In Committee on Finance. - Dublin Fever Hospital Bill, 1936—Committee.
This Act may be cited as the Dublin Fever Hospital Act, 1936.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 18, after the word "Hospital," to add the words "and House of Recovery."
In speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill I suggested to the Minister that he might give sympathetic consideration to this matter. My reason for doing so was that the members of the Board of the Cork Street Hospital belong to a section of the people who for about 130 years have been carrying out this class of work, and now that it is proposed to make a change under this Bill, I think it would be a very gracious compliment to the philanthropy and energy and work of this community throughout the whole of that period to insert the words proposed. I think that on the Second Stage of the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary saw no objection to this, and I hope that in the meantime he has given the matter the consideration which in my opinion it deserved, because it is a continuity of long service, and it will appeal to many who have been identified with the treatment of contagious diseases to know that their work has been appreciated by adding to the name of the new hospital the name of this former hospital.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this amendment proposed by Deputy Doyle. I think when the matter came up on the Second Reading he almost expressed his assent. In one sense it is merely a sentimental matter, but sentiment has a considerable amount of bearing on human activity, and I think it is only fair that the people who have carried on this charitable work for 130 years or thereabouts, and who maintained an institution of which Dublin had in the past a right to be proud, should have the continuity of their work made clear in the future, so that when we have a new and improved fever hospital as a result of this Bill those who come after us may recognise that it had not a beginning in the year 1936 or the year 1937, but had its beginning more than 100 years ago, and that the activity has been continuous. The hospital has had a creditable and honourable history, and I am sure that those who remain of the people who maintained it throughout those years will be pleased to find that by some continuity in the title the continuity of the institution is maintained. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has seen no reason to take a less favourable view of this suggestion than he took when it was made to him earlier.
Since the Second Reading stage I have very carefully considered this matter, and I am not disposed to accept the amendment. On full consideration, notwithstanding the case that has been made by Deputies Doyle and Rowlette, there does not appear to be much to be gained by adding "House of Recovery" to the name of the proposed new institution. It is a fact that when this institution was first established it was called "`House of Recovery and Fever Hospital" but at that time and for some considerable time after the establishment of the institution various other types of illness were treated there. The activities of the institution were not by any means confined to the treatment of fever. In later years, following some extensive outbreaks of infectious diseases in the City of Dublin, the institution came to be devoted almost entirely to the treatment of fever cases. The institution that would be set up under the proposed legislation would be entirely a fever hospital, and would, of course, be recognised by the public as a fever hospital and would be called "fever hospital" regardless of anything that we may put into the Bill.
I do not think that there is any great sentiment attached to the name "House of Recovery." I discussed this matter in considerable detail with representatives of the existing trustees, and while I suppose it would be accurate to say that they certainly would have no objection to making the alteration proposed, I do not think they felt very strongly on the matter. If they had felt very strongly on the matter—there is no great principle involved in it; I am only aiming at some kind of uniformity in the names of such institutions—I would be disposed to accept the amendment. We had legislation dealing with the provision of a fever hospital in the City of Cork. I quite agree, of course, that we were not confronted with a name such as this in the existing institution, but at any rate we called the institution the "Cork Fever Hospital." As I said, the proposed institution here will be recognised and known as the "Dublin Fever Hospital," and the term "House of Recovery" in the altered circumstances ceases to have the significance that it had at the time the institution was set up. I think that in the circumstances Deputy Doyle might not press his amendment.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen his way to accept the amendment, because I think he will admit that by the Bill the work of those who devoted such attention to sickness in Dublin for this long period is being cast aside. In changing the position through this Bill, I do not see that any effort is made to give any appreciation or pay any tribute whatsoever to the good work which was done during that period. I do not think the reference to the Cork Hospital is any argument at all against the acceptance of the amendment, and I am sorry that the Minister has not given it the consideration which we had hoped for from his remarks on the Second Stage, because I think that there should be some little compliment paid to those who carried out that class of work which has been done so well during all that period.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when speaking, said that he did not think there was much to be gained by the insertion of the words proposed in the amendment. Of course, while there really is not anything to be gained, there is still very much to be preserved, and I think that, on the whole, old associations of this kind, extending back to 130 years, and carrying on the type of activity that those people have carried on, are very well worth preserving after all. Although the institution may be known as the Dublin Fever Hospital in the future, I hope that House of Recovery would not be regarded as a misnomer, and that the Parliamentary Secretary does not think that it would be a misnomer. On the whole, if there is a general desire on the part of people to have this kind of continuity preserved in this particular way, I think there should be no great opposition to it, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to agree to the wishes of those people, and to allow the proposed words to be inserted.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 1 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21
(2) The Resident Medical Superintendent shall be responsible to the hospital board for the internal administration of every fever hospital and every convalescent home managed and controlled by the hospital board and shall in the performance of his duties observe and carry out any directions given by the medical superintendent officer of health of the county borough of Dublin.
I move amendment No. 2:
In sub-section (2), line 33, to delete all after the word "board" to the end of the sub-section and in lieu thereof to add the following new sub-section: "The hospital board, and their officers, shall, in the performance of their respective duties, observe and carry out any recommendations made to the board by the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin."
Sub-section (2), as it stands, puts the resident medical superintendent in the position that he has got to be responsible to the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin, and also the hospital board. Now, it is quite possible that, if any contentious matter should arise, some difficulty might be created for the resident medical superintendent in dealing with the matter. I suggest that my amendment would meet the case intended by the Minister in sub-section (2), and I hope that he will see his way to accept.
I should like to join with Deputy Doyle in supporting this amendment. I think that sub-section (2), as it stands in the text of the Bill, might possibly lead to misunderstanding and trouble. I have not the slightest suspicion that, in connection with the present hospital board and the medical superintendent officer of health of the city as well as the resident medicál superintendent, any difficulty would arise between the respective officers, but one must remember that one would not always have the same persons in the offices now held by these gentlemen, and there is, I think, a possibility of friction arising in the future if the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin has the power to give directions over the head, possibly, of the resident medical superintendent on points which are properly within the discretion of the resident medical superintendent. It might quite easily happen that in the future the gentlemen holding these positions might not be on the amicable terms which, I am sure, exist between the present officers, and which, I am sure, will exist for some time.
However, there is the possibility of friction in connection with other gentlemen in the future, and there is the danger that that might interfere greatly with the working and discipline of the hospital and with the authority of the resident medical superintendent. If the medical superintendent officer of health of the city were to give orders over the head of the resident medical officer, it might do very great damage. Now, medical superintendent officers of health should be assumed always to be reasonable people, but one cannot wisely give them powers which might be used unreasonably. Another important point in the amendment is the suggested substitution of the word "recommendations" for the word "directions." Deputy Doyle's amendment imposes on the board and their officers the duty of carrying out any recommendations made to the board by the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin. I think that eases the matter considerably. Although it may be their duty to carry out directions, I think that the spirit in which they carried them out is very important, and for that reason I think the word "recommendation" is a wiser term. One recognises that a medical superintendent officer of health must have a joint authority over the general management of the hospital, which is largely financed by the City of Dublin, and that he should have a certain authority, but that authority, I suggest, should be exercised by his recommendations to the hospital board in the first place, rather than by direct instructions given to an officer of the hospital without the knowledge of the hospital board. I think that this is a reasonable amendment, intended to make the working of the hospital easier and to make the hospital more efficient, and I hope the Minister will see his way to accept it.
I am afraid, Sir, I cannot accept this amendment. I think that if this amendment were accepted by the House, it would create an entirely anomalous position. Under the amendment, the hospital board, and their officers, shall, in the performance of their respective duties, observe and carry out any recommendations made to the board by the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin. Now, that would mean that the medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin would be in a position to direct the hospital board even in their administrative duties. He would be absolutely supreme in so far as the carrying out of the duties, even of the hospital board, was concerned.
Under the amendment the officers in the institution would be bound to carry out any directions given by the medical superintendent officer of health. That is all right as far as it goes, but the difference in the relationship between the medical superintendent officer of health mentioned in the amendment, and the Bill is, that the directions would come through the hospital board, and the hospital board as well as the officials would be there to carry them out. That would be a difficult and probably in actual practice an impossible position. I doubt very much if the medical superintendent officer of health of the City of Dublin would undertake such a responsibility. I feel very much inclined to believe that he would not. I do not anticipate any of the complications that Deputy Rowlette has in mind. If it would meet the position, and I think it would, to alter the word "directions" to "recommendations" I will consider it. Deputy Rowlette appears to think that the word "directions" is liable to be the cause of friction in the future, and that "recommendations" would be a more acceptable term. I think I can go that far to meet the Deputy. It would be undesirable to place the hospital board entirely under the medical superintendent officer of health of Dublin City and to place the board under a statutory obligation to carry out in the performance of their respective duties any recommendations made by him. That would be an impossible position, and I am sure Deputy Rowlette realises that.
There may be something in the Parliamentary Secretary's point but does he not realise that as the section is worded the resident medical superintendent is put in the position that he has to carry out the directions of the medical officers of health and of the hospital board? If there was a difference of opinion between these two authorities where would the resident medical officer be? That is the objection I see to the section. I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment as it stands. Perhaps he could make some suggestion that would meet the point I raised.
Would it satisfy the Deputy if the word "recommendations" was substituted for "directions?"
While not specifically setting it out in the Bill, recommendations made by the medical superintendent officer of health would have nothing to do with internal administration. They would have to deal more with medical and scientific matters.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will not accept the amendment as it stands and if he undertakes to redraft the section on the lines suggested, I do not think Deputy Rowlette will object.
I welcome the substitution of the word "directions" by "recommendations." I do not like the word directions, because then the resident medical superintendent in every detail would be subject to orders given by medical superintendent officers of health. That would be an impossible position. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary is unwilling to accept the amendment. Perhaps when he is bringing in an amendment to substitute the word "recommendations" for "directions" he will see if he can further meet our views.
I will not give any undertaking to go any further than to substitute "recommendations" for "directions." I should mention that an exactly similar clause was incorporated in the Cork Fever Hospital Act and no objection was taken to it when it was passing through the Dáil.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:
"(3) The resident medical superintendent shall, after the establishment of the new fever hospital, reside therein."
While the present resident medical superintendent of Cork Street Fever Hospital does not reside in the institution, it is desirable that in the new institution the resident medical superintendent shall do so. The only reason why the present medical superintendent does not reside there is the fact that there is no accommodation for him.
I would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary, if I were a member of the hospital board, that accommodation should be provided for, the resident medical superintendent, and that ordinarily he should reside in the hospital. That is desirable. At the same time, I think it is very undesirable to put such a clause in a statute. Circumstances may arise in which it might be undesirable that a resident medical superintendent should be compelled to reside in the hospital. There might be difficulty on the part of the hospital authorities in providing the necessary accommodation. Whatever the size of an hospital, there should be accommodation for the resident medical superintendent, and if the authorities desire that the services should be efficiently administered, they should require him to live there and be in close touch with the work. But it is quite a different thing to put that into an Act of Parliament which could be altered only by legislation. It would be almost certain to prove very inconvenient in certain circumstances that might arise. Take the case of Cork Street Hospital. During its whole history the medical superintendent resided there until recently, when accommodation was no longer available. That might happen in other places where the authorities would be up against the question of finding accommodation, and the work of the hospital might be held up because of the wording of a statute. Again, there might be conditions concerning a resident medical superintendent which would limit the choice of the hospital board in appointing the most efficient superintendent. It would be undesirable for a resident medical superintendent with a young family to have to bring them to such an institution. The hospital board might have to choose between such a man and a man with no family, as a result of which a less efficient officer might be appointed because of an obsolete clause in an Act of Parliament. I doubt if the Parliamentary Secretary could find such a clause in any legislation dealing with fever hospitals. It would seem to me to hamper unduly the work of the institution and the choice of the hospital board in the selection of their officers.
In the very efficient fever hospital in Belfast—as efficient an hospital as exists — the medical superintendent resides four miles away, and at the same time performs his duties very efficiently. In many cases affecting public health work, the medical superintendent may have more than one institution under his control, and these may be situate some distance from each other. Here it is contemplated that the medical superintendent will live in the fever hospital, but he may also have to superintend a convalescent hospital as well. Ordinarily, I agree that the medical superintendent should reside in the institution, but it is extremely undesirable and mischievous that such a clause should be inserted in an Act of Parliament, as it might tie the hands of hospital boards in years to come unless other legislation was passed amending it.
Until I heard the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary I was inclined to take objection to the amendment. I assumed that the medical superintendent would reside in the institution, if possible. It is inadvisable that such a clause should be inserted in the Bill, because, as Deputy Rowlette pointed out, no one knows what circumstances might arise in the future. I do not think it right to have any clause in the Bill that could not be carried out.
It seems to be generally admitted in ordinary circumstances that it is desirable that medical superintendents should reside on the hospital premises. I quite admit that a set of circumstances might exist such as Deputy Rowlette foreshadowed when it might not perhaps, be in the very best interests of the hospital to have the resident medical superintendent compelled to reside there. But on the point that accommodation does not exist at the present time, or that ample accommodation may not exist in future, I do not think there need be any anxiety at all, as in planning the new institution the necessary steps will be taken to provide adequate accommodation for the resident medical superintendent. I think that even in the possible case mentioned by Deputy Dr. Rowlette, where the resident medical superintendent might have a family, that point can be covered in planning the institution and in securing that the resident medical superintendent's residence is sufficiently detached from the hospital proper. I think that if that position is safeguarded, his family will not run any greater risks than they would run if he were living a considerable distance from the institution. I am quite sure that the amendment could be debated for a considerable time and arguments advanced for and against it, but really the determining factor in my mind when circulating this amendment was to meet the expressed wish of the existing hospital trustees. They have very definitely expressed the opinion that the resident medical superintendent should reside on the premises. Had it not been for the representations they made on the question it is quite possible, and likely, that this amendment would not have been circulated. These amendments were all discussed with representatives of the existing trustees and I am more or less committed to them, more or less bound in honour to stand by any understandings we came to in relation to them.
I am sure there is nobody either in the House or who is interested in any other fever hospital that is not of one mind on the matter of having the doctor living in, but it is quite possible that the persons who influenced the Parliamentary Secretary in that regard might not be anxious to have this provision embodied in the statute. After all, we are doing quite a lot of things by regulations at the present time. We are providing for a lot of matters by regulation which are much more difficult and much harder, if you like, to relate to what may be termed administration than that particular matter would be. I think if the Parliamentary Secretary were to meet this by regulation he would still be standing by his word to the people from whom he received these representations and he would be avoiding putting in a statute a provision that is very objectionable in a statute although it may be a very desirable thing to have in operation. I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider the proposal to embody this in a statute. He could provide for it by a regulation of the Department, which could be withdrawn should an occasion arise on which it would not be possible to carry it out.
I should like to make a suggestion somewhat on the same lines as that put forward by Deputy Brennan, namely, that the Minister might insert in his amendment a few qualifying words to this effect: "Unless the hospital board shall, with the approval of the Minister, direct otherwise." That would leave it the normal rule that the resident medical superintendent should live in the hospital, which is, I think, desirable. It would leave it at the discretion of the hospital board to dispense with this obligation should any exceptional circumstances arise, and it would not be a statutory obligation on the hospital board. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has sufficiently realised the inconvenience of putting detailed matters into a statute. He recognises, in most of the legislation for which he is responsible, the necessity for doing certain things by regulation. I suggest that he is putting a very inconvenient clause into the statute by the amendment he is putting forward, unless some such qualifying words as I suggest are added. I hope he will reconsider the matter and deal with it perhaps at a later stage.
As a matter of fact, before Deputy Rowlette spoke, I was on the point of putting forward such a suggestion in the belief that it would possibly meet Deputy Doyle's and Deputy Dr. Rowlette's points of view. I think if we can get some such qualifying words as "unless otherwise decided by the hospital board with the consent of the Minister," or some such words as the draughtsman might suggest, it would provide a method of dealing with any exceptional case that might arise.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary withdraw the amendment or allow it to stand and deal with it on Report?
I should prefer to deal with it on Report.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 22 to 27, inclusive, also to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 28.
The medical superintendent officer of health of the County Borough of Dublin and the county medical officer of health for the County of Dublin shall be entitled, at all reasonable times, to enter any institution (being a fever hospital or a convalescent home) for the time being managed and controlled by the hospital board and to inspect such institution and the arrangements made for the care of patients therein and to inspect and examine respectively, the city patients and the county patients in such institution, and each of the said officers shall also be entitled, in consultation with the resident medical superintendent, to engage in any such institution in research work in relation to the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases.
I move amendment No. 4:
In line 44, after the word "and" to insert the words "after consultation with the resident medical superintendent."
This is another point I raised with the Minister on the Second Stage in regard to Section 28. I think it is a recognised rule in the medical profession that one medical officer will not intrude on the work of another. That is to say, when a patient is being treated by a particular doctor, he should not be interfered with in any way by another doctor that might be called in without consulting the doctor by whom he was first treated. As the section stands, the medical superintendent of the Borough of Dublin and the county medical officer of health for the County of Dublin shall be entitled at all reasonable times to enter any institution for the time being managed and controlled by the hospital board, and to inspect such institutions and to inspect and examine, respectively, the city patients and the county patients. I think that that should not be done without some consultation with the resident medical superintendent, and I am, therefore, moving that the words "after consultation with the resident medical superintendent" be inserted at the point indicated. I think it is a very reasonable suggestion and I have every reason to believe that it is a provision that should be inserted in the Bill. In referring to the matter on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary gave an explanation which was far clearer to my mind than is provided by the reading of the section as it stands.
I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary will find any difficulty in accepting this amendment. It clearly does not limit the power of the medical officer of health in any way. It makes sure that when he does visit the hospital to inspect and examine the arrangements that he does so in consultation with the resident medical superintendent. Clearly, to do otherwise would lead to friction and, perhaps, to something even graver—indiscipline in the hospital. For a patient under the care of the resident medical superintendent from day to day to be examined suddenly by a strange doctor might give rise to the feeling that he was in some way superior to the resident medical superintendent. I expect that the Parliamentary Secretary will not see any difficulty in agreeing to insert the words proposed, which are in line with what he himself has put in in regard to research work. If he is willing to accept the amendment, I suggest that instead of saying "after consultation," the amendment should be altered to read "in consultation."
The only difference of opinion between Deputies Doyle and Rowlette and myself on this question is based on the reliance that I would be prepared to place on professional etiquette as compared to the reliance that the Deputies are prepared to place on it. I do not anticipate that friction or complications would arise if the medical officer of health went into the institution to examine patients without consulting the resident medical superintendent. I am reluctant to admit that this amendment is really necessary. I have no great objection to it, and if it is strongly felt that such an amendment is necessary I am prepared to accept it. But as a medical man myself, I would prefer that we should rely on medical etiquette safeguarding the position. If the amendment is to be accepted, I would prefer the wording proposed by Deputy Doyle to the altered wording suggested by Deputy Rowlette. In my opinion the phrase "after consultation" with the resident medical superintendent is not quite the same thing as "in consultation with" the resident medical superintendent. Deputy Doyle's amendment contemplates that the medical officer of health would acquaint the resident medical superintendent of his intention to inspect and examine certain patients in the institution, and, presumably, they would discuss the case. There are times, however, when it might not suit the resident medical superintendent to go around with the medical officer of health in the course of his inspection or examination. If the amendment were worded "in consultation with the resident medical superintendent" it would appear to me to be necessary for them to go around together. Now, I do not think that we need make that a statutory condition. If we make it a statutory condition that the medical officer of health will first consult with the resident medical superintendent, we might leave it at that, and if we do I think that the point the Deputies have in mind is adequately covered by the amendment proposed by Deputy Doyle.
Suppose the resident medical superintendent is not present when the county medical officer of health calls to the hospital—suppose he is ill or away on leave—would it be necessary to make provision for consultation with his substitute? The medical officer of health may send in a suspected case of fever to the hospital. The case may not have been perfectly diagnosed in the early stages, and the medical officer of health may desire to inspect the patient in hospital. When he calls the resident medical superintendent may be away for some reason or other. In a case like that, the efficiency of the medical officer of health may be impaired if he is not able to see a patient during the absence of the resident medical superintendent, and perhaps it would be well to make provision to meet a situation of that kind, should it ever arise.
I do not anticipate any difficulty arising in a case of that kind. If the resident medical superintendent is ill, or off duty, somebody will be acting for him, and whoever is acting will be the resident medical superintendent for the time being.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29
(2) For the purposes of this Act each of the following expenses incurred by the hospital board under this Act shall be patients' expenses, namely—
(a) the cost of conveying any patient to or from any institution (being a fever hospital or a convalescent home) for the time being managed and controlled by the hospital board,
(b) the cost of disinfecting any patient resident in any such institution or the clothing and effects of any such patient.
I move amendment No. 5:
In sub-section (2) (b), to insert at the end of the paragraph the words "and the cost of compensation in respect of damage caused to such clothing or effects by such disinfecting."
It is necessary to make this insertion at this stage as part of patients' expenses in order that, subsequently, the hospital board may be in a position to compensate for damage to clothing by disinfection.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 30 to 39 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 40.
I move amendment No. 6:
At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—
"The hospital board may, without prejudice to the generality of any other powers conferred on it by this Act, do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
(a) in any case where the relatives of any patient, dying in any institution (being a fever hospital or a convalescent home) for the time being managed and controlled by the hospital board, are not known, or by reason of their absence, or poverty or otherwise, are unable to provide for the burial of such deceased patient, defray all necessary and proper expenses incurred in the burial of such deceased patient;
(b) disinfect the clothing and effects of patients in any such institution, and, in respect of any damage caused thereby to such clothing or effects, pay or make compensation;
(c) where clothing is necessary for the proper treatment or protection of a patient in any such institution and such patient is unable by reason of poverty to provide such clothing, provide such clothing."
The proposal in this amendment is to grant certain necessary powers to the hospital board, namely, authority to defray the cost of the interment of a deceased patient who may have no relatives or friends, or in a case where the relatives or friends may not be in a position to provide for the burial of a patient, and power to disinfect the clothing and effects of a patient entering the institution and to compensate for any damage caused to the clothing or effects by disinfection, and authority to provide additional clothing for patients where such clothing is necessary for their proper care or protection.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 41 to 51 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 52.
(4) All moneys transferred to the hospital board by this section and all moneys arising out of the sale of any property transferred to the hospital board by this section and all income arising from such property shall be carried to the establishment expenses account.
I move amendment No. 7:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
Where any funds which are transferred to the hospital board by this section, were, immediately before the appointed day, held in trust for the body corporate, otherwise than by the trustees of the body corporate the hospital board shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, but without prejudice to its right to demand and receive payment of the net income arising therefrom, not be entitled to require the trustees for the time being of such funds to transfer to it such funds.
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that any endowment or income from the trust funds, payable to the existing committee of Cork Street Fever Hospital, which are transferred to the hospital board, will be safeguarded so as to be capable of being applied only for the purpose for which they have been intended under such endowment or trust. This amendment has been submitted after consultation with representatives of the existing trustees who had some anxiety about the income from their trust funds. After discussions following the Second Reading of the Bill and the submission of this amendment to them, they were satisfied that the points they had in mind and their objections to the Bill as it stood were met by the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (4), in page 19, line 14, to insert after the word "section" the words "and all income arising from any funds to which the immediately preceding sub-section applies".
This amendment is really consequential on amendment No. 7.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 52, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 53 to 60 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 3rd June.
