Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 44—Hospitals and Infirmaries.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £595 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Eilithe mar gheall ar Ospidéil agus Otharlanna, maraon le hIldeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £595 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Charges connected with Hospitals and Infirmaries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

General Mulcahy

These are old grants for certain hospitals in the city of Dublin and they go back as far as 1854 or 1855. Exception has been taken on different occasions to the payment of these grants to these hospitals, and I have argued in reply to that criticism that the economy of the hospitals for a great number of years back to 1855 has been built to some extent around the getting of the grants. I said that I did not think it reasonable to withdraw the grants where the financial position of the hospitals showed that they were required to help them. Last year, and the year before, certain reductions were made in the grants payable to certain hospitals because, from an examination of their accounts it was seen that they could afford to do without them. In this way, the House of Industry Hospitals in 1929-30 had the grant reduced from £7,600 to £5,000, a reduction of £2,600. The grant to Cork Street Fever Hospital was reduced from £2,500 to £2,170, showing a reduction of £330. Last year, the grant to that hospital was further reduced by £700. These reductions were made because, on examination of the accounts, it was seen that the hospital could afford to do without these grants. In the current estimate, we propose reductions in the case of the House of Industry Hospitals, the Coombe Hospital, the Meath Hospital and in the small grants to infirmaries—Jervis Street Hospital and the Meath Hospital. The reductions are respectively £5,000; £200; £600; £89; £44 because examination of their financial conditions showed that the hospitals were able to get on without these grants.

A certain amount of exception has been taken in certain quarters to the proposed action on the part of the State to take away grants from hospitals because they had got moneys from the Hospitals Sweeps. It is true, almost entirely, that the moneys these hospitals have got from the sweep-are responsible for their being in the position that we can bring about these reductions. But I do not think we can depart from the reasonable policy that was adopted in the light of the discussion that took place here during the last three or four years, simply because the money coming in comes from the sweeps. Before any deduction took place the amount of the Estimate was £16,158. The amount of the Estimate now before the House is £6,595.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly

I raised this question on several occasions, and each year stated that I criticised the amount included in this Estimate as given to the hospitals, but not because I objected to the sums given to them. What I objected to was the fact that these hospitals, and these hospitals only, were selected for help out of State funds. I emphasised in previous years, and I will not go over it at length now, that, as far as Deputies on this side of the House were aware, the hospitals had been doing good work and had given very considerable service to the public. On this side of the House no one wishes to detract from the services the hospitals have given, or the credit that is due to them for such services. But we objected before, and we still object, to a certain number of hospitals being selected when similar institutions in the City of Dublin, and all over the country, that are doing equally good work are getting no grant of any kind.

Since these protests were first made the Estimate, as the Minister has stated, has been considerably reduced. I will not say that we are glad of that. It is a satisfactory thing inasmuch as it saves the State certain expenditure, but we are not glad to see any money taken from any institutions that are doing good work for the public, and such can be said of these institutions. I am glad that the State is being saved, but I would be more pleased if every other institution that is doing equally good work could be helped from State funds.

I have seen in the Press that objection has been taken to the proposed action of the Minister in reducing the grants given to certain institutions out of State funds because these hospitals and similar institutions have received aid from the hospitals sweepstake funds. I know that some of these hospitals have got out of the sweepstake funds amounts far in excess of anything that the State would ever be able to give them. They have got these funds through the action of the State and through the action of this House in allowing sweepstakes to be held. They got huge sums into their exchequers that were undreamt of three, four or five years ago. Why they should protest or object to the amount of money hitherto given to them by the State being withdrawn is to me not understandable. They are getting a favour. They had hitherto been getting a favour that was not extended to the general body of hospitals doing equally good work. They were in a very privileged position as far as the State was concerned, and, during last year, they have been placed in a much more favoured position as a result of State action, and got very considerable funds into their exchequers. Therefore, I do not see that they have a right to complain that the comparatively small sums the State did give as a privilege in recent years should be withdrawn. As far as one can see they are well provided for from other sources.

As long as the hospitals in the Estimate are placed in a privileged position, that does not bear comparison with similar institutions all over the country, and in the city of Dublin, I at any rate, will continue to protest against their continuance in that privileged position. I think the action already taken by the Minister in reducing the amount takes away considerably from the complaint we have to make. A reduction from £16,000 to £6,000 is considerable. The £6,000 is not much to complain of. It is not the amount but the privileged position of these hospitals that I protest against and, in so far as there is still an Estimate for £6,000 to be provided, so long as they are continued in that privileged position, naturally our protest, in a modified form, remains.

Sir James Craig

I think that the policy of the Government is a most unwise one, allowing the report to go out that they are going to benefit financially to the extent of practically £6,000 because sweepstakes are being run for the hospitals. The second point is, I want to know is this a permanent reduction or is it only temporary, to last during the time the sweepstake is being run. I consider it is a most unfair arrangement to cut off grants from three of the hospitals because they have come into the sweepstakes. Let me deal with this for a moment or two. The reason why certain hospitals do not come in to benefit by the sweepstakes are these. First they are not attending 25 per cent. of poor people for nothing. They are not able to come under the Act because they are not doing enough work for the poor; secondly, they do not come in because they are not badly off. There is no necessity for them to come in, or they may have a feeling that if they did come in, the subscriptions from the public would be taken from them and the grant from the Government would cease. I am sure one of the most important reasons which they gave for it was that they thought the grant from the Government was going to be continued. The third point is on the ethical question. I am not going to deal with the ethical question, perhaps it is better that a certain number of hospitals are not coming in.

The point I am making is certain hospitals did not come in because they were not treating enough of the poor or else were well enough off and these are the hospitals that will continue to get their grants. Certain hospitals came in because they were not able to pay their debts and wanted money or they were attending so much of the poor that they were able to come in under the Act. Does anybody in this House consider that it is fair treatment to cut off from the hospitals that came in their grant and continue the grant to the other hospitals without considering that the hospitals that have not come in could not come in?

I am sorry I did not put down an amendment to divide the House upon this matter because I consider the hospitals have been treated most unfairly. I sympathise with all Deputy O'Kelly said last year that the grant was given to hospitals and that it might be better that it should be spread over a larger area, and that certain other hospitals were doing as good work as these hospitals and getting no grant. The point Deputy O'Kelly made last year was that the hospitals in Cork and Limerick were getting no share of the Government grant. I have a certain amount of sympathy with that but I think that it is a most unfair arrangement that the Government are going to benefit to the amount of £6,000 because sweepstakes are being run for the benefit of the hospitals. Remember too that they have selected the hospitals which did not come in. Some of the reasons why they did not come in have already been given. I ask the Minister seriously to consider this matter and to state also whether this is temporary or whether it is meant to be permanent.

General Mulcahy

The hospitals that are down here for getting these sums totalling £6,350 were not selected by us. They were selected 77 years ago, and for each one of the 77 years they have got these amounts. They would not be put into this list passed by us this year if their income were sufficient to meet their expenditure. We have, to the best of our ability, satisfied ourselves that their expenditure this year will be such that there will be a deficiency of at least the amount that we have down here. The policy that we have adopted in connection with these matters is to examine the accounts of the hospitals that are involved in this particular scheme, and not to give them a grant if their income and their expenditure be such that they can be shown to do without the grant. In so far as the grants that we have taken from the hospitals——

Sir James Craig

Only the ones that came into the sweeps.

General Mulcahy

I am not prepared to distinguish in our policy with regard to these hospitals whether they get their money from sweeps, from a bequest, whist drives, race meetings, or in any other way. I am concerned with the income for the year, and on that basis the deduction, as far as our present outlook on the matter is concerned, is only temporary. I do not say that if—as some of these hospitals have got £35,000 a year from the sweeps—over a period of, say, six, seven, or ten years they get £35,000 a year or £20,000 a year in income from sweeps, and if at the end of that time their sweep or general income falls, that we will go back and reinstitute the grant of £1,000 or £5,000, as the case may be. Within reasonable contingencies the reduction is temporary.

I should say this, that any complaints or any criticism of the action of the Department in reducing these grants have not come from the hospitals from whom these grants have been taken. Some of them have not thought it worth while to reply to our letters advising them that this action was proposed, and in the case of others we have had a satisfactory and amicable degree of conversation with their representatives.

Vote put and agreed to.