Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Mar 1938

Vol. 70 No. 7

Cork Fever Hospital (Amendment) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Cork Fever Hospital Act, 1935, which was passed by the Oireachtas on the 12th December, 1935, made provision for the submission by the Corporation of Cork to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health of a scheme for the establishment of a new fever hospital in or near the City of Cork. This scheme was required not alone to specify the proposed site of the hospital, but to incorporate plans and specifications of the institution and to state the estimated cost of its establishment. Section 6 of the Act of 1935 provided that if within two years after the passing of that Act the scheme for the establishment of the institution was approved of by the Minister and a grant made from the Hospitals' Trust Fund of an amount of not less than one-half the cost of the approved scheme, the Minister would be empowered to declare that there would come into operation Part III of the Act, which provides for the immediate transfer to the Corporation of Cork by the Committee of the Cork Fever Hospital and House of Recovery of any unexpended balance of moneys received by the Committee from sweepstake funds, the disposal of such moneys, the erection by the corporation of a new fever hospital, and the subsequent control and management of the hospital.

Shortly after the passing of the Act the corporation invited offers of land as a site for the new hospital. Twenty-five offers were received, from which a site was selected and purchased in November, 1936, with the approval of the Department. Steps were not taken by the corporation for the appointment of an architect for the preparation of plans until a site had been secured. When the lay-out plans were in preparation it was considered that the site did not lend itself to economic planning. The lay-out consisted of 19 units. A building of this nature would occupy a very large space, and considerable under-building appeared to be necessary in several parts. It was then decided to defer proceeding with the proposal until a complete survey of the entire city and environments had been made, to ascertain if a more suitable site would be available. This is at present being undertaken.

The object of the present Bill is to extend the period of two years, fixed by Section 6 of the Act of 1935, to three years and thus enable further time for the corporation to prepare and submit a further scheme for the Minister's approval.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary give some indication of the actual causes of the hold-up of the preliminary arrangements in connection with this matter? He told us that a site was purchased in 1936. From what he stated I inferred that the site then purchased is not the actual site on which the hospital will be built, and that the purpose of this amending Bill is to allow a further year in order to get over the difficulty. Even with a further year, I suggest that the obstacles which operated for the past three years will still operate, and we have no guarantee in this Bill that the hospital will be got under way within 12 months.

I should like to get from the Parliamentary Secretary a definite assurance that the hospital will be commenced within that 12 months. We have a very obsolete building in Cork at the present time, the North Fever Hospital. As well as that building, where patients are being treated, we have a building in the county home, under the Poor Law administration. I understand the idea is that from those two the patients will be drawn for the new fever hospital. As far as the fever hospital is concerned, as I have said, the building is obsolete, and it is not in very good repair. The committee felt all the time that expending money on an old building like that, in view of the fact that a new building was to be put up within a very reasonable time, was not a very economical proceeding, and we are still in the position that patients are being housed there, not under the best conditions.

It is rather surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary has given us no indication as to the obstacles which operated against the hospital being commenced within that period. After all, one would have thought that two years, since the Bill was passed, would have been an ample time to get through those preliminaries. He did mention incidentally that the corporation were the people who had charge of the purchase of the site and other things in connection with this Act of 1935, but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the corporation has no function whatsoever under this Act. The city manager has the function. Very often we hear that public bodies are slow in their deliberations and movements, but here we have the City Manager practically in charge of these preliminaries. I am not suggesting that the Cork City Manager was in any way remiss with regard to his duties, but at the same time I want to stress the point that unless we are definitely assured that the obstacles which operated against the putting into operation of this Act for two years are to be wiped out, there is very little use in giving another 12 months. It would be much better to extend the time to two or three or four years, or whatever the Minister thinks would be a reasonable time. I inferred also from the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks that until Part III of the Act is put into operation no moneys can be paid to the Corporation for the purposes of this hospital, but I am sure he is aware that the purchase money for the site has already been handed over by the North Fever Hospital Committee to the Corporation, and as far as my information goes that site has actually been purchased for some 12 months. That is the reason I rise to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if we are to be in the same position at the end of 12 months as we are now at the end of two years.

I wish to amplify what my colleague, Deputy Hurley, has said in connection with the speeding up of the preliminaries in connection with the Cork Fever Hospital. At the present moment I have perhaps more to do with the South Fever Hospital in-as-much as I am on the South Cork Board of Public Assistance. I may tell the Minister that at the present moment there is a very considerable outbreak of fever amongst the attendants in that hospital, and that the position is much more serious than would on first sight appear. There is no question at all about the fact that the present fever hospital is obsolete. It is an old hospital, and, because of anticipating the erection of the new one, naturally no money has been spent on improvements. I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary the necessity for speeding up this matter as much as he possibly can. I am aware that the site was not approved of, but at the same time I would ask that the whole question should be hurried as much as possible. Naturally, the new fever hospital will do a great deal to militate against anything in the nature of outbreaks. In the old buildings there are no means of providing isolation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to conclude.

I think Deputy Hurley must not have been listening very attentively to my opening remarks, because he wants to know the actual cause of the delay. Well, I set out as clearly as I could what the cause of the delay has been. Perhaps Deputy Hurley did not catch some of my remarks. Anyhow, I will repeat them. The delay was entirely due to the fact that the site was found unsatisfactory when it came to the actual planning of the institution. As I stated, the lay-out consisted of 19 units, and when the technicians got down to planning the institution they found that there were considerable technical difficulties in fitting an institution requiring such space on to the site that had already been acquired. It may not be possible to get a better site, but, at any rate, it does seem desirable, I think everybody will agree, that an institution which will probably cost upwards of £200,000 should be placed on the best site available.

Has not this site been actually purchased and the money paid over?

To my understanding of the position, that does not complicate matters at all. If a better site can be found, then the site which has already been purchased must be disposed of. Even if it were disposed of at a loss, it would still be better policy to dispose of it at a loss than to build an institution of that size and importance on an unsuitable site.

A survey is at present being carried out, and if a more suitable site can be found the institution will be built on that site. If not, we will have to do with the best site available. That is the position. Clearly it is a wise and sound policy to make a complete survey, and see if we can find a more suitable site on which to place this important institution.

May I ask who purchased this site?

A Chinn Comhairle, I should like to get permission to conclude. The urgency of the position is fully appreciated. At least two years ago or perhaps longer I went through the institution in Cork and I quite agree with all that Deputy Brooke Brasier has said in regard to it. It is entirely obsolete and completely unsuitable for its purpose, and I am anxious to have the new institution provided with the least possible delay. At the same time, I do not want to place it on a site that is not suitable if a suitable site can be got. I do not think any of the Cork Deputies need have any uneasiness as to the probability of a Bill similar to this being introduced after 12th December next. While undoubtedly this new survey will entail some additional delay, I do not think it is at all likely that the new site, if any, will not be acquired and the plans submitted to and approved by the Minister before 12th December next. Of course, if that were the position a further amending Bill, further extending the period, would be necessary, but I do not think it is at all likely. At all events, as far as we are concerned in the Department, we are anxious to do everything possible to facilitate the provision of this institution with the least avoidable delay.

I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that a considerable area of ground would be required for a fever hospital compared with an ordinary hospital?

I take it the Parliamentary Secretary would also agree that the site for this hospital would not be suitable if it were adjacent to a graveyard?

It would depend, I suppose, on what "adjacent" meant.

Next door, with nothing but a dividing wall between the hospital and the graveyard.

That is unusual.

Most unusual, but you have just done it in County Roscommon.

Not altogether adjacent.

Absolutely. You could spit across the wall.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary give us an indication as to who was responsible for the bungling with regard to this site? The fact that this place was purchased has been responsible for the hold-up in the original plan. I do not know if it was £3,000 and £600 or £300 and £6,000. Anyway, I can get the figure, but the money was actually paid, and now the Parliamentary Secretary comes along and asks us to extend the time for 12 months more in order to facilitate the people who made this bungle.

You have no alternative.

I agree, but in any kind of a well-ordered Department is it not reasonable to expect that before money is actually paid over for a site for a hospital, all these preliminaries with regard to the position of the site, its proximity to a graveyard and so on, should be examined into? The whole trouble, as far as I can gather, is that somebody bungled the whole thing; the money has been actually paid over, and now we are told that it must be disposed of again to somebody else and new sites looked for.

The Parliamentary Secretary concluded the debate. Deputies, by permission of the Chair, may ask questions within reason.

That is what I am asking.

On the question of reasonableness we may differ.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share