Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Feb 1945

Vol. 95 No. 18

Public Business. - Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed); and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:—

In line 22, after the word "payments", to insert the words "not exceeding £1,500,000"— (Deputy Cosgrave).

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

When progress was reported last evening I was dealing with an amendment moved by Deputy Cosgrave, the effect of which would be to limit expenditure on the provision of sanatoria to £1,500,000. I think it would be a mistake on the part of the House to debate this amendment as fully as it might be debated, because it opens up very wide possibilities. If we are to justify encroachment on the Hospitals Trust Funds to the extent of £1,500,000, and discuss the position that may arise regarding the payment of deficits of voluntary hospitals as a result of such encroachment, and how these deficits were brought about, as well as the alternative steps ought to be taken to reduce them, we will enter on a very wide field. I feel sure Deputy Cosgrave will agree that it is scarcely desirable on this issue to enter upon such a debate. I believe I interpret the mind of the House correctly when I say regardless of what the possible effects may be, or how far we may find it necessary, in order to make effective the plan I outlined to the House that this job ought to be done and that I should not be restricted in doing it. Common sense will show any Deputy who considers the matter that the restriction proposed would, in all probability, render it impossible for me in the difficult times in which we are living to give effect to my plans. Deputies will recollect that I was urged very strongly from all sides of the House not to stop at 4,000 beds; that the 2,100 beds it is proposed to provide in the shortest possible time would be entirely inadequate to meet the situation. It is quite likely that 2,100 beds will be inadequate. I assured the House more than once since this question came up for discussion that while I aimed at 2,100 beds as an immediate target, if experience showed that the additional 2,100 beds were not sufficient, I would proceed to secure whatever further number of beds might be necessary, when I was put in a position to deal with the problem in a rational way.

I was urged to provide, not the three sanatoria I suggested, but six sanatoria. Regardless of the number of beds to be provided the amendment would restrict expenditure to £1,500,000. Supposing we take it that it was necessary to provide 7,000 beds ultimately, or an additional 4,000 instead of 2,100 beds. The cost per bed within the limit of £1,500,000 reduces that proposition to an absurdity. I suggest to the House, and to Deputy Cosgrave in particular, that we should try to get back to the atmosphere which prevailed as short a time ago as last week, when, as I have already said, every Deputy who spoke, with one or two exceptions which we need not seriously regard, urged me to proceed with this work with the greatest possible expedition and, in fact, to stop at nothing to make effective the plans I had outlined.

I have no doubt in the world that Deputy Cosgrave is as anxious to see these plans made operative as anybody else. I do not suggest anything to the contrary, but I do suggest that we could very easily develop a line of discussion here at this stage which would be a source of grave disappointment and discouragement to thousands of people who expected something real from us in the development of the plans I have referred to. I would prefer that we would not have much further discussion on this amendment. I would prefer that Deputy Cosgrave would withdraw it but, while I say that, if it is to be debated from every aspect and examined from every angle, I am quite prepared to do it. I think, however, that, taking the long view and particularly realising that thousands of people outside who cannot find institutional treatment are looking to us with hope and anxiety, Deputy Cosgrave should withdraw his amendment and give us this Bill as quickly as possible.

Mr. Norton

While Deputy Cosgrave's amendment is in very specific terms, I do not think he really intends in any way to tie the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary in the matter. I rather gathered, from the speech he made in moving his amendment, that the amendment was put down more for the purpose of discussion than for the purpose of obstructing any sensible plans in contemplation for dealing with tuberculosis. The Parliamentary Secretary, when speaking on the Second Reading, told us that he estimated that the expenditure would be £1,500,000. Yesterday he told us that the amount would be, approximately, £2,200,000, on the basis of bringing the pre-war cost of beds, £1,500, up to date. Then I gather that he made a notional subtraction from that amount and said: "However, we do not intend to provide sanatoria of the same durability as that contemplated in the estimate and the total figure will not be much more than about £2,000,000."

That again is, of course, based on the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate that 2,100 would be sufficient to deal with the problem, these beds being in supplementation of the beds available to-day in the institutions throughout the country. I gather that the sum available in the Hospitals Trust Fund is about £8,000,000.

Dr. Ward

That is right; approximately £8,000,000.

Mr. Norton

That sum is available, and it is not very likely that, until we return to normal conditions, it will be very much supplemented by the proceeds of sweeps on the staggeringly successful scale we knew in pre-war days. It is likely that that will be the pool out of which hospitalisation will have to be financed for many a year to come.

I feel sure that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that there are two problems, if not three, to be dealt with arising out of the availability of that money: (1) the provision of sufficient beds in sanatoria; (2) the provision of hospitals where they are needed and the reconstruction of existing unsatisfactory hospitals; and (3) provision for hospital deficits. I gather that these deficits are increasing and have increased very substantially, and such cases as have come to my notice show that the tendency each year is upwards. If prices continue to remain high, or even to soar further, these deficits will amount to a very considerable sum ultimately. I think it is pretty clear that the authorities of existing non-rate-aided institutions are quite incapable of raising anything like the sums necessary to make good the deficits and somebody has to come to their aid. It is generally admitted that subscriptions to voluntary hospitals have fallen off considerably, because many people say: "Are the sweep funds not at your disposal? What do you want subscriptions for?" That attitude of mind is possibly understandable if sweep funds are at their disposal.

I should like to ascertain from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he contemplates a continuance of the position in which the funds at the disposal of Hospitals Trust will continue to be available for making good these deficits, because if these deficits are not made good from the moneys available in the Hospitals Trust Fund, the hospitals could not carry on as at present. They would have to reduce staff, to keep beds vacant, and generally would have to reduce such standard of comfort as is available to patients to-day. Reductions in staff, reductions in the number of beds available or reductions in the standards of comfort which are at present available in hospitals are evils to be avoided at all cost, and I should like to get from the Parliamentary Secretary an assurance that, while he can go full steam ahead doing what is necessary and absolutely essential in respect of tuberculosis, provision will, at the same time, be made for meeting the deficits which have arisen and which are growing in respect of the voluntary hospitals and even in respect of some of the rate-aided hospitals as well.

There is the problem then of the hospitals generally, of the reconstruction and the provision of new hospitals. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary contemplates spending at the moment, or so long as his present plan holds the field, approximately £1,500,000 or £2,000,000. It may, according to his statement this evening, exceed £2,000,000, and may reach £3,000,000. If it does reach £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, there is still a sum of £4,000,000 left in the Hospitals Trust Fund. That may then be made available for the erection of new hospitals or the reconstruction of existing hospitals, or for meeting the deficits of the hospitals; but I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us—he has told us already what his tuberculosis plans are—what the position is in respect of continuing to meet these deficits, and whether the moneys in the Hospitals Trust Fund are anticipated to be sufficient for that purpose, as well as for such early erection or reconstruction of hospitals as may be in contemplation in order to provide the immediate needs of a hospitalisation plan.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not want to be taken as dissenting from the general desire of the House to deal with the tuberculosis problem. Possibly a number of people reading an amendment such as mine, which limits the amount of money which may be spent out of Hospitals Trust Funds, would be under the impression that such was the case. It is true that the amendment sets out a specific amount but it is equally true that, last week, that was the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate of what would be required. In discussing a matter like this, we must have some basis from which to start. Some figure must be taken. We have got into loose methods when talking of large sums of money. As the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, he is not going to build very elaborate sanatoria or hospitals. I understand that that is the opinion of experts—that it is unnecessary to build either elaborate sanatoria or sanatoria of a durable nature, that in America and certain other countries the problem of tuberculosis has been mastered in a comparatively short time and that, in many cases, structures little better than huts were sufficient to deal with it. While this amendment might give the impression that it was sought to put a limit on the amount to be spent, we could spend the entire moneys of the Hospitals Trust in building one elaborate sanatorium and we would not have solved the problem of tuberculosis. Because we agreed to spend the full sum, many people would labour under the delusion that we were making a determined effort to solve the problem, whereas some people might say that, in putting down this amendment, I sought to limit the amount to be spent. I do not wish to limit the amount. As I said, I have put forward this amendment on a purely personal basis. I have done so on the ground, in the first place, that the Parliamentary Secretary stated last week that £1,500,000 would be sufficient, while to-day, in reply to a Parliamentary question, he said that he thought £2,000,000 would be required. It is a very big jump in a week from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy knows very well that I made no firm estimate. Why try to give it that turn?

Mr. Cosgrave

I have not given it any turn. I said that it was a very big jump from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 in a week.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy knows that no firm estimate could be given in the circumstances.

Mr. Cosgrave

Last week, we were given an estimate of £1,500,000 and, this week, the figure is £2,000,000.

Dr. Ward

Did the Deputy read the question?

Mr. Cosgrave

Yes.

Dr. Ward

Did it cover more than the three contemplated sanatoria?

Mr. Cosgrave

It contemplated expenditure which he estimated at £2,000,000.

Dr. Ward

Why does the Deputy try to saddle the three sanatoria we are discussing here with the £2,000,000, seeing that it covers other institutions?

Mr. Cosgrave

Let it cover as many institutions as the Parliamentary Secretary likes. We ought to have some basis on which to go. Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary referring to the amount of money in the fund, said:

"The actual amount in the Hospitals Trust Fund is about £8,500,000. Deputies must not take this as a firm figure. It is over £8,000,000 but not more than £8,500,000. £250,000 in these large figures does not matter very much."

Here, we have a person with the responsibility of a Minister stating that a figure of £250,000 does not matter very much. A sum of £250,000 would pay off a considerable number of the deficits in the case of the voluntary hospitals and would go some way towards solving the problem of providing beds in sanatoria——

Dr. Ward

Has anybody done away with that figure of £250,000?

Mr. Cosgrave

Nobody has said that it has been done away with.

Dr. Ward

Does not the Deputy know that I could not give him an accurate figure without notice?

Mr. Cosgrave

The fund is as——

Dr. Ward

What point are you trying to make? Was I given notice of that question?

Mr. Cosgrave

I am trying to make the point, if the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to speak—

Dr. Ward

I will not allow you to misrepresent the Parliamentary Secretary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cosgrave should be allowed to proceed.

Dr. Ward

He will not be allowed to misrepresent me.

Mr. Cosgrave

Nor will I allow the Parliamentary Secretary to do so to me.

Dr. Ward

I have not tried to.

Mr. Cosgrave

What did you do in the few words spoken earlier this evening? You tried to represent that I desired to limit the amount of money to be spent.

Dr. Ward

What does your amendment do?

Mr. Cosgrave

It offers the Parliamentary Secretary the amount of money he estimated he would require.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be better to proceed by way of debate.

Dr. Ward

What about these 7,000 beds that are to be provided?

Mr. Cosgrave

I did not ask you to provide 7,000 beds. I propose to make my own speech and the Parliamentary Secretary can make his. I ask Deputies to note the complete disregard for large sums of money shown by the Parliamentary Secretary. If £250,000 is to be thrown about as a sum of inconsiderable consequence, how are we to master the problem of hospitalisation, not alone in dealing with tuberculosis but in dealing with other disease problems? It is possible that, because we had this debate last week, we have over-accentuated the tuberculosis problem and that we may devote both time and money to treatment of tuberculosis while neglecting many other diseases and health disorders. This is not one problem; it is a series of problems which the local authorities and the Oireachtas must consider. If we disregard the other problems, confining ourselves entirely to one, we shall find that the other problems will be equally difficult to deal with and that money will have to be provided for the purpose either by borrowing or by direct taxation. If we spend limitlessly, the Hospitals Trust Fund will soon be exhausted. The amount in the Hospitals Trust Fund is not unlimited and, as Deputy Norton wisely pointed out, we cannot hope, unless conditions return quickly to normal, to add very considerably to the amount. We ought to get some reasonable estimate in connection with this matter.

I know that costs have risen very steeply. They are rising every day. They are rising for the voluntary hospitals as well as for the rate-aided hospitals. If, after this money has been spent on the sanatoria which the Parliamentary Secretary proposes to erect, the scheme is not completed and he has to come back here and ask for the rest of the money, there will be no further moneys available from the Hospitals Trust Fund for the hospitals.

Mr. Allen

A person listening to the debate last week and coming into the House to-day would wonder if he had not landed on a new planet. Last week, from Deputy Cosgrave's Front Bench and from Deputy Norton's Front Bench, bouquets were thrown at the Parliamentary Secretary. He was told to go full steam ahead. Deputies on the other side blessed him and prayed for him and wished him well. He was told that whatever money he required would be forthcoming to fight this disease, and to get on with the job and make it a good one. After eight days, Deputies of the Fine Gael Party and the Leader of the Labour Party have struck a different note.

Mr. Norton

I merely asked for information.

Mr. Allen

It has been discovered by Deputy Cosgrave that the Hospitals Trust Fund has £250,000 more in it than the Parliamentary Secretary told him was in it last week.

Mr. Cosgrave

I did not say that there was £250,000 more in the Fund. I said that the Parliamentary Secretary's actual words were "£250,000 in these large figures does not matter very much".

Mr. Allen

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked a question as to the amount, in the course of the debate, and he gave an approximate figure. He said that a small amount up or down did not matter. I happened to be here at the time. Now, it is thought that only a limited portion of the Hospitals Trust Fund money should be used for the purpose of building these sanatoria. That, surely, would strike Deputies from country areas as being altogether wrong. If the money needed to build a 1,000-bed sanatorium in Dublin is not provided out of the Hospitals Trust Fund, then I take it the ratepayers of Dublin will raise the money. That is the alternative put forward by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Norton.

Mr. Norton

Nobody suggested that. I am backing the scheme put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary which provides for a 1,000-bed sanatorium.

Dr. Ward

And the Parliamentary Secretary is to do that without money.

Mr. Norton

Not at all. Read my speech.

Mr. Allen

Will the Deputy allow me to finish my speech?

Mr. Norton

I want to put you right.

Mr. Allen

The alternative suggested by Deputy Cosgrave and others is that the Parliamentary Secretary should advise the public assistance authorities in Dublin to go to the Local Loans Fund or take some other means of raising the £1,000,000 needed for the erection of this sanatorium, and that they should also make provision for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the loan so raised. It is agreed on all sides of the House, as well as by the local authorities, that these sanatoria are absolutely needed. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have been abused and bally-ragged by Deputy McGilligan and others outside for not providing these sanatoria earlier. Last week, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary was asked to provide them at once, and yet when he proposes to do so he is told that he should only touch a limited amount of the money held in the Hospitals Trust Fund. He is asked, what is going to happen to the poor voluntary hospitals in Dublin, and to the building of such hospitals in the future, if a substantial portion of this £8,000,000 is used up now under this Bill. That is the cry eight days after the Parliamentary Secretary was told to go full steam ahead.

Mr. Cosgrave

I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what he was going to do with the Hospitals Trust Fund money.

Mr. Allen

There is another peculiar feature of this to which I would like to refer. I am sure Deputy Cosgrave and all of us would like to see good new hospitals in Dublin. In the country areas the ratepayers have to provide their own hospitals out of the rates. For many years, Dublin has enjoyed a great advantage by reason of the fact that it has free hospitals towards the maintenance of which the ratepayers of Dublin have never contributed one penny. We have been told about the mounting deficits which are associated with the Dublin voluntary hospitals, but so far as we know the ratepayers of Dublin have never volunteered to pay as much as a shilling towards the liquidation of those deficits.

The position over the rest of the country is that the ratepayers—the man who owns land as well as the man who lives in a cabin on the roadside— all contribute to the maintenance of their local hospitals. But the ratepayers of Dublin, rich or poor, have never contributed one "bob" as ratepayers to the maintenance of the Dublin hospitals. Their patients are entitled, under the Medical Charities Acts, to free medical attention, and surely it is their duty, as it is of the ratepayers down the country, to make provision for the maintenance of their patients in their own institutions. If a local authority in Kerry, Galway, Wexford, Waterford or any other county sends up a patient to a voluntary hospital in Dublin, the board of health authority in that county is charged the full cost of that patient's maintenance, and no patient can be sent up by a board of health authority unless it is prepared to do that. I would not have raised this question at all but for the attitude taken by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Norton. The suggestion behind their speeches was that if any portion of the Hospitals Trust Fund money is used up for the building of sanatoria to serve Dublin, or any other part of the country, the voluntary hospitals in Dublin, with their increasing deficits, will not be able to maintain themselves. The way out of that difficulty, I suggest, is for the ratepayers of Dublin to shoulder their responsibilities in the future just as the ratepayers in other parts of Ireland are doing and have been doing for years.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Deputy Allen made one statement which I would like to correct. He said one thing which, of course, was correct, that the local authorities pay the voluntary hospitals in Dublin for the maintenance of the patients they send up. It was incorrect for him to say that they pay the full cost of a patient's maintenance. People in touch with the Dublin voluntary hospitals are aware that the Deputy's statement on that was incorrect. Actually, what happens is that the local authorities pay a proportion of the cost of the patient's maintenance. I think that at present they pay about two guineas a week for a patient's maintenance.

Mr. Allen

I think it is a little more.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I think it is £2 12s. 6d., but the minimum cost per bed in most Dublin hospitals is between £3 10s. 0d. and £4 per week, and even that is a conservative estimate. In some hospitals the cost is higher. I am not going to argue that the local authorities should pay more. I think it is self-evident that they should. I want, however, to correct the idea that local authorities through the country are paying the full cost of the maintenance of the patients they send up to the Dublin voluntary hospitals. In the past, the difference between the amount they paid and the actual cost of the patient's maintenance was made up by voluntary subscriptions and the contributions received out of the moneys raised by the sweepstakes. Deputy Allen also tried to make out that there was a lack of sympathy on the part of Deputy Cosgrave and other Deputies for the tuberculosis problem.

Mr. Allen

I did no such thing.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

He represented that as a change of heart as between what was said here last week and this week. That, however, is absolute nonsense. Deputy Cosgrave's amendment boils down to this, that while taking care to look after tuberculosis one should not forget the many other ills that human beings suffer from. No one, I suggest, is lacking in sympathy for tuberculous patients, because tuberculosis is one of the most terrible diseases that we have at present. People die from many diseases, and if a man dies from one disease rather than another, our sympathy should not necessarily be any greater by reason of that. Unfortunately, there are many diseases which kill human beings. We have to be careful not to take all the money for the treatment of tuberculosis, although a great deal of our sympathy goes out to those who suffer and die from that dread disease.

Mr. Allen

May I say that I did not in any way charge Deputy Cosgrave with a lack of sympathy for the treatment of tuberculosis or any other disease? I would not think of doing so.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I am sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy, but I thought that was the gist of what he said.

Mr. Coogan

It was said somewhere at one time that death has 10,000 doors by which it enters. Perhaps something should be said to try to get this debate into proper perspective. I think it has gone slightly off the track. I understood Deputy Cosgrave's object in putting down this amendment to be this: that he wanted to bring to the notice of the House the possibility that we are over-accentuating the problem of tuberculosis.

As I put it myself on the Second Stage, there is a danger that, because of certain propaganda that is rife at the moment, we may over-accentuate this problem. Only as recently as to-day, vital statistics were published showing that in 1943 the deaths from cancer were 9.3 per cent. of the total deaths, whereas the deaths from tuberculosis were 9.9 per cent. I mention these facts merely that we may get down to realities. The intention in suggesting a limit was, I take it, to ensure that in allocating moneys to the erection of sanatoria, we will not forget the other very essential problems for which the Hospitals Trust Fund was established. There are many other problems requiring urgent attention and the one I mention, cancer, is equally as acute as tuberculosis. It is to ensure that all our moneys in the fund will not be devoted to one particular problem that we raise this matter.

I deprecate, therefore, any misrepresentation that we are departing from the attitude which we took up here on the Second Stage. We are not. We are still moved by the same spirit of co-operation and we intend to give the Parliamentary Secretary every assistance in implementing this Bill. We do think it essential, however, to put the tuberculosis problem in its proper perspective in relation to other problems. There is something like £6,000,000 tied up to provide revenue to cover the deficits on the voluntary hospitals. That is a serious financial problem which the Parliamentary Secretary and this House has to face. It is undoubtedly a fact that these deficits are showing a tendency to increase. That may be due partly to the war situation, to rising prices and so on, but it also may be due to the fact that these people have got it into their heads that they may call on the milch cow as often as they like. If that tendency continues, the House will have to decide whether these hospitals should continue on a voluntary basis or be compelled to look to the rates for some support.

I would not like to see the voluntary system in Dublin interfered with. It has served during the centuries a very vital need, not only to the population of Dublin but to the entire country. It is a system which has given us our specialists and schools of medicine, second to none in the world. There is a danger that, if these hospitals were ever put on the rates and under local authorities, public control would not succeed in giving us the same progress in these directions. For that reason I would deprecate it, but I do not want to go into that now. I am merely trying to reject the misrepresentation.

There is another problem, which affects certain constituencies, including my own and Deputy Allen's. Our patients are, I understand, to go into Peamount, Crooksling and other institutions. I want to be assured that, in allocating moneys under this Bill, the patients from those areas will at least get the same treatment and have the same facilities in housing accommodation and mechanical apparatus as will be provided in the new sanatoria to be erected under the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is not that a bit away from Section 5?

Mr. Coogan

The section says:

"The Minister may direct the Hospitals Trust Board to make payments out of the Hospitals Trust Fund for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the establishment under this Act of a sanatorium and the Hospitals Trust Board shall comply with such direction."

An Ceann Comhairle

But we are now discussing the amendment to the section. If we could dispose of the amendment, the Deputy might raise his point on the section.

Mr. Coogan

I want to reiterate that there is no change of attitude here. We are still wholeheartedly with the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter, but we want to have some understanding as to the future of the fund and particularly its future in relation to deficits in our voluntary hospitals and the problem which may arise later if the rates have to be called upon in Dublin to support the voluntary hospitals. That is a very big problem, which I do not wish to touch on now.

Mr. Norton

I would like to correct Deputy Allen's suggestion that there is any change of attitude here in connection with this Bill. There is no change of attitude at all, so far as I am concerned. I will let Deputy Cosgrave speak for himself, but from what he has said there does not appear to be any change.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy is willing to give the Bill, but not to give the money.

Mr. Norton

That is just as absurd as some other statements the Deputy made. Here is a Bill, the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill. With the exception of two amendments submitted by Deputy Cosgrave, no amendment has been submitted. Does that not clearly indicate that, so far as the House is concerned, it is in sympathy with the provisions of the Bill? Deputy Cosgrave, as he explained himself, submitted two amendments, one of which is to Section 5. My contention in the matter is, as I have said already, that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to get on with the job of providing the necessary sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculosis, and that I want to see every penny necessary raised for that purpose.

Dr. Ward

Then the Deputy must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Norton

Of course, I will oppose this amendment and will vote against it if there is a division. There is no doubt in the world about that. But I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us, when he is dealing with the allocation of moneys from the Hospitals Trust Fund, not merely what it is going to cost, roughly speaking, to provide sanatoria now, but what will be available then to deal with hospital deficits, so far as the fund is concerned, and what will be available for the provision of new hospitals or the reconstruction of existing hospitals. I merely want him to reveal his mind on the disposal of these moneys. Is the whole £8,000,000 to go to sanatoria? If it is to go to sanatoria, well and good; it will clear up a serious problem and, if we have to spend money on it, we must put up with it.

On the other hand, if the sanatoria are going to use only £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what will happen the remainder in the fund? Is that to be utilised to meet deficits, to build new hospitals or to reconstruct existing hospitals? I seek information from the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter, as he is to control the administration of the whole fund in future. I would like him to tell us, while we are discussing this matter, in what way his mind is travelling, so that we may have some picture of what is to be done with such funds at present at his disposal for the provision of sanatoria and hospitals throughout the country. That is my objective—and my sole objective— in discussing this section.

Dr. Ward

It seems as if we must have a fairly detailed discussion on the general financial position.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question does not arise on this amendment or the section.

Dr. Ward

It does not arise on the amendment but the question of the future of the Hospitals Trust Fund has been raised. I have been asked to deal with the matter of how the deficit is going to be met in future? If it is not in order to try to deal with this matter, I am entirely in your hands. If it is in order I am prepared to deal with it.

An Ceann Comhairle

That would obviously give rise to a Second Reading discussion on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think it will have to wait for the Fifth Stage. The question is outside one section on the Committee Stage.

Dr. Ward

With respect, if we have to have it at all——

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Parliamentary Secretary desires to explain it now, good and well.

Dr. Ward

Briefly, with your permission. It may not be necessary to go into too much detail.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot have the Second Reading debate again.

Dr. Ward

Let us get the broad general figures, and if I am £10, £20, £30 or £100 out in these figures, do not hold me up to ransom. It is not that I have a disregard for the value of money or that I do not think as much of £100,000 as a man who might have that sum in his own money. I think the Deputy understood me well. I was giving a provisional estimate, speaking from memory. I said that £250,000 does not matter here or there as to the actual amount that is in the Hospitals Trust Fund. The approximate amount raised for hospital purposes out of sweepstake funds was £16,507,000 odd. We had some discussion yesterday on this matter but the debate has not taken exactly the same lines to-day. There was considerable reference made last evening to the equity of the distribution of one-third to local authority institutions and two-thirds to the voluntary hospitals.

As I mentioned last evening, under the 1931 Act such distribution was provided for. Under the 1933 Act, that method of allocation was completely abandoned by deliberate action of the Oireachtas and the Hospitals Trust Fund became one fund. The Minister for Local Government was given unrestricted discretion in the allocation of moneys out of that fund. While I say that, the actual fact of the matter is that, of the total funds made available from sweepstake sources, the local authorities have not got one-third. One-third of the £16,500,000 odd would amount to £5,502,000 odd. The local authorities to date have got £3,115,686, so if we had adhered to the basis of one-third and two-thirds as between the local authority institutions and the voluntary hospitals, there would still be due to the local authority institutions £2,386,000 odd, before they would have got one-third of the entire proceeds. I do not wish to make any point at all of that because I do wish the House to understand that there were not any restrictions, that I am not accepting any restrictions and that, when acting in a ministerial capacity, I shall continue to exercise my own judgment as to the purpose to which these funds should be applied subject, of course, to the Dáil here, by which I can at any time be held accountable.

I might mention that in the matter of the provision for the treatment of tuberculosis, expenditure is not confined to local authority institutions. Expenditure under this Bill will be confined. We are providing sanatoria and we shall be under a statutory obligation, having built and equipped these sanatoria, to hand them over to the local authorities. There are other voluntary institutions providing for the treatment and institutional care of tuberculosis patients, which, as voluntary institutions, would presumably be entitled to the same financial consideration that voluntary institutions are given to provide for other types of illness. There is a provision in the Bill that in so far as we provide institutions for the treatment of tuberculosis and hand them over to local authorities, the local authorities may be called upon to refund to the Hospitals Trust Fund one-third of the cost.

Deputy Norton asked about deficits. I presume the House would like to know how these deficits have been mounting, if we have to discuss them. In 1933, the deficits amounted to £50,273. In 1939—I am taking the prewar figures in order that we can get a clear conception of the trend of the finances of the voluntary institutions— the figure had increased to £156,625. The capital sum, calculated at 3 per cent., required to pay the deficits in 1933 was £1,675,766. In 1939, again calculated at 3 per cent., the figure would be £5,220,833. Largely due to emergency conditions, the deficits continued to rise to a peak figure in 1942 of £210,259. Again calculating at 3 per cent., a capital sum of over £7,000,000 would be required to bring in that amount.

Deputy Norton expressed anxiety that, if we did not continue to provide for the payment of these rising deficits, there might be reductions in staffs, in beds, and in standards of treatment. I do not see any reason why any of these things should happen. I have had quite a long discussion with representatives of the associated hospitals. I am quite sure that Deputies on the opposite side are aware of that because I assume they were in contact with the representatives of the voluntary hospitals before this debate was precipitated on the House. I made the position perfectly clear for these representatives in order that there might be no misunderstanding whatever. This was some months ago. I sent a minute of the discussion that took place—a discussion lasting a couple of hours— to the voluntary hospitals so that they could have the record for future reference.

Mr. Norton

How many voluntary hospitals are included in that 1942 figure?

Dr. Ward

They would all be included.

Mr. Norton

What is the total number?

Dr. Ward

I could not say off-hand. Anyhow, there are a few in Cork and a couple in Limerick.

Mr. Norton

I want to ascertain what is the deficit on all of our hospitals.

Dr. Ward

If the Deputy requires that, I can get it for him. The solution of the problem of the voluntary hospitals does not present any mystery to me. I fully agree with the viewpoint expressed by Deputy Allen. The local authorities throughout the provinces have to make full institutional provision for the hospital treatment of the poor and, if they send a patient up to Dublin for specialised treatment or to any other specialised area where there are voluntary hospitals, they pay. Deputy Dockrell says that they do not pay the full cost; perhaps they do not. They pay £2 12s. 6d. per week minimum, and they pay for various other specialised services, radiological services and others, in addition to the £2 12s. 6d. But the vast majority of the poor patients from the City of Dublin who are treated in the voluntary hospitals are not paid for by anybody.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

No, because they were charitable institutions.

Dr. Ward

They were charitable institutions when they had charity to dispense; they have no charity to dispense now. That is the position.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

That is correct.

Dr. Ward

As to the position of the voluntary hospitals in the City of Dublin, we all wish to see them continued; we all desire that they should prosper. They are an essential part of any hospital scheme that any reasonable man would envisage in the future. But the time has come when they must take up with the local authorities this question of financial responsibility for the maintenance and treatment of patients. The proposition is put to me that £2 12s. 6d. is not sufficient for the maintenance and treatment of patients from Monaghan, Cavan, Donegal, Leix, Offaly, or anywhere else. I admit at once that it may not be; but my answer is that you should charge £2 12s. 6d. for all the patients that you are maintaining before you ask me to make it impossible for people in the provinces to send persons up here for specialised treatment. It was never intended that the Hospitals Trust Fund should be utilised for the sole benefit of the people of Dublin. I do not think anybody ever intended that it should. My aim is, and it is very understandable, I think, to distribute throughout the whole of the State, to all the poor in the State, the same benefits from the Hospitals Trust Fund.

I think the ideal position would be this. If we can maintain a certain sum—the larger the better—for the purpose of bringing in an income for paying the deficits, if we can maintain that position, it is all to the good. But to such an extent as we do maintain that position, we ought to aim at an even and equitable distribution of the benefits throughout the whole of the State. If we reach the stage where institutional accommodation becomes an urgent problem for the purpose of treating tuberculosis, or any other disease, then we must provide the institutional accommodation, and we must say to the ratepaying community: "You will have to maintain your patients in these institutions." That is the position. It seems to me to be simple and logical enough and to be quite sound.

Mr. Norton

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the hospital authorities were advised to take the matter up with the local authorities?

Dr. Ward

Yes. I advised them and I undertook to give them my full moral support in any negotiations that they may open up with the local authorities. It may be all to the good that we have had this discussion, because I think we have a better understanding as a result of it. Deputy Dockrell suggests that one fatal disease is much the same as another. There seems to be a danger anticipated by certain Deputies that we might go too far, go too rapidly, in our attack on tuberculosis. That is a new viewpoint. I think it will be time enough to raise it later on. But I would ask Deputies, lay-Deputies particularly, who have no scientific knowledge of these matters, to realise that there is a difference between tuberculosis and other diseases. There is the difference that tuberculosis is an infectious disease.

Deputy Coogan mentions that we have a high death rate, 3,000 per year or something like that, from cancer. He is wondering if it is wise to concentrate so much on tuberculosis, and he has at the back of his mind that we should concentrate a little bit more on diseases such as cancer. I suppose that, so far as possible, we ought to concentrate upon all of them. But the point I want to make is that, for the same expenditure of money, we can reasonably hope to make much more headway in an attack upon tuberculosis, being an infectious disease, than we can hope to make upon cancer.

The only other point I would emphasise in relation to that is, that the disease of tuberculosis is a danger to more than the unfortunate person who has it; it is a danger to his family; it is a danger to the community. Many other diseases do not constitute that same public danger, so that there is little more in it than the actual loss of life to the individual who has contracted a fatal illness and, in that way, it is from every point of view the soundest of sound policy to put the attack on tuberculosis and the provision of institutions for the treatment of it right at the head of the priority list.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I take it that there will not be a long debate on the Parliamentary Secretary's figures, because they do certainly clear up the discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Cosgrave

As I have been guilty of starting the discussion, I should like to bring it to a conclusion. I willingly accept the guilt of having started it, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it was timely in many respects. I accept his figures, as it is possible that, having given the figures in full, we may have more money left than we otherwise anticipated. While tuberculosis should be first on the priority list, it is true that there will be other difficulties to be dealt with, not subsequently, but alongside the tuberculosis problem. While the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it was never intended that Dublin alone should benefit from the Hospitals Trust Fund, I think that could be qualified by saying that only six promoting hospitals were responsible for initiating the scheme originally introduced here. Then subsequently, by various amendments, other hospitals were added. Finally, by an amending Act, the two-thirds and one-third proportion was introduced under which funds were to be given to the voluntary hospitals and to the local authorities. But, it is strange that after so many years functioning, it is only now that the voluntary hospitals should be notified. They were, of course, informed some time ago that they might look elsewhere for funds but in the Seanad, in 1933, the late Senator Dowdall showed some anxiety —Vol. 16, column 1953—and, in reply, the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, at column 1959, said:—

"The difficulty about the one-third and two-third proportions is this, that we have, through our technical advisers in the Local Government Department, many schemes ready for operation, that have had the necessary detailed examination, but we cannot operate them, and the local authorities cannot proceed, until we are able to say how much money we will be able to give them. We could release these schemes to-morrow if we could lay our hands on a little more money. I admit that, for the present, we will encroach beyond the one-third previously allocated to the Minister. The problem of the local authorities is one that will be solved in the near future. When it is solved, not only the two-thirds, but the entire fund will be available. We have no anxiety whatever that voluntary hospitals will suffer."

There has been a big change since that.

Dr. Ward

What year was that?

Mr. Cosgrave

1933.

Dr. Ward

There has been a war since then.

Mr. Cosgrave

There has been a war since then. The war has added— I will admit—a substantial amount to the difficulty but, on the Parliamentary Secretary's own figures, in 1939, the local authorities at that time had not even been paid—I will not say they had not required—but they had not been paid the full amount of the one-third. It is equally true that the voluntary hospitals had not been paid the full amount of the two-thirds. If, on the figures given, the local authorities are to be paid the balance of what is due, which would make up the total of one-third, a sum of £2,386,000 is still due to them. After that there would still be sufficient to pay the deficits of the voluntary hospitals.

Dr. Ward

Yes, but there are other institutions that have to be provided, mostly voluntary hospitals.

Mr. Cosgrave

Quite, but I mean voluntary institutions.

Dr. Ward

The point I want to make is that, while it is theoretically possible that there might be upwards of £6,000,000 available when we have provided these institutions, there are many voluntary hospitals urgently required, and that if we are to proceed with the building and equipment of voluntary hospitals, we must eat into the fund that is now held in investment for the purpose of paying the deficits. Consequently, we cannot go on with our constructional programme at all until this question of deficits is seriously faced up to.

Mr. Cosgrave

There is this point that I should like to make in that connection, that the fund will likely increase at the same time as building materials will be available.

Dr. Ward

I hope so but I cannot plan on that assumption.

Mr. Norton

I am glad that my inquisitiveness——

An Ceann Comhairle

I have called on Deputy Dockrell. I would ask Deputies to be brief on this matter.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I am astounded at one statement that the Parliamentary Secretary made in connection with the contribution from the local authorities to the Dublin voluntary hospitals. He stated that, until the Dublin poor could pay more than £2 12s. 6d. a week, no other sum would be provided by the local authorities.

Dr. Ward

I never made such a foolish statement. I do not know what it means.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

That is what I read into the Parliamentary Secretary's statement.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy is all wrong. I made no such statement.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Parliamentary Secretary said that until the poor people who are being catered for in the Dublin hospitals pay more than the local authorities, they will not increase their sum.

Dr. Ward

The Deputy is all wrong.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

If the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me——

Dr. Ward

What is the use of allowing the Deputy to make a fool of himself?

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Deputy has not made a fool of himself.

Dr. Ward

No. The responsibility of that is not on my shoulders.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I think if the Parliamentary Secretary and other people read the statements which the Parliamentary Secretary made a few moments ago in this House, they will see that he said that until the voluntary hospitals exacted a sum more than £2 12s. 6d. from their patients, the local authorities should not be asked to increase their payments.

Dr. Ward

From the local authorities in respect of their patients.

Mr. Norton

From the local authorities of Dublin in respect of poor patients in Dublin.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

From the local authority of Dublin or anywhere else. What is that doing? It is comparing the family budget of a man on home assistance with the rateable capacity of a local authority. In other words, the Parliamentary Secretary is saying to the poor of Dublin, "Go away. Until you can pay over £2 12s. 6d. we will not increase the contribution made by the local authority".

Dr. Ward

I hope that is recorded; it will read well.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I think it will. I think the Parliamentary Secretary's statement reads still better.

Mr. Norton

I am glad that my inquisitiveness in this matter induced me to raise the question of what the amount of the present deficits is and what is the future hospitalisation programme, and I have endeavoured to get two matters looked at in relation to our programme for dealing with tuberculosis. From the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary, it is clear that the deficits for 1942 amount to £210,000 per year, locking up for investment purposes a sum of no less than £7,000,000 at 3 per cent. If you are going to avoid deficits in the hospitals throughout the country, apparently, you have to invest £7,000,000, in order to provide dividends to the amount of £210,000, to balance the deficits on the existing hospitals. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has figures for any year later than 1942?

Dr. Ward

There is a slight fall since 1942. I will give the figures to the Deputy in a moment.

Mr. Norton

Does the Parliamentary Secretary contemplate a continuing fall?

Dr. Ward

No.

Mr. Norton

Or does he contemplate a static figure?

Dr. Ward

I do not think it can be further substantially reduced by economies in the running of institutions. It can only be brought down now by increased payments in respect of patients maintained there. The last figure is for 1943, £189,322—£6,613,000, at 3 per cent.

Mr. Norton

There is the picture we have from the Parliamentary Secretary of the position, in which £6½ million, approximately, are locked up to meet the deficits in existing hospitals. The Parliamentary Secretary contemplates that that position will continue, that the deficits cannot be reduced by further economies, that they can only be reduced by an increase in the contributions at present paid by patients. That is a situation which is a very serious one from the point of view of a hospitalisation programme. Obviously, there is no purpose in allowing a situation of that kind to drift. If these hospitals were able to balance their budget, that sum of £6½ million would be available for further hospitalisation treatment; it would be available to perfect our tuberculosis treatment, and to provide hospital treatment of certain specialised diseases and would enable us to extend hospitalisation generally throughout the country.

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary, who has given us a good deal of what I think is helpful information on this subject, would tell us what is his future programme in respect of these deficits. Is it contemplated making the local authority, by legislation or executive action, meet the deficits in this case, or is it contemplated making the local authority pay portion of the deficits while keeping some of those invested funds to pay the remainder? Obviously, some decision is called for in connection with those deficits which lock up such a large amount of money. I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be making a useful contribution to informed opinion on hospitalisation in this country if he would tell us what the Government's policy is in respect of those deficits.

Dr. Ward

I have said that quite clearly. The local authority are to take financial responsibility.

Mr. Norton

And, if the local authority says: "We will not"?

Dr. Ward

There will be another round if they say that.

Mr. Norton

Does the Parliamentary Secretary contemplate legislation requiring them to do so?

Dr. Ward

I contemplate a great deal of moral suasion anyway.

Mr. Norton

First?

Dr. Ward

Yes.

Mr. Norton

But the last shot in the locker is legislation?

Dr. Ward

Well, compulsion is the last shot in the locker, but I believe they will be reasonable.

Mr. Norton

I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us on Report Stage——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Fifth Stage might be better for the information the Deputy wants.

Dr. Ward

But surely the Deputy is not going to hold me up any longer.

Mr. Norton

I am assisting the Parliamentary Secretary in every possible way and he does not appreciate it.

Dr. Ward

But the Deputy is referring to the Report Stage and the Fifth Stage as if there were going to be further delay.

Mr. Norton

I am only providing the Parliamentary Secretary with an opportunity of disclosing the figures. I undertake to ask him no questions on the figures if he will tell us the number of hospitals responsible for this deficit, what is the location of those hospitals, and what is their bed accommodation?

Dr. Ward

Will it do if I send the Deputy the information?

Mr. Norton

Yes.

Amendment put and negatived.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Coogan

On the section, there is a point which concerns the sanatoria serving those areas outside the areas for which those three central sanatoria will be established. The section says that the Minister may direct the Hospitals Trust Board to make payments out of the Hospitals Trust Fund for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the establishment under the Act of a sanatorium, and the Hospitals Trust Board shall comply with such directions. That quite obviously relates back to Section 4, under which the Minister, where he is of opinion that a new sanatorium for the inhabitants in a particular area is required, may declare his intention to establish such sanatorium. It is not at all clear from that that the Minister would be permitted to expend any money on the existing sanatoria which will serve those areas outside the three central sanatoria. I just want to clear up that point.

Dr. Ward

We have statutory power for that already.

Mr. Coogan

My concern is that they will at least be in as efficient a state as the others. You have that power?

Dr. Ward

We have that power under the Hospitals Act, 1933. The main purpose of this Bill, as the Deputy appreciates, is to empower the Minister to build sanatoria, but we have power, of course, to make grants towards voluntary and other institutions.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (3), page 3, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following paragraph:—

(b) immediately before the acquisition, a county authority, or two or more county authorities jointly, had an estate or interest in the land, and.

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, and Section 7, put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Cosgrave

I move amendment No. 5:—

To insert before Section 8 but in Part II of the Bill a new section as follows:—

All disbursements under this Act shall be audited by an auditor appointed by the Minister for Finance.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary realises that this is a rather unusual Bill. It may be an unusual Bill to deal with a grave problem, but nevertheless, under any Act, either the Comptroller and Auditor-General examines the expenditure or, in certain cases, the Minister for Finance or the Minister directly responsible for the Act is responsible for appointing an auditor. This Bill, as far as I can see, permits the Minister to spend the entire money of the Hospitals Trust Fund without accounting to anyone for a penny of it. No one expects such a drastic expenditure but, while this money is not supplied by the Oireachtas or from the Central Fund, it is collected under the Act which authorised the running of sweepstakes, and some responsibility should be put on the Minister for Finance to see that the accounts are audited, and that the money is properly accounted for. As far as I can see, under the Bill as it stands, a very loose system of accounting or no system at all might operate, and I think it is undesirable that legislation of that kind should go through.

Dr. Ward

I do not think this amendment will be necessary. The Hospitals Trust Board will have to be furnished with a full account of expenditure. They keep comprehensive records, and their accounts are subject to audit. While this amendment would give the Minister for Finance power to appoint an auditor, he has no power to pay the auditor.

Mr. Cosgrave

I admit that there may be a fault in drafting, but we could meet that on the Report Stage.

Dr. Ward

Out of what fund does the Deputy propose that the auditor should be paid?

Mr. Cosgrave

Out of the same fund —the Hospitals Trust Fund.

Dr. Ward

I do not see any point that can be advanced in favour of this amendment. If at any time any member of the House has any doubt as to the manner in which this money is being expended, or the manner in which this Act or any other Act is being administered, we can be called to account here in the House. I think that is the more appropriate way of doing it. In any event, if any harm were being done, it would be done before the audit would be available. I think the Deputy should not press the amendment.

Mr. Cosgrave

I suppose on any occasion on which money is being spent under the authority of the House, if it is being spent improperly, the harm is done before it is brought to the notice of the Comptroller and Auditor-General or, at any rate, to the notice of the House; but the advantage of having a Comptroller and Auditor-General is that subsequent defalcations or improper expenditure will not occur. In this case there is no control whatever. The Parliamentary Secretary says that any Deputy can bring the matter up in the House. But he has to bring it up by way of motion. In this Bill there is not even the usual statutory Order that an account of payments made or expenditure incurred will be placed on the Table of the House. I would be prepared to meet the Parliamentary Secretary if he brings in an amendment on the Report Stage to that effect. Even in the case of a small company, such as the one we were discussing earlier this evening, the Minerals Company—there is, of course, the difference that that money is voted from the Central Fund—an auditor is appointed by the Minister for Finance. He is not subject to the Committee of Public Accounts, but at least the public have the satisfaction of knowing that Acts which are passed by the Oireachtas make it obligatory on people to keep proper accounts.

Dr. Ward

It is scarcely necessary to put a statutory obligation on the Minister to keep proper accounts.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is necessary under all other Acts; the Minister and his Department are subject to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. In this case, the Minister can spend ad lib without any control.

Dr. Ward

But the accounts of the Hospitals Trust Board will be audited, and he will be responsible to the House here. I have no doubt that, if there is anything wrong, there will be a question raised about it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am quite certain to raise it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, lines 47 and 48, to delete the words "not later than seven days" and substitute the words "as soon as conveniently may be".

The section states: "Where the Minister intends to acquire any land compulsorily for the purposes of the establishment under this Act of a sanatorium, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, make an Order declaring such intention and shall, not later than seven days..." It is possible he might not be able to do it within seven days and the words "as soon as conveniently may be" are considered more advisable.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 7:—

In sub-section (1), page 4, line 52, to delete the words "and address".

This is purely a drafting amendment. In fact, all the remaining amendments may be regarded as drafting amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-sections (3) and (4), page 5, to insert the words "or plan" after the word "map" where that word occurs in line 6, line 8, line 11 and line 14.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, lines 16 and 17, to delete the words "the making of a preliminary order" and substitute the words "complying in relation to a preliminary order with the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 9 of this Act".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (1), page 5, line 18, to insert before the word "land" the words "whole or any part of the".

This is a drafting amendment also.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (2), page 5, line 23, to insert the words "or plan" after the word "map".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 12:—

In sub-section (5), page 6, line 14, to delete the words "and address".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 13:—

In sub-section (6), page 6, to delete in line 21 the words "the owner of" and substitute the words "entitled to" and to delete in line 22 the words "and address".

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 14:—

In sub-section (8), page 6, to insert the words "or plan" after the word "map" where that word occurs in line 28, line 31 and line 33.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Section 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 15:—

To delete sub-sections (1) and (2), in page 7, and substitute the following sub-sections:—

(1) Where a vesting order is made in relation to any land, the Minister shall pay to every person, who had, immediately before the vesting date, any estate or interest therein which has been vested in the Minister, compensation in respect of such estate or interest.

(2) Where any land which is the subject of a vesting order was, immediately before the, vesting date, subject to any easement and the easement has been terminated under this Act, the Minister shall pay to the person, who was, immediately before such termination, entitled to the easement, compensation in respect of such termination.

This is a reconstruction of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Dr. Ward

Section 14, as it stands in the Bill, is not being moved. There is a re-draft, but there is no new principle being established. I move amendment No. 16:—

Before Section 14 to insert a new section as follows:—

14.—(1) The Lands Clauses Acts shall apply in respect of the assessment of compensation payable under this Part of this Act and, for the purposes of such application, the Minister shall be deemed to be the promoter of the undertaking and this Part of this Act and the relevant order thereunder shall be deemed to be the special Act.

(2) In any application by virtue of sub-section (1) of this section of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, that Act shall apply subject to the following modifications:—

(a) the reference in sub-section (1) of Section 1 to a Government Department shall be construed as a reference to the Minister,

(b) the reference in the said sub-section (1) to a lease shall be construed as including a reference to a fee farm grant or any contract of tenancy,

(c) Sections 7 and 8 shall not apply.

(3) Sections 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79 and 80 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply to any compensation payable under this Part of this Act, and, for the purposes of such application, the Minister shall be deemed to be the promoter of the undertaking and this Part of this Act and the relevant order thereunder shall be deemed to be the special Act.

The acceptance of this amendment will involve the deletion of Section 14.

Dr. O'Higgins

The amendment is a substitute?

Dr. Ward

Yes, for Section 14.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14 deleted.

Section 15 agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Dr. Ward

I move amendment No. 17:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following sub-sections:—

(1) Where a copy of an order is required by this Part of this Act to be given to any person, the copy may be given to such person—

(a) by delivering it to him, or

(b) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to him at an address in the State at which he ordinarily resides or carries on business, or

(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to an agent of such person at an address in the State at which such agent ordinarily resides or carries on business:

(2) A copy of an order required by this Part of this Act to be given to a person shall be deemed to have been given to him if the Minister certifies that it is not reasonably practicable to give the copy in accordance with sub-section (1) of this section and causes a copy of the Order to be published in the Irish Oifigiúil.

(3) Where an order of which the Minister causes a copy to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil in pursuance of sub-section (2) of this section contains a map or plan, the map or plan may be omitted from the copy of the Order so published, but a copy of the map or plan shall be deposited in the Custom House, Dublin, and shall be there kept open for inspection at reasonable times and the copy of the Order so published shall be accompanied by a statement that the map or plan is deposited and kept open for inspection as aforesaid.

(4) The validity or effect of any Order made under this Part of this Act shall not be affected by any noncompliance with any provision contained in this Part of this Act requiring a copy of the Order to be given to any particular person.

This is a reconstruction, and there is no new principle involved.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Dr. Ward

Perhaps the House will agree to give me the remaining stages now?

Dr. O'Higgins

I do not raise any objection; you may have them right away.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.