Last night, we were discussing an amendment tabled by me to delete sub-section (6) of Section 49. My objections to sub-section (6) are similar in principle to my objections to the previous sub-section, sub-section (5), and that is that the general tenor of sub-section (6) tends to place penal impositions on the inmates of our county homes. These penal impositions are contained particularly in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of the sub-section which read:—
"Every person maintained by a health authority in a county home or similiar institution who—
(b) is by reason of the consumption of intoxicating liquor drunk or incapable of conducting himself in such home or institution,
(c) does any act of insubordination in relation to an officer of such home or institution, or
(d) does any other act (whether of commission or omission) of misbehaviour in such home or institution which is prejudicial to the discipline or the good government thereof
shall be guilty of an offence under this sub-section and shall be liableon summary conviction thereof to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 21 days."
I suggest that that sub-section should be deleted from this Bill because, in my view, it is very objectionable in its suggestion that the inmates of our county homes are likely to require this special consideration outside the considerations which we give to the inmates of our district hospitals, our county hospitals, our regional hospitals, where we have them, and our T.B. institutions. According to the Minister all these people who are inmates of these other institutions are not covered by this sub-section, but it is directed specifically against the destitute aged poor who have found their way to the county home, not through any choice of their own. If they had a choice, as I said last night, I am certain they would not go to our county homes. County homes are not places that any aged person would readily enter or choose to spend the declining years of his life, if he had a choice.
It may be suggested, in fact I think it can be suggested, that these aged people on the whole tend to become extremely difficult charges and an extremely difficult problem for those caring for the inmates of these institutions. I think it is because of this great difficulty in caring for the aged that we should pay tribute to the many members of the different religious orders, here in Ireland in particular, who spend their lives looking after and caring for, in the considerate way in which they do, these aged persons. There is no doubt in the world that the majority of these aged people are difficult, that they are irritable, that many of them are cantankerous, badtempered and unreasonable and that some of them may indeed take an occasional drink and may at times be offensive to the attendants who look after them, but I still do not think that this penal sub-section is in keeping with the general tenor of our social legislation. I do not think it should be laid down here by us that special legal powers must be taken to deal with cases of intoxication and cases of insubordinationamongst our aged persons. If I could make my feeling on the matter clear, I would prefer a sub-section which would completely reverse the present paragraph (c)—that is, that anybody who is guilty of an act of insubordination in relation to an inmate of one of these county homes should be subject to summary fines and summary imprisonment. That would be my attitude because these aged people are there not through any choice of their own. They are there because most of them, at any rate, are entering into a state of senility, which means that the majority of them are not themselves, that many of them are cantankerous, bad tempered, unreasonable or even take a drink due to physical changes which have taken place in old age. Consequently, we should be particularly careful that every consideration and every latitude be given to these people rather than that they should be treated in the way suggested in this sub-section.
This sub-section is a continuation of the old attitude towards our county homes, our workhouses, which persisted right through the 19th century. These homes were set up, as Deputy Larkin said, as places to which people went through force of circumstances and not of their own free will and it was the determination of the authorities that life in them should be made as hard and as difficult as possible for these aged people. The idea was that they would spend as little time in these homes as possible and, if it could be so arranged, they would be driven out because of unsatisfactory conditions, unduly severe rules and regulations.
There is no reason in the world why the authorities cannot find legal remedies under the existing legal code in order to deal with any person who is intractable or difficult or who is wilfully and repeatedly offensive. I see no reason why this sub-section should be introduced. There are many private homes and institutions throughout the country and it has never been found necessary in their regard to have these extraordinary clauses in anticipation of drunkenness, disorderlyor riotous behaviour on the part of the inmates. Most of these institutions depend for the maintenance of order on the tact and understanding handling of the attendants and religious orders looking after these homes.
The suggestion that the aged poor would be so offensive as to require special legislative clauses providing for dragging them into court is to me utterly repugnant. As a member of the younger generation, I refuse to accept the idea or suggestion that our aged poor require these penal clauses. This is like an echo of the report of the Viceregal Commission on Poor Law Reform in 1906; the implicit suggestion in that report was that the poor were poor and destitute through their own criminal negligence in failing to make provision for themselves; that the native Irish were dirty and improvident and should be treated like animals; that they deserved nothing better. The whole conception of workhouses was to degrade and humiliate our people.
I do not think the idea implicit in this sub-section should be allowed to emanate from this House. Our voluntary hospitals find they can run their institutions perfectly well and orderly without any such legislation. Institutions for the aged, such as the MacGeough Home and the excellent institution in Mallow that I had the pleasure of visiting on one occasion, find they can get along perfectly well without legislation such as this. Hotels, to which many aged people go in the latter end of their days, find it unnecessary to have any such legislation.
Into these homes will go the old people who were once patients in local anthority hospitals. We do not find it necessary to have any such legislation in connection with our hospitals. Why should it be necessary, therefore, when we come to deal with the aged poor? The protection that should be given is protection of the aged themselves, rather than the other way around. I am not suggesting that the attendants, or those who look after these old people, are themselves insubordinate, but I would prefer to see protection forthe aged rather than any suggestion of protection against the aged.
I admit that the inmates of county homes are difficult. Any aged person is difficult, cantankerous, quarrelsome and intractable. Some get drunk, though it has always been a puzzle to me how a destitute person can get. drunk sufficiently often to necessitate the enactment of legislation in order to deal with him. Nevertheless, I think it would be a retrograde step for us to continue the atmosphere of penalty inherent in this sub-section. This is a heritage of 19th century legislation in relation to workhouses and the treatment of the aged poor. Most of these people go into these institutions because they have no other choice. Their only crime is the crime of being poor and destitute and it would be wrong for us to accept the suggestion that they should be marked in this way.
It may be suggested this legisilation is for the purpose of catching the vagrant or the person who stays overnight in an institution. Even if that is so. I suggest it is not worth the slur on our aged poor or on ourselves to have this legislation. The tiny percentage of casuals can surely be dealt with without this penal enactment.
I think this is a watered-down piece of legislation inherited from people with a completely different attitude and approach to the, problem of the aged poor from the attitude we have. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. There are cases in which trouble can arise, but I really think this is a too-sweeping power. I object, in particular, to the implication the sub-section carries. The suggestion is that the aged must be treated like delinquent children. I think that is entirely wrong and something alien to our feelings towards our aged poor and I do not think this should go out as the collective will of this House.