The House will remember that a fortnight ago I had an amendment down which was designed for a somewhat wider purpose than the amendment I have on the paper to-day. It was shown here in the course of the discussion that the Minister could not consider with any degree of sympathy the rather broad amendment which I had then tabled. In the discussion which arose, I suggested the hardship that might be imposed on particular institutions, hospitals, if the Bill were to go through in the form in which it stands. There was one suggestion that I made at the end of the discussion on that part of the Bill in regard to which I thought the Minister showed some approach to my point of view. At any rate, he assured the House that he would give the suggestion—I do not want to tie him to the words—sympathetic consideration. It was the suggestion which is in the second amendment before us to-day, that the words "not less" should be omitted, and the word "more" inserted.
If that had been accepted, it would have meant that the power which the section places in the hands of the Minister could only be applied in the case of a board of which more than half of the members were nominated by local rating authorities. I think the Minister understands that that would have given some protection to the particular hospital I had in mind, namely the Dublin Fever Hospital, commonly known as Cork Street Hospital. I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept that amendment. I am quite sure that he gave it the consideration he promised, but I am afraid his sympathy must have become rather frozen in the atmosphere of his Department, or perhaps it was not quite as lively as it appeared to us in this House a fortnight ago. I have that amendment here, so that we may hear the Minister's views on it, and also on amendment No. 1, to insert the words "or the board of a hospital the constitution of which is provided by special Act of the Oireachtas."
I admit that I have, in particular, the same hospital in mind, the Dublin Fever Hospital. It is in a peculiar position. There may be other hospitals in the country whose constitution has been provided by a special Act of the Oireachtas. If there are, I am not familiar with them. At any rate, the Cork Street Hospital is in a peculiar position, because it has a peculiar history. As I mentioned a fortnight ago, it is 120 or more years old. It was founded by a number of benevolent citizens of Dublin, most of them as it happens belonging to a religious body, which through the centuries has had a noble reputation in Ireland for general charity, never limited to those of its own religious beliefs, the Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers. It was managed by a committee, mainly of that body, for a period of over 100 years with complete success, and performed great service to the sick poor of Dublin—those suffering from infective diseases. Some seven or eight years ago it was decided that it would be desirable to substitute for that voluntary body, acting on its own funds, in the hands of trustees, and maintaining itself, a body coming to some extent under public control; it was decided that the local rating authorities should have some voice in the management. As I am sure the Minister is aware, considerable discussions took place between the Department and the existing board, the proprietors of the hospital who had kept it going for so long. Naturally, the views as to the power that the constitution of the hospital gave to the new authority gave rise to considerable differences between the various persons concerned in those discussions.
A final agreement was come to which satisfied some of the claims of the existing board and which gave to the Minister of the day all the power he considered necessary. That agreement was brought before the Oireachtas. After discussion in the other House— and I suppose in this House, too—the agreement was approved by the Oireachtas. The agreement, which was passed into law by the Oireachtas, was regarded by the members of the old board, acting on behalf of themselves and the existing board as fixing—I shall not say for all time, because one cannot say that of any human institution—for a considerable time the constitution of the board. They took it for granted that that constitution would not be altered without the consent of the board. Within the very brief period of six years, another measure is proposed to give the Minister power which may, in its application, interfere gravely with the existing constitution and with the powers of the authority so constituted. I am not suggesting that there has been any real breach of faith, but I think it is undesirable that an Act of Parliament, which is the result of agreement between two bodies, one of whom hands over a very considerable sum of money and very valuable property, should be interfered with within the short period of six years. I ask the Minister to consider that point of view very carefully, if he has not already considered it, and to recognise that, in the case of this particular hospital, there is a special claim for protection on account of the fact that the Act governing it is the result of an agreement which could hardly have been got if the board at the time had not been assured that the Act framed on the agreement would continue in effect for a reasonable period.
The present Bill does not, in set terms, alter the terms of the old Act but it may alter the effect of that Act very appreciably in its application. While it may not be possible to make the legal point that the present Bill interferes with an existing Act of the Oireachtas, it virtually gives power to the Minister to interfere with the constitution of a body established by an Act of the Oireachtas of only six years ago. I have said that the old board, in coming to this agreement, bound themselves to make a substantial contribution to the finances of the hospital for the time being. I understand that, in cash and investments, they handed over about £25,000 and that they handed over property—buildings, site and so on—to the value of about £100,000. It would seem only equitable that that contribution to what was considered by the Government and, probably, by the public an important service in regard to the treatment of infectious diseases in the City of Dublin and neighbourhood, should be still borne in mind. The local authorities, with that gift in the pocket of the hospital, are now contributing largely but I do not think that that should be regarded as even tacit consideration for altering the constitution of the Cork Street Board.
The suggestion in my second amendment which, I thought, the Minister received sympathetically a fortnight ago, would have saved this situation from the point of view of the board and the members of the former board who still have an interest in the hospital. It may be of some interest to state the constitution of the hospital as laid down by Act of the Oireachtas of 1936. The County Borough of Dublin was to appoint seven members of the board, the board of health three members, a body representing the old governors—I shall explain the meaning of this presently—seven members, three members to be nominated by the Minister. That is the board as it has existed during the past five or six years. The body which I said I would explain is called "extraordinary members electorate". It was what I may call, without claiming any legal signification for the term, a corporation with perpetual existence. The old trustees were to represent the electorate and, as vacancies occurred, they were to fill these vacancies by nomination to the board. Their duty was to elect seven members to the board, from time to time, as vacancies occurred. The board, as thus constituted, had a minority of representatives of rating authorities. Under recent Acts, I understand that that minority is likely to be changed and that half the electorate will represent local authorities and the other half the extraordinary members electorate, plus the Minister. I ask the Minister, considering the history of the institution which I have tried to give as tersely and as clearly as possible, to accept one or other of the suggestions I have proposed and thereby protect the views of the historic board of Cork Street Hospital and also protect—if I may say so without being offensive—the good faith of the Minister who discussed matters with the representative body and made a bargain with them.
Such a bargain should not be liable to alteration or change within a few years by the action of the Department which made the bargain. I hope the Minister will give me a more favourable answer on these matters than at our last meeting, and that he will do something better than the amendment which follows. I would ask the Minister to give this really sympathetic and friendly consideration, and to do the two things I have asked—maintain the good faith of his Department, and relieve the minds of the old friends of Cork Street Fever Hospital who follow in the footsteps of those who kept the hospital going for 100 years.