that we have approached it up till now is that there has been a considerable change in the basis of local government law. When we gave these powers to the Minister under the pre vious Acts which I have named, we had no such provision as is now contained in Section 54 of the Local Government Bill at present going through the House. In Section 54 of the Local Government Bill you have a provision which constitutes, as an additional ground for removing a local authority apart from the grounds already provided in Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1941, the refusal of any local authority to comply with any Statutory Order, Rule or enactment.

It is in that atmosphere of abolition— the threat that if a local authority does not carry out a particular duty imposed upon it by the Minister then it will have to face abolition—that you have this measure debated before the House.

As I pointed out to the Minister for Local Government before, I think Section 44 of the Local Government Act of 1941 was sufficiently wide to enable the Minister to get at any local authority and abolish it, but under the Local Government Bill now before the House an additional ground for abolition is created. I am linking that up with this measure because the Minister may, by Order, order a local authority to erect a particular institution, if the local authority, exercising their better judgements, refuse to comply with that Order, then they have thereby supplied the Minister with additional grounds for their own abolition. That is the whole atmosphere behind the Bill.

In addition, you have the provisions of Section 27 which have been mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave. If the local authority in any particular year refuse to strike a rate to provide sufficient funds to carry out the various functions of the local authority in that particular year, the Minister may order a second rate to be struck. Here you have the only weapon which the local authority enjoyed up till now taken away from them ruthlessly-the power of the local authority over the purse. The only real power which they had left to them under the Local Government Acts is "swiped" from them, and the authority is in the position that it may not discuss the Order; it may merely comply with the Minister's Order. We get further than this in Section 13 under which the Minister need not consult the local authority. He simply issues an Order without any consultation, without any local inquiry. It is in these circumstances and in that peculiar atmosphere the Minister functions. It is with that aspect of the matter that we are quarrelling.

Up to now the local authority had the power of the purse; now it has not the power of the purse. That is why we have approached the discussion in the way we have. Not only has the local authority not the power of the purse but if it refuses to carry out the Minister's orders, a ukase issues from the Custom House and the local authority disappears. Surely there is ground for reasonable criticism having regard to that background. If it has been necessary to stress the dictatorial aspect of these measures, it is because of the background which I have tried to paint. That is the statutory background we have at the moment, the basis upon which the whole fabric of local government is erected. If anyone by any stretch of imagination could call that local government, or local democracy, I fail to follow his reasoning. Deputy Sheldon was quite right when he said that the Ministerial intentions were no concern of ours any more than the state of the Minister's digestion or the condition of his liver is a concern of ours.

Dr. Ward

You would not like to put his liver out of order?

Mr. Coogan

It has been terribly out of order for some time. Whatever the present Ministerial intentions may be, once we write a particular provision into the statute we have no guarantee that a future Minister will carry out the assurances, the undertakings or the Ministerial intentions of to-day. We are legislating perhaps for generations to come and we have no guarantee what particular twist or use may be made of these measures when they come to be administered by a future Minister. We give the present Minister credit for the best intentions and I personally welcome the new approach to this debate of which the Parliamentary Secretary has given evidence to-day. I think it will help considerably to shorten the debate and to shorten the time necessary for the passage of the measure through the House. I think it would help to clear the air a good deal on the amendments to come if we could have from the Parliamentary Secretary some clarification of what he said in respect of Deputy Bennett's amendment. Deputy Larkin adverted to it earlier and I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he conceded the principle of a local inquiry in relation to Section 13. If I am wrong, I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary on that. I think it would help considerably if we had some idea of where we stand.

Dr. Ward

What amendment is that?

Mr. Bennett

Amendment No. 44.

Dr. Ward

I am quite prepared to concede the principle of holding an inquiry before a local authority is directed by Order to provide an institution.

Mr. Sheldon

That satisfies me on one point. The Parliamentary Secretary in referring to the limitations in regard to institutions, weeded out certain institutions and said that they came under the Public Assistance Act and other Acts. I suggest it would be a good idea if he could get that clarified in the Bill because the word "institution" is defined in a very wide way.

Dr. Ward

It is still a public health institution, and a public health institution only. The Deputy can rest assured that it does not include a public assistance institution or a mental hospital institution. It includes only the limited scope of a public health institution.

Mr. Sheldon

I appreciate that but where the Parliamentary Secretary refers to dispensaries, surely they are public health institutions?

Dr. Ward

They are public assistance institutions. What the Parliamentary Secretary stated was in relation to general criticism, the accommodation and the equipment provided in these institutions and the desirability of replacing them, but the plan would be to develop public health clinics, and, so long as the public assistance medical code remains, to accommodate and provide for the public assistance people in the public health clinics. How far existing public assistance dispensaries would be capable of reconstruction, so as to render them suitable as public health clinics, I am not in a position to tell the House, but a survey is being made at present of the accommodation in our public assistance dispensaries to see to what extent it would be possible to remodel them, or to what extent it might be necessary to scrap them altogether and to build new clinics, but these, of course, are very small institutions.

Mr. Hughes

Does that mean that the present dispensary medical officers would give the present services in the public health clinics?

Dr. Ward

It does. We have in fact provided some public health clinics already. We are in the process of providing a number of public health clinics in Dublin City. We intend to expand that. We are making provision in these clinics for the public assistance dispensary as well as for the tuberculosis services and various other public health services-dental services, mother and child services, ophthalmic services and so on. We are in fact trying to lift accommodation for health services out of the poor law system, so far as possible, and to make the necessary provision in the public health institutions rather than in the public assistance institutions, so far as the clinics are concerned.

Mr. Hughes

What actual improvement is provided for the patient?

Dr. Ward

We are not dealing with services at present, but with the necessary institutional accommodation to provide these services. The improvement of the services is a different matter altogether. But, clearly, you cannot hold a clinic under proper conditions if you have not a waiting room, accommodation to examine your patient, a proper place for storing your medicines, proper sanitary accommodation and so on. I think everybody agrees—I hope they do—that our public assistance dispensaries, in the main, are very primitive concerns.

Mr. Hughes

Does that mean that, when the Parliamentary Secretary reflected on the present services, he was reflecting on the institutions only?

Dr. Ward

The institutions only.

Mr. Sheldon

I can appreciate that point, but the Parliamentary Secretary keeps going back to the clinic as if it were the only thing. If it is the only thing, why is there such a wide definition of "institution"? It is defined as "a hospital, sanatorium, maternity home, convalescent home, preventorium, clinic, health centre, first aid station, dispensary or any similar institution".

Dr. Ward

For the reason that I have explained so clearly that I am at a loss to know why the Deputy cannot follow it. Most of these institutions are associated with the problem of tuberculosis. Practically everybody in the House told me when I talked about providing 2,100 beds in our regional sanatoria that that number would not meet the situation at all, that I would require 4,000, and some people went as high as 6,000 and 7,000. I have only provision for 2,100 in the regional sanatoria. It may be necessary in future to provide other institutions, public health institutions, but in this Bill most of the public health institutions that can be provided are public health institutions in relation to tuberculosis. Remember that we are repealing the special legislation which gives us the statutory powers to deal with tuberculosis in the past. As part of our codification and co-ordination of the law, we are repealing these Tuberculosis Acts altogether.

General Mulcahy

It is quite reasonable that we should carry on our discussion here in the most harmonious way, but what is fundamentally required, if we are to carry on our discussions to useful purpose, is that the facts should be placed in front of us. The fact in front of us now is that, whatever might have been said in respect of the Bills the Parliamentary Secretary quotes as having been passed with provisions which gave him power to direct local authorities to do certain things over a field somewhat analogous to this during the last few years, not a single Deputy knew until a week or two ago that the total of the sums involved for institutions under this measure was £34,000,000— £24,000,000 for public health institutions and £10,000,000 for public assistance institutions. When, either through omission or for some other reason, we reach unexpectedly a point like that, it is nearly time that some of us called a halt, if only for the purpose of discussion and particularly in the light of the tightening grip over the whole machinery of local government which the Government and its Party, through the Minister's office and through certain operations throughout the country of a political kind, are taking on local government as understood in the past.

I am in present circumstances irrevocably opposed to the whole spirit of Section 13 and I think that with the prospect before local authorities, in view of the way in which rates have been piled on to them for the last ten or 14 years, the amount of money paid in rates having risen by 100 per cent. from £4,500,000 in 1932-1933 to the figure quoted in the White Paper presented with the Budget last year to £8,000,000, with that as the background before any of this money is spent, no matter what proportion of the burden is to be borne by the hospitals funds, it is nearly time for us to review what we are doing here, even if we do all start cooing together. What we are doing is passing legislation——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not now dealing more with the section in general than with amendment No. 45?

General Mulcahy

The amendment seeks to delete that part of the section which says:—

"a health authority shall provide and maintain any institution which the Minister by Order directs them to provide and maintain."

That spells, with whatever has gone before it, £34,000,000 as the sum total and we have passed legislation which involves that sum, and involves that sum out of the ratepayers' pockets, assisted by whatever is in the hospitals fund, without knowing what we are doing. When piling taxation on to the people, we never had any estimate of the amount, and even when dealing with the Bill on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary did not give us an estimate of the amount we were likely to pass on to the ratepayers' backs as a result of the Bill. It was only by a certain amount of dragging on the Money Resolution that we got the veil lifted a little and got an estimate, which I think is about two-thirds or half of what the real expenditure might be if the scheme were got properly going.

We have been talking here about the mother and the child and the necessity for seeing that they are properly looked after from a public health point of view. Then we are piling this authority on the Minister and piling this burden on the local ratepayers, at the behest of a Department which is preventing local authorities from allowing the rural workers under them to get more than 40/- a week to keep the mother and the family in a decent state of life. When that occurs, we must stop and ask ourselves what we are doing.

We should be able to discuss these matters realistically, in a businesslike and satisfactory way, without any lack of harmony. If we are going to soft soap our minds and our tongues here so that we cannot mention a single fact, then we will be continuing to go ahead raising the rates to double what they were a few years ago. That will be done on people who, the Department of Local Government tells us, should not be allowed to pay more than 40/- a week to a man to raise his family in rural employment, that restriction being made, it is said, because of the general economic condition of the people. I entirely support the amendment here. The Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to warn the people a little bit, by allowing a public inquiry to be held. I would ask him if he is prepared, in relation to amendment No. 50, to accept an amendment by which, if two-thirds of the representatives on a local body resist his direction to set up a particular institution, he would accept that verdict.

Dr. Ward

Does that fall to be decided under this amendment?

General Mulcahy

No, but it falls to be decided before this section as a whole comes up for consideration. Amendment No. 50 is an amendment to this section. If the Parliamentary Secretary still insists on power to direct local authorities to set up certain institutions, I propose under amendment No. 50 to move that he will not have that power as against a two-thirds majority of a local body. I suggest very definitely to the House that we must shoulder our responsibilities, in seeing that we keep our constructive proposals in relation to the taxable capacity of the people on the one hand; or, if we want to shut our eyes a little to that, we should know, when we are making constructive proposals, what the size of the tax burden on the people will be, even if we take it for granted that they are able to bear more than actually they may be able to bear. We should stop the kind of practice we have been getting into, of passing legislation which would put a burden on the rates, without knowing ourselves what that burden is and without giving any serious warning to the people that we in this Parliament are putting that burden on them as ratepayers. Before the ratepayers' portion of this £34,000,000 is going to fall on them, their rates have been increased by something like £14,000,000 during the past 14 years.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

I am impressed by the Parliamentary Secretary's argument to a certain extent, particularly in view of the fact that he is prepared to accept an amendment to hold a local inquiry. I think that has a double advantage. First of all, it gives the local representatives an opportunity of hearing the reasons which urge the Minister to direct a certain course of action. Even more important than that, it gives the ratepayers concerned an opportunity of learning and weighing up for themselves the different aspects of the particular question involved.

In many areas, while the dispensary doctor or the officials or certain persons connected with the dispensary may be fully aware of the lack of proper accommodation and proper facilities there, very often quite a number of the ratepayers themselves are not so aware. A local inquiry would have the advantage of making the matter known. I do not want to anticipate a discussion on sub-section (3), but I would like if, before he ordered a local authority to enlarge or after in any way an institution under their control, the Minister would also hold a local inquiry, at any rate wherever the alteration was substantial. As sub-section (3) stands, the Minister would have power to direct the local authority to extend or enlarge in any way an institution under their control and in that way an institution might be extended considerably, almost amounting to the establishment of a new institution. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give the House an assurance that the purpose of this section is only to deal with clinics and the enlargement or substitution of better facilities instead of the existing dispensaries, I would consider withdrawing the amendment.

Dr. Ward

Is there any point the Deputy wants me to answer?

Mr. Cosgrave

Is it only clinics that will be affected by this?

Dr. Ward

I said more than that.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is what I thought.

Dr. Ward

It covers the authority, in so far as may be necessary, to provide additional accommodation for the treatment of tuberculosis, tuberculosis institutions and public health institutions.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is, of course, wider.

Dr. Ward

However, in the light of the proposed reservation of the 2,100 beds, I think it will be some considerable time before we come to provision for tuberculosis in addition to regional sanatoria.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Parliamentary Secretary will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to provide for local inquiries?

General Mulcahy

He can accept amendment No. 47.

Dr. Ward

I am accepting the principle in relation to sub-section (2).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 46 not moved.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 47:—

In sub-section (2), line 36, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "after the holding of a public inquiry and the publication of the report of that inquiry".

Here the Parliamentary Secretary has his amendment already framed and ready to put in. If this is accepted, the sub-section would read:—

"A health authority shall provide and maintain any institution which the Minister, after the holding of a public inquiry and the publication of the report of that inquiry, by Order directs them to provide and maintain."

Dr. Ward

I have already conceded the first half of that amendment and I do not think the House expects me to concede the second half.

General Mulcahy

Why not?

Dr. Ward

The House has devoted a considerable amount of time recently to the discussion of public inquiries and the publication of inspectors' reports and has within very recent times reached a decision, after prolonged discussion. Consequently, I do not propose to engage in a detailed discussion now, going over the same ground. I have already indicated to Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Sheldon that, in so far as the type of institution contemplated in sub-section (2) is concerned, I am prepared to provide a public inquiry before an Order directing a local authority to provide such institution is issued.

The matter of the publication of the report of that inquiry is a different issue altogether. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by opening up all that question again. It is a public inquiry; the evidence is taken in public and it is open to any interested party to be present at the inquiry and to hear the evidence. If, as a result of the sworn inquiry, the Minister comes to a finding that is inconsistent with the evidence, or if, perpetrate what would appear to be an injustice upon anybody, the usual democratic remedy is available to the people. If he acts improperly he can be arraigned before the House and, ultimately, he and the Party who are responsible for having given him Ministerial powers will come before the most powerful tribunal of all, when they come before the people from time to time. I think that is about the only remedy that can be provided under a democratic Government.

The evidence that is actually taken at these sworn inquiries usually gets wide publicity in the local Press. Sometimes it gets substantial publicity in the daily Press. The Minister, in the recent debate, dealt in great detail with the administrative difficulties that were anticipated and that would, in fact, be inevitable if what is called the report of the inquiry were to be published. I take it that the Deputy has in mind the confidential report made to the Minister by the person holding the inquiry, though the amendment does not say so. Am I right in so thinking?

General Mulcahy

I am asking that when a report is made, as the result of the inquiry, that that report will be published.

Dr. Ward

I wonder could we be clear on that? I am not quite clear about it. Has the Deputy in mind the publication of the Minister's findings as the result of the evidence that has been submitted?

General Mulcahy

No. I take it that when a public inquiry is held, an official or some person is appointed to hold that inquiry. He takes the evidence and, having reviewed the evidence, makes a report to the Minister. That report should be published. He is sent to inquire and report.

Dr. Ward

I cannot accept that.

General Mulcahy

I disagree with the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude. I think this matter at issue can more effectively be argued on Deputy McGilligan's amendment, No. 60, so I will withdraw amendment No. 47.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 50:—

In sub-section (2), at the end of the sub-section to add the words "provided that at a meeting of the health authority duly called to consider the matter, the proposal shall not be opposed by two-thirds or more than two-thirds of the members attending and voting".

In this section the Minister is taking power to insist that on his Order the health authority shall provide and maintain any institution which he directs them to provide and maintain. It has been pointed out on quite a number of occasions, even since we entered on the Committee Stage, that the local authorities have been made practically non-existent in so far as their representative character is concerned. We must admit that these institutions are being provided for local people and the local people, on the very same franchise as they elect Deputies to Parliament, elect representatives to their local authorities to carry out local business.

My amendment is simply intended to secure that where two-thirds of the local representatives are, following an inquiry and report, in conflict with the Minister's direction to them, their voice and their opinion will hold as against the Minister's and that they shall not in such circumstances be obliged to obey the Minister's Order.

Dr. Ward

I must ask the House not to accept this amendment, if the Deputy should think fit to press it. The amendment would, if adopted, have the effect of imposing restrictions on the Minister in regard to the provision of public health institutions. We have already devoted a good deal of this afternoon to a discussion on the type of institution involved, mainly, as I have said, the provision of facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis. We are now asked to restrict the Minister in relation to that particular type of as a result of an inquiry, he should institution, notwithstanding the fact that in so far as county hospitals, county homes, district hospitals, mental hospitals, fever hospitals and public assistance dispensaries are concerned, you have in all these categories of institutions no such restriction placed upon him.

I do not know what confused state of administration Deputy Mulcahy is aiming at, but it seems to me that even if the principle were acceptable it would create a condition of confusion in local administration that would lead to nothing short of a bewildering state of affairs. The local authority would be given these extraordinary powers of obstructing the Minister in his efforts to deal with tuberculosis and with the establishment and implementation of a scheme in relation to the mother and child service, while he would have unlimited scope, without any statutory restriction whatever, in the provision of institutions under the other codes. I think it ought to be clear to the House that such a proposal does not make sense.

Perhaps Deputy Mulcahy put down this amendment at a time when he did not clearly understand the type of institution envisaged under this Bill. Anyhow, I do not think that any section of the House could reasonably afford support to Deputy Mulcahy in the proposal he has submitted.

Mr. Hughes

Our intention in this amendment is to call a halt to the policy of eliminating the power of the local authority. The local authority ought to have some control over its own affairs, and some voice in providing a public institution, and the finances to support it. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument is that a local authority ought not to have the power to say "No" to the Minister for Local Government; that if he says it must provide an institution, it must do so. In order to eliminate any unreasonable element that might be there, the amendment proposes that, unless two-thirds of the members present and voting of the local authority are opposed to the Minister's Order, the Order shall hold. If there is a considerable volume of opinion in the local authority opposed to the Minister's Order, some respect ought to be shown by the Minister to that opinion: that is, if we have any respect at all for a local authority, and for the power and authority which it exercises. A local authority should be vested with some power. Are we going to completely strip the power which is properly vested in the people from them? The aim running through this Bill, and other recent legislation, is to destroy even the small amount of power that remains with local authorities.

The amendment is designed to meet the Minister's wishes to a very great extent. Unless there is a very considerable volume of opinion in the local authority opposed to the Minister's Order it cannot be negatived. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is unreasonable in regard to this amendment. If we are to continue to legislate according to the policy outlined in this measure, what we ought to do is to remove local authorities altogether and not be preserving them as a sham and an ornament with no power, control or authority over their own affairs. If the Minister's policy is to be continued, you will not get men with any backbone in them to serve on a local authority. The amendment is not unreasonable and the Parliamentary Secretary should reconsider it.

General Mulcahy

In the Bill the word "institution" is defined as "a hospital, sanatorium, maternity home, convalescent home, preventorium, clinic, health centre, first-aid station, dispensary or any similar institution". The Minister is taking power to order a local authority to provide any one of these institutions. In view of the present heavy burden of taxation on local authorities, and of the increasing grip of the Department of Local Government on them, I have put down this amendment as a real test of what our approach to local government is going to be in the future. Are the local authorities going to be completely wiped out? Deputies should remember that members of local authorities who are elected on the same franchise as the members of this House are elected, are elected for the purpose of looking after public assistance, public health, roads and other matters limited enough in their scope, but of importance to the people of a locality and to them alone, practically. Are they going to be completely ignored, even on a formal occasion, when they are called together to consider a matter that has been the subject of a public inquiry? A Ministerial Order is issued and they are summoned specially to discuss it. If two-thirds of the members of the local body, having fully considered their responsibilities as well as local conditions-all these matters having been fully exposed at the local inquiry-decide that they are against the Minister's proposals, either to take up an institution or to burden the people with the cost of it, are they going to be completely ignored? I submit that we have now reached the point when we must regard this as a definite test as to whether local government is going to continue or not. It is because of the importance of having that matter tested out that I am proposing the amendment.

Mr. Hughes

Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that local authorities are or are not capable of directing their own affairs, or does he think that they have sufficient business capacity to be entrusted with that task?

Dr. Ward

Does the Deputy want an answer to that question?

Mr. Hughes

I do.

Dr. Ward

The question is not as to whether there are any local authorities capable of properly transacting their business. The point that we have to deal with is: is there a local authority that might not so transact its business? It is for the exceptional case that we require these powers.

Mr. Hughes

That is not the point. The power that is being taken in this section is to dragoon a local authority, and to deny the members of it the right to express their views on matters concerning local affairs. The Minister is taking power to dictate what class of institution the local authority must provide. As has already been pointed out, the members of a local authority are elected on the same franchise as the Parliamentary Secretary and the members of this House are elected to sit here. I think that the House ought to have sufficient confidence in a local authority to direct its own affairs and to come to a decision on whether it requires a particular institution or not. We agree that it is the duty of the Minister to say that certain institutions are necessary for the maintenance of a proper standard of public health but what we are seeking in this amendment is to preserve to the local authority the right to say, "yes" or "no", to the Minister's Order. The House ought to have sufficient confidence in the capacity of the local authority to make a decision on such a matter-that is if we believe in democracy at all. Even supposing the Minister was right and the local authority wrong, in such a case an opportunity would soon be afforded of appealing to the highest tribunal of all, namely, to the people, as the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us. If a local authority acts in the wrong then, when the elections come round, the people will have the opportunity of pushing out the old council and putting in a new group of men. What we are anxious about is to preserve the little remnant of power that remains with the local authorities at the present time. We do not want to vest complete and absolute power in the Minister. I think the amendment is going a long way to help the Parliamentary Secretary out of his difficulty.

Dr. Ward

I am not in any difficulty at all.

Mr. Hughes

That is if he wants to meet the House on this.

Dr. Ward

I have met the House fairly well.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:-Tá, 21; Níl, 42.

Tá

• Bennett, George C.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Sheldon, William A.W.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Sheldon

I move amendment No. 51:—

In sub-section (2), at the end of the sub-section to add the words "provided that such institution is established within the area of jurisdiction of the authority".

I can see, in connection with this amendment, that in seeking to avoid one difficulty, we might go too far and get into another difficulty, since if the amendment, as worded here; were accepted, it might rule out the possibility of a hospital committee being run by two local authorities. However, leaving that aside—and I think it should be possible to improve the wording of the amendment so as to get over that difficulty—I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that in the section, wide as it is in this respect, there is nothing to show where these institutions will be set up. In view of the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, I quite understand now the type of institution that is to be set up, and, possibly, this may not be necessary, but I still suggest that there might be a necessity for it. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it would be a peculiar position to have, say, Donegal County Council called upon to set up an institution outside their jurisdiction. There is nothing in the section to prevent that. When quoting the Act of 1925 last week it struck me that Section 13 in this Bill was rather comparable with the position in that Act, but that the words "in their district" were contained in the former Act. This section goes much further than what was in the 1925 Act. I am not satisfied with the wording of this, because it would rule out an institution to be run by two local authorities. Obviously, such an institution would not be within the area of both. Would the Parliamentary Secretary accept the principle that an institution would not be ordered to be built except it was inside some area of which the local authorities would approve?

Dr. Ward

I was wondering if the Deputy would accept this, that the Minister would be unlikely to act in an unreasonable way.

Mr. Sheldon

Not necessarily.

Dr. Ward

I think that would be a sounder view than the one put up by the Deputy. There is really nothing to be alarmed about in the provision as it stands, but if the Deputy's amendment were accepted a difficulty might be encountered by a local authority, inasmuch as a suitable site might not be available in the area within the jurisdiction of the local authority. For example, with such a special provision in the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Act, if we had to direct the local authority in Dublin to provide sanatoria, we would have to go outside the city area. It is inconceivable that such a position would arise in rural areas. I think the Deputy should be satisfied that the Minister will not ask them to go to Monaghan to provide a clinic say for Donegal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sheldon

I move amendment No.52:—

To delete sub-section (3).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The principle has already been discussed.

Mr. Sheldon

This is similar to amendment No. 45. I have still the same objection, but it is in wider form.

Mr. McGilligan

I object to this particular sub-section. The only limitation put upon the Minister is in the definition section which relates entirely to a health institution. Under sub-section (2) the Minister is given power to order a health authority to provide any institution and to maintain any institution. Sub-section (3) goes further I suggest that it would be reasonable to except that a health authority would act reasonably, seeing that it is accepted that the Minister will act in that way. There is an obligation that the health authority will also act in that way. The Minister having got power to provide an institution, wants further power whenever he so directs to "restore, enlarge or otherwise alter in accordance with the Order any institution maintained by them". That relates to institutions maintained by them according to previous directions. That is wide enough to cover any institution, but I do not suppose that is meant. The detailed instructions refer not merely to such institutions, but to "provide in accordance with the Order new, improved or additional drainage, ventilation, water supply, lighting, heating, or any other service for any institution so maintained..." Apparently, these people are supposed not to have any intelligence, any expert advice, or any responsibility of their own. Lastly, they are also to "provide and maintain in any institution so maintained all such fixtures, fittings, furniture, surgical and medical appliances and other conveniences as may be directed by the Order". I suggest that it is time to consider whether we deem all health authorities to be unreasonable, or otherwise give them the same sort of leniency that the Minister considers he should be given.

Dr. Ward

I presume I must go over the whole ground that we debated already. I made the case as fully as it was possible to make it, and we had decided the principle, as far as the provision of institutions was concerned. In the course of the discussion if we want to know more, either about the renovation or alteration of institutions, it is scarcely necessary to go over the ground again. Corresponding powers are contained in the Public Assistance Act and even in greater detail in the Mental Treatment Act. We need not go over that again. We had it several times to-day already. We have had it all out several times to-day already. It is regrettable, but I suppose it is inevitable, that we cannot all be here at the same time but it does make it difficult for me if I am expected to go over the same ground and put the same arguments before the House again. The principle has been very fully debated and, if it has to be decided, then it will not have been decided without full discussion.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not regard what I have heard so far as any argument. Why are the detailed provisions necessary? Will a health authority not have sufficient intelligence or responsibility to provide the required drainage, for instance?

Dr. Ward

That may be, but in the event of a health authority not having the intelligence or the will to do it, it is for the exceptional case that such powers as these are necessary. In the ordinary course of events it will not be necessary to exercise this power at all but it has been in the corresponding code, the public assistance code and, should it be necessary to exercise such power in exceptional circumstances, clearly the power cannot be exercised if the Minister has not the power.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is a completely new line. I think it is not in accordance with the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary now seems to indicate that these powers will only come into operation when the local authority refuses to carry out what is considered necessary by the Department. I understood that this was to operate absolutely and completely from the Department, that the local authorities were not to have or to be given or to be left with any initiative at all.

Dr. Ward

No. This is not by way of interruption; it is only to keep the Deputy right. We are dealing now with Section 13. The proposal is to delete sub-section (3). Sub-section (1) sets out:—

"A health authority may, with the consent of the Minister and in accordance with the directions (if any) given by him from time to time, provide and maintain any institution which they consider necessary."

Then we proceed to say:—

"(3) A health authority shall, whenever the Minister by Order so directs—

. . . . . . . ."

But it is only in the event of the health authority failing to do these things.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Parliamentary Secretary was indicating, in reply to Deputy McGilligan's argument, that these powers will only come into operation in the event of the local authority failing to carry out the work themselves.

Dr. Ward

But that is so. If the local authority carry out any renovation or restoration that may be considered necessary, there will be no Order issued to them.

Mr. D. Morrissey

May be considered necessary by whom?

Dr. Ward

By the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the point. Why should there be this enforcement of standards? Say, in regard to the type of drainage or ventilation or lighting that might be required in an institution, is it not considered reasonable to allow the health authority to have its own views?

Dr. Ward

They have already. There is no objection to their having their own view.

Mr. McGilligan

I understand they are going to be directed what to do and they are going to be directed in accordance with a plan centrally conceived and imposed from the centre upon all health authorities.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is the point.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that what is contemplated?

Dr. Ward

No.

Mr. McGilligan

What is?

Dr. Ward

It is only in the event of a health authority failing to carry out the necessary restoration or structural alterations. ventilation, drainage, etc. In the ordinary course of administration these things occur quite regularly. I am sure the Deputy knows that. In regard to technical matters such as this, drainage, renovation, restoration, and so on, inspectors are sent down from the Department to consult with the local officials and the local authorities and it sometimes happens that there is difference of opinion as to what particular type of reconstruction, what particular type of equipment or what mechanical fixtures, etc., ought to be provided. It is conceivable that the health authority may refuse to carry out the work in the manner that appears to the Minister, acting on the advice of his technical advisers, to be the proper manner.

Mr. McGilligan

They may have a different idea as to what is necessary.

Dr. Ward

They may.

Mr. McGilligan

Are they not to be allowed to have that?

Dr. Ward

They are allowed to have the idea, but their idea will not prevail.

Mr. McGilligan

Then they are not to have any ideas.

Dr. Ward

They can have their ideas, but when it comes to the point of decision, the Minister's decision prevails.

Mr. Hughes

They have no decision over their own affairs.

Dr. Ward

Bear in mind, the Minister will be providing out of funds under his control, in the ordinary course, two-thirds of the cost of these works.

Mr. D. Morrissey

He may.

Mr. McGilligan

He may.

Dr. Ward

He always has—will that do?

Mr. McGilligan

Is this then to be on such occasion as the Minister provides two-thirds of the cost?

Dr. Ward

No; you are not going to put any statutory obligation on the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely there is a difference between the Minister saying that "the Minister shall" and "the Minister will only when he provides that amount of the cost". I understood the last phrase was that these powers were really only going to be used in exceptional circumstances and, in the main, would only be in respect of institutions, two-thirds of the maintenance cost of which was provided by the Minister. But that is not there.

Dr. Ward

It is not there, and it will not be there, but that has been the policy and so long as money is available, that policy will continue.

Mr. McGilligan

I think it is accepted or commonly understood that the Custom House issues orders to medical officers of health that they are to inject in respect of certain diseases with certain injections. Many medical officers do not consider that these injections are good: some in fact consider they are bad for the human system, but the central authority insists on that being done. Is this then a new provision along the same lines? Take for instance the third paragraph —(c)—of this section. Unless the Minister contemplates himself as dealing in the main with a set of completely unreasonable people, why does he require paragraph (c)? There is power to order a health authority to provide an institution. There is authority to order the health authority to maintain that institution and that order will be given accompanied by certain directions. Except the contemplated event of a health authority being entirely unreasonable, what is the necessity, what reason or substance could be given, for requiring this power for the Minister that he shall direct them as to the fixtures, fittings, furniture, surgical and medical appliances that they are to keep? If a health authority is asked to keep an institution, if two-thirds of the funds are provided centrally, they can be relied upon to see that the place is properly equipped. Does the wording contained in sub-section (c) mean anything more than that? Is there such room for divergence as between the health authority and the Custom House as to what is suitable provision in the way of medical and surgical appliances? Is there such wide divergence of opinion likely as between the Minister and a health authority with its own medical officers around? Unless in the event of considering the Minister always reasonable and the health authority always unreasonable, why should we accept that as a likelihood?

Dr. Ward

It is not necessarily a likelihood, but it may happen.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part."

The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Nil, 17.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davin, William.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Bennett, George C.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peader S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Sheldon, William A. W.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Nil: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 53 to 58, inclusive, consequently fall. Amendment No. 60 was discussed on amendment No. 47.

Mr. McGilligan

What about the intermediate amendments?

An Ceann Comhairle

They must fall because the sub-section stands.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought that the ordinary system was to put the least widespread amendment first. I understand that that has been the practice.

An Ceann Comhairle

Possibly, but if the Deputy will look at the amendments he will find that amendment No. 53 was decided on amendment No. 45 and amendment No. 54 on amendment No. 43.

General Mulcahy

Amendment No. 54 was not decided at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was decided on amendment No. 43.

General Mulcahy

Amendment No. 43 was not moved.

Dr. Ward

But it was discussed.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment was to delete the sub-section and the question put was that the sub-section stand.

Mr. McGilligan

That was the way the Chair put it. The ordinary procedure has been to put the minor amendments first and the more sweeping amendments afterwards. It is rather difficult for the House to control the Chair in that manner.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was understood that certain amendments were selected from that lot because it would be utterly impossible to take all the amendments. They cut across one another and overlapped on that particular sub-section. The Chair selected five or six of them.

Mr. McGilligan

That may be, but I suggest that amendment No. 52 was not put in my hearing as one which comprised a number of amendments down to amendment No. 60.

An Ceann Comhairle

On amendment No. 52, the question was put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", and that question was carried.

General Mulcahy

I should like to submit that the sub-section as it stands now can be amended by the addition of words where amendments are down.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would apply to amendments Nos. 59 and 60.

General Mulcahy

To amendments Nos. 54, 55, 59 and 60.

Dr. Ward

Has not the principle of amendment No. 59 been decided?

An Ceann Comhairle

I thought that amendment No. 59 was decided on amendment No. 50.

General Mulcahy

Only as it applied to sub-section (2). I want to get the question of order straight.

An Ceann Comhairle

We shall take amendment No. 54 then, as amendment No. 43 was not moved.

General Mulcahy

Even if it was, I submit that it should be taken.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 54 will be put if the Deputy so desires.

General Mulcahy

Sub-section (2) deals with the provision and maintenance of any institution and sub-section (3) deals with the restoration of institutions, the provision of ventilation and so forth. An amendment that might be moved to sub-section (2) and which would fall, would not, I submit, necessarily prevent an amendment on similar lines being moved to sub-section (3).

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy considers that the circumstances are not similar, then he may move amendment No. 54.

General Mulcahy

Amendment No. 54 is not moved, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. So far as the publication of the report is concerned, I propose to argue that on amendment No. 60.

Mr. Bennett

With regard to amendment No. 56, when I moved amendment No. 44, the Parliamentary Secretary cut me short by saying that he accepted the principle regarding the holding of a local inquiry before an Order would be made. I understood that that undertaking to hold a local inquiry would apply to the restoration or enlargement of an institution as well as to the provision of an institution. Therefore, I did not argue that question. The reason I put in paragraph (b) was that, having admitted that a local inquiry was necessary before making an Order for the provision of a new institution, it would be illogical to have paragraph (a) in sub-section (3) because the Parliamentary Secretary, if he so willed, could get over the matter by ordering a local authority so to enlarge a small institution that it would, in fact, be a new institution. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would give the same undertaking that he gave in relation to a completely new institution in respect of the other paragraph—paragraph (a).

General Mulcahy

And (b) and (c).

Mr. Bennett

They could be argued but that was in my amendment No. 44. The Parliamentary Secretary cut me short and led me to believe that he was accepting the amendment in both regards.

Dr. Ward

I hope that I have not prevented the Deputy from endeavouring to persuade the House that the concession should apply to (a), (b) and (c). The objection is not one of principle. I had in mind in dealing with the matter the provision of an institution. The works contemplated under (a), (b) and (c) will, in the main, be works of a minor character.

Mr. Bennett

Under (a) they might not.

Dr. Ward

Generally speaking these works would be minor works. The particular work I have in mind is the renovation of a public assistance dispensary if it subsequently became a public health clinic or a health centre. I think that it would be unnecessary to hold an inquiry in relation to these smaller types of work.

Mr. McGilligan

It is only (a) the Deputy is talking about.

Dr. Ward

"Institution" as defined in the definition section includes a very small type of institution.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not defined at all.

Dr. Ward

It is defined.

Mr. McGilligan

Where?

Dr. Ward

In the definition section. It includes a whole host of things-sanatoria, preventoria, clinics, health centres, dispensaries, etc. The institution that will be restored, enlarged or otherwise altered under (a) of sub-section (3) will probably invariably be the smaller type of institution and the work to be carried out would not justify the holding of a public inquiry.

Mr. Bennett

I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the work to be carried out would be of such a type that it will not entail a very big expenditure. If it is going to be the small type of institution, there will be no difficulty because the local council will not refuse to carry out the Minister's orders under paragraph (a). It will only be in the event of some Parliamentary Secretary—I do not suggest that the present Parliamentary Secretary would act in that way—acting in an extraordinary manner that the council would refuse to carry out work of this kind. He might ask them to so alter or enlarge a building that it would practically mean building a new institution.

Mr. Morrissey

The Parliamentary Secretary may have in mind only small alterations or enlargements, but the work may conceivably be a very large one. For instance, the Minister might desire to have a hospital which might have only 20 beds at the moment so enlarged that it would have 60 or 80 beds. In fact, it might be a more serious matter from the point of view of the local authorities than some of the Orders made under sub-section (2).

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I think in so much as the Minister accepted the principle of an inquiry in regard to the provision of a new institution, he should see if it is possible to apply the same principle to sub-section(3). It is definitely conceivable in so far as the restoration, enlargement or alteration of an institution, or the provision of drainage, or possibly even ventilation or heating is concerned, that the all-in cost might be greater than that of the provision of a new institution. As he has accepted the principle which, I think, is based on the size of the contemplated work in regard to the earlier sub-section, I think the principle should also apply in the case of sub-section (3) where it is not a question of the size or the amount of money to be spent. Certainly no one would argue that he should have an inquiry in regard to the provision of surgical appliances, or of fittings, or furniture, but where there is a question of fairly considerable expenditure I think the same principle should apply as in the earlier sub-section.

Dr. Ward

I might be able to meet the Deputy to this extent—to concede an inquiry if the estimated expenditure from the rates exceeded, say, £1,000 or some such figure, so as to exclude from the category of works that would require a sworn inquiry all these minor things that would really not justify the holding of an inquiry.

Mr. McGilligan

Might I suggest another line of approach? First of all I cannot see the distinction that was made between sub-section (2) and certainly paragraph (a) of sub-section (3). Whatever is the institution referred to in sub-section (2), it is the same institution in principle that is referred to in sub-section (3) (a). There is no distinction between a major work and a minor work. Deputy Bennett made the point that the restoration of an institution may, in fact, be the same as providing and maintaining an institution and I do not see why any point could be made as to the definition. The definition is the same for both. The Parliamentary Secretary states that he will accept the idea of a local inquiry if the proposed expenditure on the work exceeds a certain amount. Why not put it this way? Leave out the question of expenditure and, if the health authority objects, have a public inquiry in connection with (3) (a). You are then putting the responsibility, so to speak, for calling the inquiry on the local authority. They will not ask unless it is a matter of some substance.

Dr. Ward

I shall look into it anyway, but I would prefer the financial limitation.

Mr. McGilligan

I am aiming at trying to give some semblance of responsibility to local authorities.

An Ceann Comhairle

An amendment similar to amendment No. 59 was debated in connection with sub-section (2)—amendment No. 50.

Mr. Morrissey

I desire to move amendment No. 59:—

In sub-section (3), to add at the end the following words: "provided that at a meeting of the health authority duly called to consider the matter the proposal shall not be opposed by two-thirds or more than two-thirds of the members attending and voting."

I am moving this amendment because I think there is a very sound principle involved. I am not going to delay the House in repeating the arguments which have already been used.

Dr. Ward

And I am sure the Deputy will not ask me to delay the House because I argued on the same principle for a considerable time to-day.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to argue it at all because I presume he has stated his objections on amendment No. 50 but we look on this as matter of some importance and for that reason I wish to have the amendment put.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 60:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is received the report of the person who has held a local inquiry.

An Ceann Comhairle

The same question was debated on amendment No. 47. Does the Deputy desire a decision on this amendment?

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to be allowed to argue it before asking the House to come to a decision. It has been accepted, I understand, that there is to be a local inquiry held into the desirability of asking a health authority to provide and maintain an institution. This is the following up of that—that if there is a local inquiry, then the country through both Houses of the Oireachtas shall get an opportunity of seeing what is the result of the inquiry in so far as the report of those who have held it is concerned. This was debated on very many occasions in connection with the Local Government Bill and I want to put the issue here now, apart from all the fuss that was engendered around that particular measure. Here is the simple point. It is a question of whether or not a local authority is to be directed to provide an institution and maintain it. The Minister desires to have power to direct the local authority in that way and it is accepted that there shall be a local inquiry into that matter. I suggest that the only value of a local inquiry is to enable a case to be made for and against the question whether the Minister is right in these demands on the health authority or not.

I suggest that the logical conclusion of that is that people should know not merely the result of it, in so far as it is a Ministerial decision, but should know the result in so far as how the witnesses have struck the person who held the inquiry, have appeared to him to be reasonable, have appeared to him to be telling the truth and have appeared to him to be putting up solid arguments, are concerned, and his view of those arguments. This, in other words, asks that public opinion should have something on which to found itself, that, if there is to be a public opinion of a local type formed in connection with this question which the Minister desires to force upon a health authority, the public should know what is the strength of the arguments for the Minister's proposal and the strength of the arguments against it.

That cannot be brought before people except those who may attend the inquiry, those who have reason to attend and are able to attend. It cannot be known to any wider body than these, and I suggest that if the Government were at all alive, even to their own benefit, they would seek every opportunity of moulding public opinion. They must realise by this time that nobody considers that public opinion is, in fact, moulded by the Minister's simply saying: "I want such-and-such a thing done". We are still living in an age in which the appeal is to reason, and the way in which reason operates is by people, when there is a matter in dispute, putting up the best arguments for, and other people putting up the best arguments against.

We are still living in a period in which this clash of mind upon mind is supposed to be the deciding factor. Only a person who is present at a local inquiry, who, in the phrase often used in court cases, in connection with the original trial, as opposed to the appeal which may be only on some subordinate matter, attends at the investigation, who sees the witnesses and who can make up his own mind from their demeanour as to how sincere they are in the arguments they are putting forward to support their contentions, can come to an understanding as to whether or not they are putting up what they believe to be true, apart altogether from the force with which it is put up. Only the person who sees the witnesses paraded in front of him can really give the best opinion. I do not rule out the possibility of the Minister overriding the report put up to him by such a person, but I do think it would require a considerable argument to be put to the public for the overriding decision of the Minister in order to convince public opinion that what had not gained the assent of the local inquirer has nevertheless got the Minister's approval and has persuaded him to give the order.

If that did happen, if you had a position in which the person holding the local inquiry, being swayed by the general atmosphere of the inquiry, by his view of the witnesses, by the force with which they presented their arguments and the credibility to be attached to their testimony, reported in one way, and if nevertheless the Minister decided to overrule him and to rule to the contrary, I think the Minister gets another opportunity of moulding public opinion his way by recognising that he has a strong case to meet and a difficult situation to meet, but it is not one he should attempt to get over simply by a decision. It is one which he should attempt to get over by a decision and by argument, by some sort of reason why he does not accept the report of the person who held the inquiry.

I do not want to go over the ground which has already been traversed, or to deal with the other matters about which there has been so much excitement. I think that public opinion is, in connection with these matters, being swayed to the view at the moment that Ministers are seeking to quash the reports of inspectors who hold inquiries. The public view now is that they are acting contrary to the reports they get, and that they have no reason which they can promulgate to the public and stand on for overriding inspectors' reports. That does not, of course, satisfy the public and certainly does not help to form a sound public opinion on these matters. What I ask here does not bind the Minister to accept such a report, but it will certainly put him in a difficult position, a position in which, if there is going to be a difficulty, he should face it and try to get over it, by an appeal to reason. He should say: "I have the report here. There is the nature of it. It comes from a person who saw the witnesses, but I do not agree with it, and for the following reasons."

If he has not got a strong enough case which he can make in that public way, prefacing his remarks by an admission that the local inquiry so far as the inspector is concerned has gone against him, then he should not decide against the inspector. If he has good reasons, he should be able to stand on them. That is the way in which, as I understand it, public life is run in this country. People take decisions which are open to question here in a variety of ways—by debate, by motion and by Parliamentary Question—and only when their reasons for their actions appeal to the public can public opinion find itself satisfied and comforted, and I suggest that the Minister should take this opportunity of trying to develop a public opinion instead of trying to override public opinion.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I do not know whether it is possible to get the Parliamentary Secretary to approach the principle of this amendment from the angle of different circumstances from those argued recently in this House, but I suggest that it is possible for us to expect that a responsible Minister would make the attempt, because we are dealing here with something fundamentally different from the circumstances surrounding the previous debate on this issue. At that time, it was largely a question of administration which was involved, and the Parliamentary Secretary went to great lengths to explain the difficulties which he saw as possibly arising, if the reports of his officers were to be published. Here, as Deputy McGilligan says, we are dealing with an entirely different matter.

The main matter with which the Bill deals is health, and, in the course of the debate, two particular factors have been put to us in respect of which we are asked to support the Parliamentary Secretary in the attitude he is taking on the Bill. One was the provision of new institutions and the other the enlarging, restoration or alteration of existing institutions. The point I was personally concerned with was the possibility that, at a particular time and in a particular locality, there might be a local authority controlled by a majority with views which were anything but advanced on health matters. I was prepared to run the risk of giving certain overriding powers to the Minister in order to get over such a deadlock, because I am aware that such atmospheres have existed in local authorities and possibly will exist again. I feel that when we are embarking on a national health plan, the benefit of that plan should be made available to all sections of the community, regardless of what may be the local political atmosphere in a county or a borough area at a particular time. That is why I think there is something in this amendment to be considered.

If, for instance, we have a proposal for the erection of a new institution in a particular area and if there is opposition to it by a majority, a very strong majority, in a local authority and an inquiry is held by the Minister, is it not clear that if by that inquiry certain facts are elicited showing the absolute necessity of that new institution, or possibly the restoration or alteration of an existing institution, it is essential that the facts will not only be made available as evidence to the ratepayers and to the citizens generally in the locality, in order that there will be wide public support for any decision the Minister may make, but—and more important still—that the value of that evidence will be available?

The Parliamentary Secretary has answered the previous criticism on this point by saying that the evidence is available in the newspapers. I have read the evidence in newspapers not merely at local inquiries but in cases in which men were on trial for their lives, and as each day's report came out, I changed my mind as to the guilt or innocence of the individual concerned. I was not present and did not get a full report of the evidence. I was completely ignorant of the whole atmosphere of the court and of the appearance of the various witnesses in the witness box. How much more so will be the case where we have merely the evidence in regard to the provision of an institution which, possibly, the newspapers may not consider to be a very important one, but which may be important where the welfare and health of the citizens are concerned? Yet we are depending on those newspapers to give us the evidence, to provide us with the opportunity to arouse public opinion against the Minister and in support of the local authority. While there may be a case to be argued that the Minister is not free to publish the report of the inspector, surely if the value and the striking effect of the evidence is to mould public opinion, the observations of the trained and experienced professional man should be added to the bare evidence, in order to give full effect to what the inquiry purports to do, that is, to decide whether there should be such an institution or not.

The only remaining point is whether the Minister may have to take a different view from that given in the report. In such a case, I submit the Minister would be in a stronger position if, having made a decision, he is able to submit it to the ordinary scrutiny of public opinion, even though it may appear to be contrary to the report received from his own officer. For instance, if an inspector reports in favour of the provision of an institution and the Minister rules against it, it should be quite easy to set out the reasons why the report was not adopted. On the other hand, if the report is against the provision of an institution and the Minister is in favour of it, surely he has not merely the support of the evidence but the support of his whole national health policy behind him? My own feeling is that, nine times out of ten, such inquiries will be held where the local authority has refused to provide institutions or improve existing services. In general, it will be a case of the Minister giving effect to his national health policy and trying to enlist public support for his decision.

It may not be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to give an indication at the moment that he can weight what is being put to-night, but I suggest that, for the purpose of carrying out his progressive policy, the support and assent of the public are necessary.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Is it possible that, after the two speeches which have just been made on this important amendment, we are not going to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary?

Dr. Ward

Quite possible, for the reason that there is nothing the Parliamentary Secretary can say that he has not said already to-day. The principle involved in this amendment has already been dealt with. Not only that, but a considerable amount of the time of the House has been occupied in the past few weeks in discussing the very same principle. It has been argued from every possible angle and the House has taken decisions on it. I think no Deputy will expect me to keep repeating the case made on any particular principle raised in the course of the debate. Everybody will not be in the House when the principle is raised on the first occasion— I have no complaint to make on that score—but any time a Deputy comes in he cannot expect the case to be made again.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

I heard the whole of the debate to-day.

Dr. Ward

I am replying to Deputy Morrissey. The House is well aware that I cannot accept this amendment. I do not want to create the impression that I feel pressed or bound in any way by discussions which have taken place in the House on the corresponding principle and the decisions that have been reached, but I believe very strongly that the principle embodied in this amendment is unsound. Deputies may disagree with me in that, but the fact of the matter is that, when the Minister decides to hold a sworn inquiry and sends down his officer to conduct it, the evidence is taken in public and it is open to anybody interested in the subject matter of the inquiry to be present. The evidence tendered is published in the local Press and a considerable amount of it is published in the daily Press. In fact, the evidence, which is the important thing, is available to anybody and everybody who is really interested in the matter at issue.

The Minister is responsible to the House for the findings. He may or may not get a report from the inspector, who is not under any obligation to furnish the Minister with a report. Generally speaking, the inspector has observations to make of one kind or another, but they are for the confidential guidance of the Minister and not for the public. If the principle were to be accepted that the confidential views of the inspector would be made public, his functions as confidential adviser would be completely jeopardised.

The suggestion has been made here —and I grant there is a certain amount in it—that it is of some importance, apart from the cold facts that may appear in a book of words which may constitute the verbatim report of the evidence, to have the opportunity of studying the witness in the box. A good psychologist probably could give some useful advice as to the reliability of a particular witness. I rather think, however, that if an inspector says in his report to the Minister: "Such and such a witness—who is reputed to be a highly respectable man of the highest standards of honour—is, in my opinion, one of the crookedest men who ever took the Bible in his hand to swear the oath; he is utterly unreliable and I think he perjured himself several times; I would advise you not to pay very much attention to his evidence, in reaching your conclusions", that might be of use to the Minister. The inspector clearly would not tender such confidential advice, however, if he were faced with the certainty that it would be published.

There are many other more or less similar types of confidential advice that Ministers get from time to time from such officers, and if they were to be made public it would be better to abandon sworn inquiries entirely. The only result would be so to scare the officer, as to the possible repercussions when the public got to see what he privately reported to his Minister, that no officer would furnish the Minister with his real views. I may be all wrong in that, but I believe it very sincerely. I believe there is no better system than the one which obtains at present, where the evidence is available to anyone interested and where the Minister accepts responsibility, as he must before the House and before the country for the conclusions he reaches based on the evidence supplied to him.

Mr. McGilligan

We have got away from the heated atmosphere of the other discussion, but we have got to a depth of futility that I never expected to hear in this House. I had eight years' experience of getting reports, but I never got a report in my life of the nature about which the Parliamentary Secretary speaks. I never once got such a report.

Dr. Ward

The number of inquiries that would be held by the Local Government Department in one month now would be as many as the Deputy would have had in his Department in eight years.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not odd that in eight years I never saw a report in which an inspector said what the Parliamentary Secretary has attributed to one? I may put a mild word on it if I describe it as imagination running riot. It is actually a perversion of fact. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be scared over the reaction upon the inspector—the inspector would refrain from making that sort of comment. It would be a good idea if he did. No inspector need go to that point. In court, judges simply say that they do not believe a word that so-and-so has said. In the main, the judges are content to say, summing up the evidence, that they thought the truth and sincerity lay on a particular side, or with a particular witness. They express themselves as being impressed by one side or not impressed by the other. There are ways and phrases that decent-minded people will avail themselves of in order to get out a viewpoint before the person to whom they are reporting.

I am definitely amused at the amazing change that has taken place in the Parliamentary Secretary. He is quite convinced now that the cold evidence, the record of the evidence, is all that is required. One of the first measures that a former Government brought into this House was a Courts of Justice Act in which they completely changed the system that used to operate with regard to the secondary courts in the country, the Circuit Courts. When they came into office they founded a system under which a case was tried by a judge who saw the witnesses, and if it went to an appeal, you got the transcript of the notes. We had a committee of inquiry which investigated that, and if their report was not a unanimous report, it was very nearly so. I am advised that it was a unanimous report. That report set out that the presentation of the transcript of the notes, the cold letters of the script conveying the evidence, was not sufficient and suggested that there ought to be a retrial. That report was presented by a group of mixed parties. They completely reversed the old system of hearing appeals on notes on the basis that it is only the judge who sees the witnesses who can best appreciate their demeanour and make up his mind as to whether they are telling the truth, as to whether they are sincere and as to the force with which they give their evidence. Seeing the witnesses, they can better appreciate the nature of their evidence. That was the attitude of the committee that investigated the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary now falls back on the evidence, although his own Government, following a complete investigation by a mixed party group, decided to throw over the old system when it came to court work for the simple reason that they thought that unless the judge who tried the case finally saw the parties appearing before him, the case would not be sufficiently represented to him. They abandoned the system of having a couple of judges reading through the transcript of the evidence and endeavouring to find out whether they could agree with the trial judge who had the witnesses in court before him and who had an opportunity of appreciating their evidence. The system of having a transcript of notes was regarded as unsatisfactory.

I do not want any retrial in these cases. These are not matters that call for a judicial inquiry, although it is something approaching that. We have put this proposal forward in an unimpassioned way. We rely on public opinion, which must be formed. At the moment, so far from being formed, it is rather repelled by the Minister simply deciding to close down on the report of the person who holds the inquiry. He does not say whether he agrees or disagrees with the inspector. He simply says: "That is my view, I am simply saying this is my decision and I am not going to tell you what the person with the trained mind who went down and reported to me, after seeing all the witnesses and hearing all the facts, tells me".

I think that is bad. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should, in this very specialised problem, at least get back to some appreciation of the necessity of forming public opinion. Deputy Larkin makes the suggestion that, in the main, the Minister and his inspectors will be fighting against health authorities reluctant to advance along the lines of the development and care of public health and he will require all the assistance he can get from the local inquiry, the Minister deciding in line with whatever the inspector reported to him. I suggest he ought. If the Minister finds it necessary to disagree, he should endeavour to convince the public that he is operating in a reasonable way. He could say: "I admit I got the report and I admit it is against the view I am going to take, but I make that decision for the following reasons." The Ministerial attitude would stand much higher in the public view if he would face that situation and give his reasons for overriding the reasons of the inspector. If we go on as before, the public will hold the view that the inquiry is a bit of a farce and that the Minister cannot publish the report.

As to any delicacy about the inspector writing about individuals, I do not expect an inspector will write that very often. I never remember it in my experience. A man might say: "I consider the evidence produced on a particular point was unsatisfactory and I gave no credence to the witnesses who appeared in that behalf." People who go before an inquiry will have to be ready to expect that to be said about them if they behave in a way that warrants the comment being made. The whole idea the Parliamentary Secretary has propounded here is not satisfactory. I say he is not really able to face public opinion in this matter and does not want to try to form it. I think it is bad.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The inquiries that are contemplated under this section would be different from the types of inquiry we were discussing in connection with the Local Government Bill. These inquiries will, in the main, be presided over by inspectors with technical qualifications. They would be dealing in the main either with the erection of new buildings or the enlargement or alteration of existing ones.

Dr. Ward

And with disciplinary matters.

Mr. McGilligan

Under this?

Dr. Ward

Under the Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

We are talking of this section.

Dr. Ward

I thought that the Deputy said under the Bill.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am talking about the section. It has a much more restricted application in this sense than it had in relation to the other Bill when we were discussing it. I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary the point that has been put to him more than once by Deputy Larkin, namely, that if this code of public health is to be fully successful you must get behind it the confidence of the people and of the community generally. Let us suppose that an institution is to be erected in a particular county, the cost of which may be £50, £100, £200 or £300,000, and that two-thirds of it is to be borne on the Central Fund or out of the Hospitals Sweep Fund; the proportion of the cost falling on the local rate-payers for its erection, equipment and maintenance may amount to such a large sum that it will cause a good deal of public uneasiness locally, especially in these days when the rates are climbing so quickly and so steadily.

I can conceive an inquiry being held under this section in a case of that sort where the evidence tendered, and tendered in good faith, may be against the proposition, although the proposal itself may be a perfectly sound one. The inspector in his report to the Minister would be able to show that, notwithstanding the evidence given at the inquiry, the institution was required, that the proposal put forward by the Department was a perfectly sound one, and that the Minister should go on with it, but that the rate-payers affected, judging the matter solely on the evidence which the Minister so much depends upon, could only come to the conclusion that the inspector, acting on the evidence, as they read it, had reported against the proposition, and that the Minister, in spite of the evidence and of the inspector's recommendation, insisted on going on with it.

I take it that when an inquiry is held under this section it will be in a calm atmosphere, and that, in the main, the witnesses examined on such matters will be experts. I imagine that the local authority will contest the matter only if they are satisfied that there is a need to have an inquiry, or if there is a doubt as to the necessity for the institution or whether the one proposed to be erected is suited for the district in question. I do not think that I could add anything more to what has been so well and clearly said in support of the amendment by Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Larkin. They made a very well-reasoned case for it, and I think that on the merits the Parliamentary Secretary will find it very hard to refute the arguments put forward in support of it. He can only attempt to make a case against it by talking of inquiries of the type that we spoke about on the Local Government Bill.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 49.

Tá

• Bennett, George C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Davin, William.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Timothy J.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• Sheldon, William A.W.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Healy, John B.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Amendment declared lost.

Question—"That Section 13 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Coogan

I move amendment No. 61:—

In sub-section (1), line 1, after the word "Minister" to insert the words:—"after consultation with the health authority concerned and".

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the fullest possible discussion shall take place as between the Minister and the local authority whose institution is about to be discontinued. Very often, a local authority may have very sound reasons for retaining an existing institution —reasons which, perhaps, the Minister may not be prepared to accept. It may be that on occasions the local authority may have a sentimental regard for such an existing institution or for the traditions behind a particular institution and, for that reason, may not see eye to eye with the Minister in a particular case. For these reasons, I think that where it is proposed to discontinue a health institution there should be, from the start, the fullest, frankest and freest exchange of opinions as between the Minister's Department and the local authority.

I need not stress that it is the essence of local government that there should be such a frank exchange of opinions. I need not stress the point that it is essential to the preservation of local government democracy, if you like to call it such, that these consultations should take place, and it is with that object in view that I move this amendment.

Dr. Ward

May I suggest, Sir, that this amendment is not necessary? Section 14 (1) sets out that

"the Minister, after having caused a local inquiry to be held in relation to the desirability of so doing, may by Order direct a health authority to discontinue, as from a specified date, a health institution maintained by them or a separate department of such a health institution."

It should be noted that the sub-section says: "after having caused a local inquiry to be held." Now, the amendment proposes that a statutory obligation should be placed upon the Minister to consult with the local authority before deciding to hold such a local inquiry. Clearly the amendment implies that the Minister had no previous discussion with the local authorities. That has never happened under any Administration. Local inquiries, such as are contemplated under this section, take place after a prolonged exchange of views with the local authorities, and if there was full agreement as between local authorities and the Minister a local inquiry would not be necessary at all. I do not know exactly what the Deputy has in mind.

Mr. McGilligan

Consultation.

Dr. Ward

If the Deputy talks about consultation what constitutes consultation?

Mr. McGilligan

It is a word sanctified by many Acts.

Mr. Coogan

In a matter of this kind I did not think it necessary to bring in a dictionary in order to define "consultation." What I had in mind was this, that before the Minister would embark upon the discontinuance of a particular institution, the local authority would be notified of the intention. They would have an opportunity of discussing that intention at a public meeting and could put their views on the minutes, so that before anything was done the Minister would have the fullest opportunity of knowing their mind. That is what I look upon as consultation. It is not consultation as to whether there should be an inquiry, but as to whether an institution should be discontinued. I do not like the way the holding of an inquiry is dealt with in this section. Apparently, it will be imposed on the local authority by the Minister without their sanction or without being asked for.

Dr. Ward

That is a new complaint.

Mr. Coogan

In other words, the Minister descends upon a local authority and says: "I have decided to inquire into the working of your institutions, and I am holding an inquiry." I do not want that type of thing. I should like to see a local authority notified in advance, so that they could give their views to the Minister. If necessary, he would then hold an inquiry, or, preferably, the local authority should have the right to request an inquiry, if they thought fit.

Mr. McGilligan

Am I to take it that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what "having consultation" would mean?

Dr. Ward

I accept Deputy Coogan's explanation.

Mr. McGilligan

The phrase occurs innumerable times in innumerable Acts.

Dr. Ward

And in innumerable circumstances.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 62.

Mr. McGilligan

Amendment No. 62 proposes to insert the word "public", and amendment No. 63 asks that the report of the inspector be laid before the Oireachtas. Are not local inquiries public?

Dr. Ward

They are.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it clear that they are in all cases?

Dr. Ward

The person holding the inquiry has discretion. Sometimes matters may arise, and in the exercise of his discretion the person holding the inquiry may decide that the public should not be admitted to the whole of it.

Mr. McGilligan

Is not that covered by law?

Dr. Ward

I do not know, but it is a fact that the inquiries are public.

Mr. McGilligan

And intended to be public?

Dr. Ward

And intended to be public.

Amendment No. 62 not moved.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 63:—

In sub-section (1), line 2, before the word "may" to insert the following words:—"and having published the report".

There is no word there that we have to go to the dictionary to understand.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. McGilligan

On behalf of Deputy Costello, I move amendment No. 64:—

In sub-section 2 (a), line 10, to delete the words "as appear to him to" and substitute the words "as may reasonably".

This introduces an element of test. We are asked to take it that the Minister will act reasonably. If so, let us fortify that by putting in the words "as may reasonably" be necessary.

Dr. Ward

I must ask the House to assume that the Minister will act in a reasonable way, without putting the obligation upon him that the Minister shall by Order make such if any provisions as may reasonably be necessary. We must assume that the Minister will not make unreasonable Orders. When he has statutory authority to make an Order the onus ought to be put on the Minister of determining the provisions that are necessary and proper. If he acts unreasonably I suppose we will have to find another remedy for dealing with the situation.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister asks us to take it that he will act reasonably. I shudder at the consequences.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 65 not moved.

Mr. McGilligan

On behalf of Deputy Costello, I move amendment No. 66:—

In sub-section (2) (b), line 13, to delete the words "if he so thinks proper" and after the word "may" to insert the words "if it should reasonably appear to be necessary."

This is the same amendment as we had before, that the element of reason would enter into the matter. The Minister is reluctant to have the obligation put upon him.

Amendment put, and declared negatived.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No.67:—

In sub-section (2), page 9, line 15, to delete the words "a health" and substitute the word "an".

This is a drafting amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

Why is this necessary? Is not a health institution, by definition, such institution as is maintained under Section 13?

Dr. Ward

Yes, but it has first to be provided.

Mr. Hughes

I submit that the amendment is not in order now. We have agreed to let the words that are there stand and now we are going to alter them by this amendment. That is the ruling of the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was on a whole section.

Mr. Hughes

That applied to us before and it ought to apply to the Parliamentary Secretary now.

Mr. McGilligan

It was on a sub-section before. Same ruling, same result, Sir. What was allowed to be done when the sub-section was passed was to add words. This is to change words.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It will be marked "not moved".

Mr. McGilligan

On behalf of Deputy Costello, I move amendment No. 68:—

Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

No Order shall be made by the Minister under this section unless it is in accordance with the evidence and with the weight of the evidence produced at such public local inquiry.

This is an amendment we have already discussed, with an addition. This is to ask that the Minister shall not merely have the obligation put upon him to publish reports but it goes by a side track to the same point. It says that the Minister is not to be allowed to make an Order under this section unless it is in accordance with the evidence and with the weight of the evidence produced at such public local inquiry. One of the tests as to the evidence and the weight of evidence would be the inspector's report but that would not be conclusive.

Deputy Costello seeks to tie the Minister. Unless the evidence and the weight of the evidence produced at the local inquiry is in favour of the Order he proposes to make then he shall not be able to make it. It is tying him to the evidence and the weight of the evidence, apart altogether from the inspector's report.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 69:—

At the end of sub-section (3), to add the words:—"unless at a meeting of the health authority duly called to consider the matter two-thirds or more than two-thirds of the members attending and voting shall have voted against the proposal".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This was discussed.

General Mulcahy

It was only discussed in relation to another section. I think it is equally important to move in relation to Section 14 that where two-thirds of the representatives of a local body at a meeting specially called to consider the matter and after public inquiry decide that the Minister is wrong in requiring the institution to be abolished, it is the local representatives' opinion that will carry weight in the matter as against the Minister's opinion.

Dr. Ward

The principle of this amendment has already been debated and decided.

Amendment put and declared negatived.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment No. 70:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is received the report of the person who has held a local inquiry.

This has been discussed already, but what I should like to point out in this connection is that this is on a very limited matter indeed, as to whether or not a local authority should be by Order directed to discontinue a health institution or a department of such health institution. Surely in regard to that small matter it would be possible to enable the inspector to report and to have the inspector's report with the the Minister's decision brought before the public.

Dr. Ward

The principle is the same.

Mr. McGilligan

The lack of principle is the same.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 14 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.

SECTION 15.

Amendment No. 71 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McGilligan

What is the necessity of having Ministerial consent for the agreement which is provided for in Section 15?

Dr. Ward

That is concerned with the financial basis of the agreement. Local authorities sometimes avail of services provided in a regional or central institution. There will be financial considerations and, in order that uniformity may be obtained, the Minister's consent would be necessary. The Minister usually negotiates on behalf of all local authorities with the proprietors of the regional institution, standards are agreed upon and these standards then are uniformly applied.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the average age, as a matter of interest, of people who are on health authorities? Are they adults? Through this Bill they are being treated as if they were very immature.

Dr. Ward

They are all over 21.

Mr. McGilligan

They are all mature?

Dr. Ward

In fact, some of them are too old—senile.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the Parliamentary Secretary say solidified?

General Mulcahy

No; they are senile.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Parliamentary Secretary take an opinion of some of the health authorities of himself, since he is so mild about his comments on them?

Dr. Ward

I have not heard any objections from any of them about the terms of this section.

Mr. McGilligan

But the people that we are concerned with here are really adult people?

Dr. Ward

Just like us.

Mr. McGilligan

And they are not allowed to do the various things that are prohibited in this measure.

Dr. Ward

With the Minister's consent, yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Only with that. I see there is a bathing togs section in this. Has he a nurse's strings section as well?

Dr. Ward

It is the local authority that look after the bathing togs. They decide on the geographical proportions that are to be exposed.

Mr. McGilligan

Custom House design?

Dr. Ward

No; the man who made that statement dropped into the soup.

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.