Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Apr 1961

Vol. 188 No. 7

Hospitals Federation and Amalgamation Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

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

This Bill provides for the establishment of machinery to enable seven voluntary hospitals in Dublin city to form themselves into a group; the hospitals concerned being the Adelaide, the Meath, Mercer's the National Children's the Royal City of Dublin, Sir Patrick Dun's and Dr. Steevens hospitals.

Initially, the form of association envisaged is a federation, but the Bill contains provisions to enable the hospitals subsequently to amalgamate, if they so desire. I should emphasise that the measure is an agreed one and that its terms have been approved by the hospitals concerned. Moreover, its introduction at the present stage in the development of our health services is, I think, highly opportune.

Deputies will be aware that in the period from 1947 to date, a number of important and fundamental changes have taken place in the organisation of the services for which the Minister for Health is responsible. The funds which are available for health purposes, whether from voted moneys or from the Hospitals Trust Fund, are now very fully committed, and during the past few years, I have had to take steps to rationalise and improve the existing services, in order that the community might obtain the maximum benefit from our expenditure upon them. The Health Authorities Act, 1960, which provided a more compact and logical form of control over health services at local level, was one such measure. The Bill now before the House is another. It is designed to enable the hospitals to which it applies to continue more effectively the important contributions which they have been making heretofore to the provision of health services in the Dublin area, and indeed for the country generally.

Since the early part of the eighteenth century, all the hospitals in question have played a notable part in the development of medicine in Ireland. The first in point of time, the hospital bearing the name of Richard Stephens, and founded on his beneficence, was established in the year 1720, and Dean Swift and John Wesley, amongst many other notabilities, are known to have taken an interest in its affairs. Indeed, in the early days of the hospital's existence, Swift was a Governor, and in her will "Stella" with whom his name is historically linked, left £1,000 for the advancement of Christian worship in the institution.

Mercer's Hospital, founded by the illustrious Mary Mercer and situated upon the site of the ancient Lazar House of St. Stephen, followed in 1734. It may be of interest to the House to know that the first public performance in 1742 of Handel's "Messiah" in the Fishamble Street Theatre was for the benefit of this hospital.

The Meath Hospital was opened in 1753. Originally, it was to serve particularly the surrounding district of the Coombe, where lived the woollen weavers of Dublin. Incidentally, at that time the plight of these operatives was pitiable, for their livelihood had been ruined by the calamitous laws which the English Parliament had enacted for the protection of the English woollen trade.

Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital may, perhaps, justify a more extended notice. Its founder, Sir Patrick Dun, a native of Aberdeen, came to Ireland towards the end of the 17th century as Physician to the Lord Lieutenant, the Earl of Essex. He remained to win a reputation as a successful and highly esteemed physician, and became President of the College of Physicians in 1681. By his will he provided a trust in perpetuity to endow a Chair of Physic in the College of Physicians. The Chair was duly established; but the administration of the trust became the subject of an investigation by a House of Lords Committee in 1799. The Committee's report disclosed a fantastic but fascinating state of affairs. "Your Committee," it said, "hold themselves bound to notice a present of claret to the President of the College of Physick annually; an immoderate purchase of books, in some instances twice paid for; lawsuits carried on in which the said College were both plaintiffs and defendants and actually paid from said funds the expenses of both; the loans to indigent members of said College which were never repaid in many instances."

It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the last statutes passed by an Irish Parliament provided that most of the trust funds should be sequestrated and devoted to the building of a hospital to perpetuate the name of Sir Patrick Dun.

The National Children's Hospital is a modern successor of two earlier institutions, one of which, the Institute for Sick Children, was founded as far back as 1821.

In the year 1832, the Royal City of Dublin Hospital, Baggot Street, was founded, with the distinguished medical practitioners Henry Marsh, Abraham Colles and Samuel Wilmot as consultants.

This was followed in 1839 by the establishment of the Adelaide Hospital, with which Isaac Butt was connected. It is interesting to recall also that in its early days one of Miss Florence Nightingale's young ladies of the Crimea was a nurse tutor here.

I must resist the temptation to dilate further on the history of the hospitals. I hope that I have said enough to indicate their long and proud records of service to the community. So I revert to the purpose of the Bill.

The federation or amalgamation of hospitals, such as it proposes is by no means a recent idea. In the course of the last century legislation for coordinating Dublin hospitals was mooted from time to time, but nothing effective was ever done. It was not until 1947 that a definite legislative proposal for an amalgamation emerged under the title of the St. Luke's General Hospital Bill. That measure provided for the amalgamation of three of the hospitals now to be dealt with, to wit, Sir Patrick Dun's, Mercer's and the Royal City of Dublin. It was given a First Reading in Dáil Éireann in June of 1947, but the general election of 1948 supervened and for one reason and another the measure was not revived.

About two years ago it came to my notice that certain hospitals had this question of federation under consideration. I contacted them and invited them to send representatives to a meeting to discuss this possibility. Arising out of this meeting it was decided to set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Secretary of my Department to work out a scheme for legislation. The present Bill is based on the work of that Committee and I am happy to say that it has received the unqualified assent of all the hospitals to which it relates. I should say, certainly at this stage, how indebted all those concerned must be to the Chairman and the members of the Committee for the time and patience which they gave to working out this solution to a very difficult and intricate problem. If the measure fulfils our expectations a major re-organisation of a substantial sector of the Dublin hospital services will be accomplished as the figures which I am going to give indicate.

In 1959, which is the last complete year for which figures are available, out of a total of less than 3,100 beds in all the Dublin voluntary general and children's hospitals there were some 1,200 beds in the seven hospitals concerned. During that year, some 20,000 patients were treated in these hospitals and their total expenditure was approximately £750,000.

I do not know to what extent federation, the initial step which this Bill proposes, will operate to reduce costs. It should tend to do so, however, at least in a relative sense. For one thing, with the pooling of knowledge and experience and a measure of overall control by the proposed Central Council, it is to be expected that the unnecessary and wasteful duplication of facilities will be avoided; and where duplication of this kind now exists, we may trust that in due course it will be eliminated. The great advantage of the federation, however, should manifest itself in a better over-all service to the community from the rationalisation which is being aimed at by the individual hospitals concerned.

I should now like to refer in brief to the salient provisions of the Bill.

Section 1 contains the usual necessary definitions. Section 2 provides for the appointing of a day by order to be the establishment day. This will be the day on which, under Section 4, the separate hospitals will come together in a federation, while retaining their separate identities. On this day also the new Central Council, referred to in Section 5, will be established.

Section 3 provides for the appointment of a day to be the transfer day. The transfer day is the day on which, at some time in the future, not too far distant I hope, the hospitals concerned will, if they so decide, amalgamate completely. An order fixing this day cannot be made unless the Central Council so requests, and to make such a request the Council must have the consent of two-thirds of the individual hospital boards which are represented on it. If, at this stage, a hospital wishes to opt out of this ultimate step of amalgamation, there is provision in sub-section 3 of the section whereby it may do so.

Section 5 provides for the establishment of a Central Council for the new federated group. The Council is charged with the performance of all the functions set out in Section 14 of the Bill. The usual provisions conferring corporate character on the Council are included.

In Section 6 there is provision for replacing by hospital boards the various governing bodies of the participating hospitals.

Section 7 makes provision for membership of the Central Council. It will consist of five members elected by each of the participating hospitals and five elected by the Dublin Health Authority, so that, basically, there will be forty members. The section also makes provision for the representation on the Council of a university, college or institution with which the Council has entered into agreement regarding the clinical education of medical students. The term of office of the members of the Council appointed by the hospital boards will normally be three years and that for members elected by the Dublin Health Authority five years. The latter period of five years has been determined by the fact that it is the period intervening between local elections.

There is provision in the section for the Minister to vary by order the composition of the Council, but only at the request of the Council. I should mention that in Committee I shall propose a few drafting amendments to this section.

Section 8 makes provision for the membership of hospital boards to be established under the Bill. Those on the governing bodies of the hospitals will, on the establishment day, become members of the respective hospital boards and will retain such membership until death, resignation or cessor of membership through continuous failure to attend meetings without sufficient explanation. Vacancies on a hospital board will be filled by cooption. These provisions, however, in regard to membership will not apply to the Meath Hospital Board, appointments to which are governed by the terms of the Meath Hospital Act, 1951, as amended by the Health Authorities Act, 1960.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 contain provisions on the usual lines relating to the time and place of meetings, the tenure of office—in general three years—of the chairman and vice-chairman and the procedure at meetings of the Council.

In Section 12 there is provision for the appointment of committees of the Council. It is provided that where members of a committee contain persons other than members of the Council such members shall not exceed one-fourth of the total membership of the committee. Section 13 provides for the employment by the Council of any necessary staff for its purposes.

Section 14 defines in some detail the functions which shall be performable by the Central Council. In the initial period of four years after the establishment day, the Council will have the function of examining the estimates of expenditure by the individual hospitals and of suggesting amendments. After the expiration of that period, the Council's financial powers will be strengthened, Thereafter its approval will be necessary to the adoption of the annual estimate of each hospital board. The functions of the Council will also include the determination of the form of accounts of the individual hospitals and the control of capital expenditure. Another important function of the Council will be the appointment of visiting medical staff. After the establishment day, such staff will not be appointed by the boards of the individual hospitals, but by the Council and further, they will be appointed not to the service of any individual hospital but to the group as a whole. After appointment, the Council will assign them to the hospital or hospitals in which they are to work.

Other functions of the Council will be the determination of the location of particular clinical units, the assignment of professorial units, the apportionment of beds amongst the visiting medical staff, the co-ordination of activities in relation to medical education and the control of activities in relation to nursing education.

In respect of the assignment of medical staff and nursing education, there are safeguards respecting the denominational character of a hospital.

Section 15 sets out the functions of the hospital boards which, in brief, will be the functions performable by the governing body of the hospital concerned before the establishment day, other than those reserved by the Bill to the Central Council. One important limitation is imposed by sub-section (3) of Section 15. It provides that moneys collected by a hospital board by public appeal shall not be used by the board for capital purposes without the consent of the Council.

Section 16 makes provision for the amalgamation, with their consent and that of the Minister, of two or more hospital boards. In such an event representation of the amalgamated board on the Central Council would be aggregated so as to be equivalent to the sum of the number of representatives accorded to each of the boards which it replaced. Under Section 17 the Council will have power to dissolve a hospital board and take over its functions, provided that the board in question and the Minister consent. In both Sections 16 and 17 there are provisions providing for the necessary modifications (including modifications of the provisions of the Bill) to effect the amalgamation or dissolution concerned.

Section 18 will allow the Central Council to make arrangements, with the consent of the Minister, for joint action with a hospital which is not a participating hospital concerned in the Bill.

Section 19 is included so that, on the decision being taken to amalgamate, the hospitals can be taken over by the Central Council on the transfer day. The section provides for the dissolution of the hospital boards on that day and for the application of the usual provisions regarding the disposal of assets, liabilities, choses in action, etc. There are safeguards in regard to the position of persons employed on the transfer day and also provision for compensation by way of superannuation for any person whose employment is terminated through amalgamation.

Section 20 of the Bill provides for the payment of the expenses of the Council before amalgamation. These will be met, in so far as they are not met from other sources, by contributions from the participating hospitals and will be divided in the ratio of the number of beds available for patients in a hospital to the total number of such beds in the group. Such contributions will rank, pari passu with other legitimate charges in determining the payment to be made to the hospital concerned from the Hospitals Trust Fund on foot of a budget deficit.

In Section 21 of the Bill provision is made for the membership of the Central Council after the transfer day, that is after amalgamation. On the transfer day, the hospital boards will be dissolved but the representatives on the Council of such boards on the transfer day will be members until death, or resignation or termination of membership for failure to attend meetings. The provisions in Section 7 regarding the Dublin Health Authority representatives and members appointed by the medical schools will continue to apply.

Does the word "Amalgamation" appear correctly there?

Yes. Section 22 provides for the making, by order of the Minister, of any necessary modifications in the Acts and instruments relating to the foundation and constitution of the participating hospitals and Section 23 for the making, also by order of the Minister, of any necessary changes before the establishment day in the constitution of any of the present governing bodies of the hospitals, except that of the Meath Hospital, which, as I explained already, is governed by an Act of the Oireachtas. Such Orders may be made only, in the case of Section 22, at the request of the Central Council and, in the case of Section 23, at the request of the governing body concerned. All orders made by the Minister under the Act, under Section 24, must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas; and there is the usual provision for their annulment, if a resolution to that effect is made within 21 days.

Section 25 is a provision to indemnify the Board of Directors of the Royal City of Dublin Hospital against debts of that hospital. There is some reason to believe that under the Deed of Co-Partnership of 1875 relating to the hospital, the Directors might personally be held liable for such debts and the section will merely put them in the same position as members of other hospital boards.

I propose on Committee Stage to introduce an amendment which will have the effect of giving statutory force to an agreement which is in course of execution between Trinity College, The Royal College of Physicians and Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital relating to the disposal of the estate of Sir Patrick Dun and to the making of certain appointments in Trinity College, Dublin, and in Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital. This agreement is rendered necessary by the proposed association of that hospital with the other hospitals in the group. I shall explain it in more detail on Committee Stage.

I have already mentioned how much we owe to the members of the Committee who made it possible for me to put this measure before the Oireachtas. I wish to place again on record my sincere appreciation of the help rendered by the representatives of the seven hospitals, and by their boards, in drawing up the scheme of this Bill. I know how proud those are who constitute such Boards of the long and honourable record of their institution, of its traditions and its practice, and of the services which it provides. I know that they devote a great deal of their time and energies to ensure that their hospital continues to be an effective instrument in the relief of suffering and the restoration of the sick to health; and yet they are giving up to the proposed Central Council a large measure of their autonomy in the running of it. I am sure, too, that even though they have assented to the scheme underlying this Bill many of them must feel that the separate identity of the foundation in which they are most particularly interested will in time be lost. And I feel also that many of them must have had very considerable misgivings about the whole idea underlying this legislation. It is a notable demonstration of their sense of public duty that they submerged their personal feelings in this matter, which touches them so intimately, as soon as they were convinced that by this measure a better service would be provided for the public whom their hospitals exist to serve.

I am sure the Dáil will agree our thanks are due to those who revived the idea of a closer association between the hospitals covered by this Bill, and to those also whose predilection may have been for a continuance of their present independent position but who, when convinced that current developments in medical science and medical teaching made the present step desirable, if not indeed absolutely necessary, gave the proposal their unqualified support.

I recommend this measure to the Dáil for Second Reading.

This is a permissive Bill providing machinery for a group of hospitals initially to federate and, if they should so desire thereafter, to amalgamate. That is why I drew the Minister's attention to Section 21 in connection with which he said:

In Section 21 of the Bill provision is made for the membership of the Central Council after the transfer day, that is after amalgamation.

I understood we were differentiating between amalgamation and federation.

Yes. Establishment day relates to federation, transfer day to amalgamation.

Section 21 makes provision where two hospitals within the group desire to amalgamate——

No. This is where all the hospitals who are in the federation desire to amalgamate.

Does this provision also apply where two of the hospitals in the group desire to amalgamate and to take up joint representation on the council in lieu of their individual representation?

Yes. It does.

In any case it is a machinery Bill and, as I understand from the Minister, an agreed Bill. It provides the hospitals with an opportunity of doing something which they are not being compelled to do but which, all things considered, they have apparently made up their minds to do from the point of view both of the public and their own convenience.

There are certain points I should like clarified in connection with the Bill. It may be that a lesser number than 40 will not meet the exigencies of this special situation but it does seem to me that, if a council is established which consists of anything between 40 and 50 members, if we allow for representation of a university college and other persons on the board, and if that council has, as part of its job, the appointment of consultants and the apportionment of beds between doctors, it would be an extremely unwieldy body, every group of which must naturally have its personal allegiance and predilections.

I acknowledge however, that inasmuch as this is an agreed measure and that it really would not be possible at all except on the basis of agreement, the Minister may have found himself in the position that substantial agreement could not have been secured except on the basis of so large a number of representatives on the council. I would be glad to hear from him when he is concluding whether he thinks the numbers here provided for are not somewhat excessive, whether they might not with advantage be restricted owing to the administrative work they would be charged to do. I am prepared to concede that, if this number is the price of goodwill and agreement, we would be best advised to pay that price, albeit against our better judgement from an administrative point of view.

If we are to accept that view, we must consider Section 12 which provides for the appointment of a subcommittee of a council now consisting of anything between 40 and 50 members and which provides for the contingency that the council cannot constitute its own committees from its own membership, but must go outside.

No, no. It is not obligatory.

No, but they may go outside.

They are making provision to allow the Council to appoint other persons to committees apart from those on the Council. It does seem to me strange, if there is a body of anything between 40 and 50 people charged with a specific task and they think it desirable to delegate any of their functions, that it is not possible to envisage the Council finding amongst its own personnel a sufficiency of persons to constitute a sub-committee. There may be some obvious reason which does not present itself to me for subsection (3) of Section 15:

Moneys collected by a hospital board by public appeal shall not be used by the board for capital purposes without the consent of the Council.

Is there any reason why?

It is the simple reason that one of the purposes of the Central Council is to exercise a degree of control over capital expenditure.

I can understand that. Still, I do suggest we may be a little too rigid in this matter and discourage desirable charities by an excessive solicitude to secure economy. I think Deputy Dr. Browne worked himself into a frenzy here on one occasion because nurses and other hospital personnel walked the streets on a wet day to sell flags. He deplored it and thought they could be——

Better occupied.

Yes. Better occupied doing real work. Of course, one of the reasons that people sell flags on the streets is not to raise money, but to discharge the corporal works of mercy. It is a very good thing for people to go out and do servile work, even ignoble work, in the cause of charity. I quite agree with Deputy Dr. Browne there may be much more efficient and effective ways of raising money, but I am not at all sure it is not a good thing to provide people with an opportunity on occasion of going out and discharging the corporal works of mercy for their own spiritual welfare. I concede the Minister is concerned to protect the funds of the Hospitals Trust and to ensure the highest point of efficiency and to avoid any extravagant expenditure of money, but that is not the end and the beginning of life, and we can go too far. I can imagine a hospital wanting to add some amenity to the services they are in a position to render and making an appeal to their ex-patients and ex-students to put their heads together to find a means of providing this additional facility for Sir Patrick Dun's, Baggot Street, Mercer's, or whatever hospital it may be.

I can imagine a council of 40 or 50 people saying that is an expenditure which cannot be justified, and I can imagine the hospital concerned replying: "Look, our ex-patients, our ex-students and staff are prepared to put the money together to provide it, and we do not think our discretion to use the money raised to that purpose should be restricted by the Council." Of course, the Minister may say the Council would not restrict in those circumstances. Ought they to have the power in respect of moneys collected by the Board by public appeal? I think we could delete that proviso.

We either take the Bill as agreed or not.

If that is the case, what the heck are we discussing? It is worthy of consideration. We can get to the point that it is becoming so rigid that all individual initiative is subjected to supervision and control. I do not think that is a good thing, any more than I think the utilitarian soul of Deputy Dr. Browne, in driving everybody off the streets for discharging the humble task of collecting for charity, is the right reaction. Both Dr. Browne and the Minister are allowing themselves to be dazzled by an excessive subservience to the false god of efficiency.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to something in respect of which I do not think this House can divest itself of responsibility on the ground that this is an agreed measure. This is a matter of some importance. In the Second Schedule to the Bill, there is provision in paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (1) (c) for the compensation of a person on the ground that no suitable position is available for him under the Council, and it goes on to provide that "the Council shall pay to him such compensation (either by way of annuity for life or for a limited period or by way of gratuity) as the Council, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature of the employment, the length of service, the rate of remuneration, et cetera) consider fair and reasonable,” and sub-paragraph (2) of the same paragraph says: “The determination by the Council of any matter arising under this paragraph shall be final and conclusive.”

That is a bad provision. I do not think this House or any other authority in this country has a right to march into the middle of my life after I have made a contract of service with an employer, break the contract of service and say that my employer shall be entitled to have regard to all the relevant circumstances and determine what form and measure of compensation I am to receive and then to provide that the decision of my employer on any matter arising under this power shall be final and conclusive. That is clearly wrong. There ought to be a right of appeal when a person comes within the provisions of that section of the Second Schedule, if he should feel that equitable provision has not been made for him in the event of his being found redundant as a result of federation or amalgamation.

I would go so far as to say it may well happen—it is probable—that nobody will prove to be redundant because I envisage federation or amalgamation, if it comes, coming gradually and I think the gradual steps in such a development would help to avoid any redundancy at all. Consequently, you might never have this paragraph invoked, but there is a principle here and we have never, so far as my memory goes, accepted a statutory position which prohibited a person made redundant through legislation from having a right of appeal from the award of compensation tendered by an employer.

I cannot imagine that the bodies whose consent has attended the birth of this Bill will not see the justice and the equity of that case and I think it ought to be explained to them that if they sought to be rigid in this matter, they might put us all in a most embarrassing position. We have certain obligations to which we must be faithful and a grave and very fundamental principle is here involved which I would be extremely reluctant to see pressed even in what is a quasi-private Bill. I do not believe anybody will be inconvenienced by a suitable amendment. I am not very much concerned about where such an appeal will lie.

I was about to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he had any views on that question.

I would be prepared to say that the appeal should lie to the Minister. I am concerned that the person concerned has an appeal to somebody other than to the people who were actually a party to the contract of employment which it was necessary to abrogate under the terms of federation and amalgamation. I have no apprehension that there is any serious probability of anyone suffering injustice in this matter but I know from experience that the absence of the right of appeal can create a sense of grievance and I know from my experience as a legislator in this House that here a matter of principle is involved which I do not believe we would like anybody to persuade us to jettison on the ground that we want to preserve the atmosphere of agreement which has attended the drafting of this Bill.

I should like also to say I feel reasonably confident that if those who assisted in the preparation of this legislation have our difficulties explained to them, they will have no serious trouble about consenting to a provision that a suitable appeal be inserted to which any case that might arise can refer if the person concerned feels any sense of grievance or that equity demands a reversal of the proposed compensation award. Subject to those points, we have no objection to the Bill and will support it at this Stage.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill because it seems to me to represent at long last a crevice or breach in the apparently monolithic indifference of the senior members of the profession in Ireland, particularly in Dublin, to the advances which have been made in medical science over the past 15 or 20 years. It appears to me to represent a realisation on their part that some steps must be taken to try to retrieve medicine in Dublin from the position of pedestrian mediocrity and stagnation which it has now reached on the administrative, teaching and clinical level. Because I think some faltering steps are being taken to restore the standard of medicine, and the practice of medicine, to the point at which it once stood, particularly in Dublin, I welcome the Bill.

Knowing the suspicious and the briar-like personalities of the individuals involved in many of these hospital boards, I think above everything, this Bill is a tribute to the remarkable abilities of the man who was responsible for maintaining contact between the members of the boards involved in the initial stages of the attempted amalgamation, the former Secretary of the Department of Health, Mr. Kennedy. I must say that I am surprised by many of the provisions of the Bill. The fact that those concerned have agreed to go so far is a great tribute to that man, and to his successor no doubt, who ensured that contact was maintained, and that the many progressive suggestions incorporated in the Bill were made acceptable to the different members of the boards of the various hospitals.

I should like to deal very briefly with Deputy Dillon's comments on the use of funds collected by flag days, and to explain my position in that regard. I have no objection in the world to individual members of the public making their contribution to what Deputy Dillon described as the alleviation of human suffering, by going on the streets and collecting money in that way. Perhaps their time might be better spent, but my main objection to these flag days for hospitals and other so-called charitable purposes is that the money so collected tends to be regarded as conscience money by the individuals who buy flags. They feel they have discharged their responsibility to whatever cause is the subject of the flag day and, thereafter, have little or no interest in their responsibility to that particular cause.

The case made for these flag days is rather similar to the case made with regard to the suggestion that the benevolent employer rendered trade unions unnecessary. That was, of course, arguing from the particular to the general on a very unsound basis. My objections are based on the same grounds, largely, because I think flag days encourage people to believe they are making a substantial contribution to finally solving a defect in our society when, in fact, they are doing nothing of the kind. Either consciously or unconsciously they are fooling themselves and for that reason I think it is largely a waste of time, apart from the undesirable feature of youngsters going around the street with boxes of flags with all sorts of consequential undesirable results.

I am mainly concerned with Section 14, in which there are some remarkable provisions, and in which the present functions of the boards of hospitals are taken over for the time being by the Central Council of Federated Dublin Voluntary Hospitals and, later on, by the Council of the amalgamated hospitals, should the Minister's hopes for this proposition be realised, and should there be ultimate amalgamation of the different hospitals under the one central board. With Deputy Dillon, I find it difficult to understand how a board of 40 or 50 members could be a working board. We dealt with this question a short time ago on the Poisons Bill, and the Minister made the case that the size of a board was very important—the smaller the size the more likely it was that the board would be effective.

I know, of course, that there are probably very special circumstances in this case, in so far as they are boards of hospitals, which, over their lifetime, have tended to be in competition with one another in various ways and any mitigation or any reduction in their autonomy would be anathema to all of them. In those special circumstances I suppose a board of 40 must be acceptable to us. Most of us hope that the subcommittees which the Council are empowered to establish will be established at an early date in order that an examination of the different facets of the activities of the Council will be undertaken and that, later on, recommendations will be put forward by the different committees, and we then will get some useful work done.

The Minister very charitably suggested that the motivation or the dynamic in the creation of the federation, and later on the amalgamation, was a desire to serve the public interest. I should like to think that is true, but it is only fair to say that, in my view, quite an important contribution was made by the basic framework of the public authority health services to which many of us—over the years in the Department of Health and before that in the Department of Local Government and Public Health —contributed. On that framework were built the district hospitals, the county hospitals and then the regional hospitals. From that framework, the present position evolved.

That development or evolution came from a demand for the highest specialist services at regional hospital level. That has been one of the inevitable and most desirable results of the basis which was created and on which our public health services were developed. The result, taken together with the establishment of the Local Appointments Commission, has been the wonderful development of the highest level, highest qualified, highest calibre professional appointees to all our hospitals and, in particular, to the ones with which I am concerned, the regional hospitals. I do not think that generally speaking the level of the medical man, physician or surgeon recently appointed to those hospitals could be higher, due largely to our decision to establish the regional hospitals which would employ primarily the specialist type of physician or surgeon.

Secondly, it is due to the fact that the Local Appointments Commission made it possible for us to scour the world for young Irish graduates who had gone away and become so well equipped that we had little doubt they were fitted to take up the appointments in many of our regional hospitals. To a considerable extent, I think, that has had its effect on the voluntary hospitals. Putting it bluntly, we have made the pace too hot for them, and they have found out. That is not entirely the reason, but it is a contribution. The quality of the personnel in our local authority hospitals is so high and they are provided with such magnificent equipment and wonderful working conditions that the voluntary hospitals have had no alternative but to look about them and see in what way they could put themselves on level terms. That is a wonderful tribute to the intervention of the Department of Health over the years, and it is going to play its part in seeing that the level of medicine in our hospitals generally will be the highest possible.

While, no doubt, there is a certain element of a desire to serve the public interest in this decision to federate, I do not think it would be quite fair to the activities of the Department of Health over the years, in its chequered career under different Ministers, to ignore that particular aspect of development. It is probably true to say that in many of our local authority hospitals now, the quality of service certainly is as high—in some cases it must be even higher—as is probably generally available in many of the voluntary hospitals.

I should also like to refer to the composition of the Board. The fact that there are five public representatives on a Board of 40 obviously gives the public very little representation in such a large Board. Probably the Minister did not have very much say in this. I do not know whether he did or not. I am sure he would agree with me that the pattern of the financing of the voluntary hospitals over the years has changed very much. The time we were dependent upon public subscriptions and the flag days referred to by Deputy Dillon is rapidly passing. That was emphasised most clearly recently by the decision of the Adelaide Hospital, which held out longest against the Sweep, to come into the Sweep, because the other sources of revenue are drying up rapidly. It is generally assumed now by the public that the State is looking after the hospitals in one way or another, through the Sweep, subventions from the Exchequer or the rates. That shows their revenue is tending to dry up. The result is that a greater and greater percentage of public funds is being paid out to these hospitals.

There is, then, this question of accountability. To what extent are we justified in making available to these hospitals, either individually or collectively, in this federation, large sums of public money where we have so little powers to make any decision as to the methods by which this money is used? I wonder if the Minister is quite satisfied with this representation —whether he felt it was the maximum that could be obtained at present or whether any improvement could be made on it? I do not know if anybody is really clear on the method of election of governors to these voluntary hospitals, whether they approve of what appears to be a system of nomination of one kind or another? The Protestant hospitals largely seem to depend on their association with the Freemason people and the other side on the Knights of Columbanus. Whatever the method of appointment or nomination, there appears to be no democratic basis of election. I do not see why, where there is a great public financial interest in the running and control of these hospitals, the public should not have a greater say in their actual running.

I do not think anybody would try to make the case that we are not competent to do it or that any of the public representatives nominated by the Departments—or whatever way it is decided by this House they should be appointed—cannot run hospitals as well as they can be run under this very curious system of appointment or nomination under which most of the voluntary hospitals operate at present. I can appreciate the Minister's difficulty in so far as, I suppose, he has a certain sense of achievement that he has got even this far. At the same time, I think we could take it that they have not decided to federate solely because of the public interest. I think they decided to federate because they must federate. To put it bluntly, it was a question of hanging together or hanging separately. We have put them into the position in which they had to come to the Minister and to adopt this procedure. All right; that is an historic development which everybody welcomes; but could we not go further and get greater representation for our own public representatives in the operation of these institutions?

When I was Minister for Health and when anybody made a complaint about something or other which had gone wrong or appeared to have gone wrong in one of these hospitals, when some individual was aggrieved by some action taken, it always struck me as odd that I had to write back and say I had absolutely no power whatever to make an inquiry or to get an answer other than an answer by courtesy. I had no official power to find out why the operation was carried out on the wrong side or why a leg was taken off instead of an arm. I am not, of course, saying those are in fact the type of cases referred to. But where a real or imaginary grievance by a member of the public, who is now maintaining these institutions, is brought to the notice of the Minister, as far as I know, he still has not the right to make an inquiry or insist upon a satisfactory answer. That is a grave defect in the organisation of these voluntary hospitals.

Contrary to the development of local authority hospitals, where we have this very desirable evolution of the general county surgeon and at the higher level, the specialist physician and surgeon in the regional hospitals, we have tended in the voluntary hospitals to develop, in my view, medically and clinically, a most dangerous in between, who is neither a general practitioner nor a full specialist, but a general specialist. That has been one of the most retrograde developments which has followed the medical practice in our hospitals—the fragmentation of our effort in medicine in the two broad groupings of the Catholic and Protestant hospitals, the Trinity and National hospitals on the one side, and then the fragmentation within that grouping of the seven different hospitals referred to in this Bill and the many other hospitals throughout the country. That whole fragmentation of effort has led to the deterioration of standards, to which I referred earlier, and has led above all to the evolution of these general specialists. That largely arises from the general form of our health services as well as from the system of our hospital organisation.

I do not see how the question of health services can fall to be discussed on this Bill, which deals with the federation of certain hospitals.

I am only dealing with it in passing. The result of too many different hospitals has been that there has been an attempt by physicians and surgeons to deal with too many subjects. They have had no alternative but to do this. The fact that there are, say, seven hospitals here up to now and that they have to provide a surgeon who can do surgery of the central nervous system, general urinary surgery. cardiac cases and general surgery, taking out appendices, varicose ulcers and so on, and a physician who does various types of medicine, results in our having seven individual surgeons and seven individual physicians who have attempted to spread their talents over too many fields. The result is that they did not get the turnover of work in any single one of these particular aspects of medicine and surgery to allow them to become pure specialists and, of course, the end result is that the patient has suffered.

There should be, no doubt, that in saying this I am not criticising the basic skills or talents or intelligence of the surgeons or physicians concerned. But the evolution of a pure specialist is dependent on his seeing enough work of one particular kind, and the differences to which I referred, the sectarian basis of the different number of hospitals in our small cities, has led to this inevitability of the different surgeons and physicians trying to practise too many different kinds of medicine. I hope that this Bill will begin to see the development of the pure specialist physician and surgeon working in the purely specialist hospital. That probably is looking very far ahead, but it seems to me that taking the development of technical scientific medicine, the laboratory, the pathological section, the physicians and the technocrats, the technicians, surgeons and physicians now needed to carry out properly the functions of the pure specialist will properly evolve through the development of the pure specialist hospital such as a cardiac unit, a general urinary unit, a central nervous system unit, a cancer hospital and so on, serviced entirely by specialists devoting all their time to the one pure specialty of the particular institution. That can only occur, I am afraid, if the surgeon or physician is certain that he can make a good living from carrying out that pure specialisation.

Probably, to the conscientious doctor or surgeon, one of the most distressing and upsetting things at present is the realisation that in the practice of medicine he has to occupy his time, in order to earn a living, with the carrying out of what are essentially relatively trivial operations—appendices, varicose ulcers and simple operations of one kind or another, because the individual can afford to pay for his services and he can be called upon, so that time, which he should be spending learning the specialities and practising them and getting to know more and more about the particular field in which he is interested, has to be dissipated on the carrying out of relatively simple trivial operations, which any house surgeon or registrar could carry out in his place. That is one reason why it is difficult to discuss this Bill without referring to the make-up of our health services generally.

If the individual physician or surgeon were sufficiently well-remunerated for carrying through intensive study of his speciality, and did not have to dissipate his time with these side issues or minor operations, we would be able here in Dublin to get exactly the same level of skill and technical knowledge as they have anywhere else in the world. Our surgeons and physicians are just as clever and able, with as high a level of skill and ability, as those in any other country; in fact, our people have generally whenever they have got the opportunity abroad, become specialists and have very often risen to the top without any difficulty. Hence the members of the profession here are the victims of the existing scheme of things.

I hope that this Bill will make it possible for the standard of medicine for the doctor or physician or surgeon who wants to specialise, and who believes that he can become highly skilled in his own particular speciality, to be raised by enabling this Council to establish specialised units in which such a man will be able to work and see such a turnover of the one particular work that he will become highly skilled and qualified in that particular aspect of medicine or surgery, and the end product of all that will be that the patient will benefit. Make no mistake about it, the end product of the present system of medicine in Dublin and in Ireland generally has been made at the expense of the patients. The patient has suffered because of the quality and skill of the type of work carried out which is of a very ordinary level, to put it at its most charitable.

One of the other types of hospitals which I would like to see this Council attempt to establish and which is very badly needed indeed, is the pure accident hospital. The position as far as I know at present in Dublin and most of our cities is that the average hospital has a physician or surgeon who is on accident duty. Then at weekends, at night-time and at other times when he would not normally be in the hospital and he is called he may or may not come as he thinks fit. Again, we have the same dissipation of skill and talent. A man who is really interested in the central individual system of cardiac surgery or gastric surgery or general urinary surgery is put on accident duty. He has to take his accident duty. This not only happens in his own hospital. There may be three or four surgeons attached to a hospital. Three or four surgeons have to pretend to a skill of a high level in accident work which it itself has become merely a speciality. That is happening in one hospital and it is also happening in every other hospital. They are all pretending to this high skill, high talent, with this particular speciality of accidents there. Consider the position of a person with the most meagre knowledge of this side of surgery when split-second decisions taken when an accident case is brought in make all the difference between life and death.

This does not seem to have any connection with the Bill.

Under Section 14 the Council will be able to establish clinics with equipment for specialised units and all other expenditure of an exceptional or extraordinary nature and consider applications for funds for such expenditure.

Section 14 deals with the functions assigned to the council to be set up.

Under subparagraph (h) there is the determination of the hospitals in which particular clinical units shall be located. I hope the Council will take steps to ensure under subparagraph (h) of Section 14 that such an accident unit is established. I should prefer if an accident hospital were established so that there would be centralisation of accident work where a patient is certain of getting immediate attention at the very highest medical and surgical level.

One of the difficulties which arise here is a consequence of the fact that insurance work is associated with accident work. Some difficulty may arise in that regard but I have no doubt it would be possible to overcome it by some rota system. However, the importance of getting a high level of surgical treatment for accident cases must surely transcend the financial consideration which might be a barrier to the establishment of such a clinic. There is no doubt that this is a very badly needed development. Under this Bill it will be possible for the Council to decide on the establishment of a single separate unit for the treatment of accident work.

I see also in Section 14 that the question of the establishment of professorial units and the attempted establishment of some rationalisation of the teaching methods in the hospitals will be dealt with. This action is long overdue. I do not know if it is quite as bad as when I was a student, but conditions under which clinical teaching was said to be carried out were quite intolerable then. The general idea was that a consulting surgeon or physician would come in and take a victim—you could call him nothing else—in the public ward. I never had a clinic in a private ward. Sometimes with his permission, though more often than not without his permission, he was then subjected to an examination in the public ward. Before the end of the clinic, all the intimate details of his medical history, his family history and his personal history were broadcast all over the ward. I always smiled afterwards when in controversy the medical profession used to refer to the sacredness of the doctor-patient relationship.

The Deputy is getting away from the Bill.

I am talking about the practice of medical teaching in hospitals.

The Bill deals with the amalgamation of certain hospitals.

And the powers we shall give them.

The detail into which the Deputy is going does not arise on the Second Reading.

Surely the purpose of the amalgamation of individual hospitals is to bring about better order in their work and to concentrate particular aspects of their work in more suitable places? The Minister must realise that that is one of the purposes for which this Bill is being introduced.

It seems to me that the only thing that arises for discussion on this section is whether the Council should be given that power.

Surely if the Council are to undertake a reorganisation, a preliminary discussion on the purposes that could be achieved by it would be most valuable if it were a fact that the representatives of the hospitals do not realise this already and if this is not what they are working towards?

I do not propose to usurp the functions of the Chair, like Deputy Mulcahy.

I resent the Minister's suggestion that I am trying to usurp the functions of the Chair. I am trying to ask the Chair, when we are dealing with a Bill allowing hospitals to amalgamate in this way, if it is not important that we should look at the purpose for which those connected with the hospitals have come together to make the amalgamation and consider what is the public interest they wish to serve and what are the ways in which Parliament thinks they want to serve these people.

Subparagraph (k) of Section 14 reads as follows:

the co-ordination of activities in relation to medical education and the conduct of negotiations in regard to such education with the appropriate university, college or other institution, including the making of suitable agreements with such bodies to ensure efficient clinical instruction for medical students and to provide facilities for post graduate instruction.

As far as I know, these boards have not done this already. I am trying to point that out and to suggest that because they have not done it already, in my view in the public interest they ought to do it. That is the case I make.

I believe that if they are to discharge the functions which I should like them to discharge they will take steps to see that this practice of taking a patient in a public ward and, with or without his permission, disclosing the intimate details of his personal and medical history is changed. It is a most undesirable and unnecessary practice. I know quite well in clinical teaching it is necessary to show a patient's condition to students. At some hospitals they take steps to see that the rights of individual patients are observed in so far as they are asked whether they would mind an examination being carried out on them. The clinic is then held in a proper clinical theatre. That is the practice in some hospitals but I should like to see it the practice in every hospital. I should like to see that the details of the patient's history and personal life are respected with the consideration which the medical profession have often said they feel the patient is entitled to.

Sometimes I have seen from 50 to 100 individuals gathered around an unfortunate patient's bed. Personally I think that that is very undesirable from the point of view of the patients. It can be very tiring for a sick man or women and, where it is practised, it is something that this Council could occupy itself in putting right.

I am rather surprised to see that it has been found possible, under Section 14, to say that appointments will be made to the federated Dublin hospitals and not to an individual hospitals. I presume that some attempt will be made to ensure that the persons to be appointed to these hospitals will be appointed by some scheme, the aim of which will be to see that the best physician or surgeon will be appointed. In carrying out this it is important that, if we are to upgrade the quality of the physician or surgeon in the voluntary hospitals, as we have succeeded in doing in the local authority hospitals, the whole question of appointments will be studied with considerable care by the Council of the Federation. The practice has grown up of making appointments on largely personal grounds, on the grounds of personal association with individual members of the staff.

Surely that cannot be debated on the Second Reading of the Bill?

The system of appointment is very important.

The Deputy is going into details which are not relevant to this stage of the Bill.

I do not know how you can discuss the system of appointment if you do not go into detail to show what you are talking about. Do you want me to say that I disagree with nepotism and corruption in this matter?

Is that the allegation against these hospitals?

Of course such is the allegation in regard to many of these hospitals—I am not saying all of them.

The Deputy is talking about these specified ones.

The Deputy can talk about what he likes when the time comes.

As far as one can see there are, broadly, three ways in which these appointments are made. The first is through the Local Appointments Commission which seems to me to be the way in which the best possible physician or surgeon can be obtained. The system is not universally infallible but it goes as near as it is possible to go in order to ensure that the best possible surgeon or physician is appointed. There is then a system under which the physician or surgeon has to make out from 150 to 200 applications and bring them around to the various members of the Board of Governors. It seems to me that this is not a practice whereby one will get the best possible medical man or surgeon. I do not see how a layman can decide as to the technical qualifications of an individual doctor or surgeon. Perhaps Deputy Briscoe thinks he is competent to appoint a surgeon or a physician.

I am resentful of the Deputy's attempt to disparage these hospitals.

That is my point, that under a system whereby a surgeon or physician has to hawk between 115 and 200 copies of his qualifications to the same number of civilians, one is not likely to get the best possible surgeon or physician.

The Deputy has not read the Bill.

Then there is the making of appointments by the medical board of the hospital. I do not think that this is likely to get us the highest possible level of medical or surgical appointee for many reasons, the main one being that I do not think the medical board would be particularly concerned to see that a more highly qualified surgeon or physican than is included on the board itself should be appointed to the hospital. I think that is asking too much and I think it should be possible to have some composite board from the seven federated hospitals to make the appointment.

There is no doubt that because of the inevitability of nepotism and jobbery inherent in the making of appointments, we here in this House decided, many years ago, to establish the Local Appointments Commission and the Civil Service Commission. I hope that, in looking for headlines as to how the best medical people and surgical people can be appointed, we shall follow the headline that we have already set in the Dáil. I do not think anybody would suggest that the present methods used in these hospitals are as good as—they are certainly not superior to—the methods used in public authority hospitals.

I regret the need, though I can to some extent understand it, for the retention of Section 14 (2) providing for the denominational character of appointments to the medical staff. I am sorry that that sort of provision should still obtain in relation to Irish medicine. It helps to perpetuate division and is, in my opinion, just as invidious as the division that exists in our two universities here in Dublin. Not alone that but it tends to dissipate the energies of both surgeons and physicians and also tends to fragment the efforts of medical and surgical teams.

From the point of view of Irish medicine it would be much more desirable if that division did not exist, except in such aspects as midwifery and gynaecology, where certain ethical considerations enter into the picture. So far as general surgery and medicine are concerned, efforts should be collective and co-operative rather than competitive. There is no discrimination in politics. It is rather a commentary that this provision should have to be included in the case of medicine.

Does the Minister consider it desirable or necessary that someone coopted to the Council should continue to be a member of that Council until death, resignation or cessor of membership under subsection (8), etc.? The public representatives will go forward for election every five years and take their chance on their record for re-election to this Central Council. Why should the hospital or university members of the board continue in office indefinitely? Why should they not be prepared to take their chance? If they have served to the satisfaction of the hospital authorities they will be re-nominated to continue their representation. Is it desirable that a person who may be getting on in years, and who is not as active or as useful as he ought to be, should be retained indefinitely? There should be some reappraisal of suitability at reasonable intervals in the same way as opportunity is given in the case of politicians and members of local authorities.

I welcome the Bill. I hope there will not be any undue delay in amalgamation. I hope that from that amalgamation will flow an understanding of the common interests and the common objective these different hospitals have to serve the public in the best possible way. This amalgamation or federation may set the headline for other hospitals and even for our universities and medical schools. At that stage we shall once more be in a position to put Irish medicine back into the place it held in the past in the world of medicine.

I am a member of the board of one of the hospitals concerned in this federation. I have been a member of that board for a very long number of years. I was aware of the development of this idea of amalgamation or federation right from the start. Many bricks have been thrown by Deputy Dr. Browne at both the seven hospitals concerned in the Bill and the medical staffs of those hospitals. There was an idea at one time that regional hospitals would be set up. So acceptable was that idea at the time that the voluntary hospitals were not encouraged to modernise because modernisation in the face of such a development would represent wasted expenditure. It is only in recent years the idea of regional hospitals has been abandoned. As a result of the federation of the seven mentioned in this Bill it is hoped it will be easier to develop regional hospitalisation. In that event many of these old hospitals may cease to exist.

I was glad to hear the Minister pay tribute to these hospitals. I was glad to hear him detail their origins, their history and their management right up to the present day. I know the professional people—the medical people, surgeons and so forth—of many of these hospitals, particularly the one in which I serve and I know the lay members, and I know that when the idea was conveyed to them it was considered quite seriously, not only by each hospital but by meetings between representatives of each of the hospitals concerned.

Without any delay whatever in order that suspicions, if you like, or doubts might be cleared up, a request was made to the Minister for Health to receive representatives of all of the hospitals concerned to hear their views and to see how an approach could be made to get a proper understanding and a possible acceptance of that idea. Without any hesitation or delay such a large body of people representing the seven hospitals were received and they were very happy to have the Secretary of the Department of Health made available to them to act with them in constant and detailed discussion on every aspect of the proposed Bill and all that would flow from it.

I have attended meetings of my own hospital board and they have been furnished with details of this Bill and the ideas behind it and I have on occasions been selected to meet representatives of others. I am sorry that Deputy Dr. Browne is leaving the House because I should like to say a few things to him with reference to his own speech. It is very easy to attack people here and then not be prepared to listen to the defence of the people who have been so unwarrantably attacked. Obviously Deputy Dr. Browne did not read the Bill. He did not want to read the Bill. He is a doctor with a grievance against other doctors.

The Bill specifically is designed for the Council that is to be established to operate as did each hospital board. Each hospital has its own medical staff and the medical staff themselves deal with everything that concerns the medical side, including the selection of personnel for recommendation to the full board for appointment. In the Bill, and Deputy Dr. Browne has not referred to it, five persons will represent each of the seven hospitals, making a total of 35. Of these five representing each hospital, two will be professional gentlemen, either doctors or surgeons, but certainly from the medical side, so that in the full council there will be 14 leading professional people to decide points for the future, to negotiate and to decide with the universities and with the nurses' organisation with regard to training and educational facilities, and so forth. Up to the present each hospital separately appointed its own personnel but it is envisaged in this Bill that, from now on where a vacancy occurs, the Council shall make the appointment but the appointee will no longer be an appointee for that specific hospital; he will be appointed to act for the whole seven. That will enable them to concentrate in each case where an appointment is to be filled to obtain what might be regarded as the highest qualifications.

I do not want to waste the time of the House in trying to follow all these subtle accusations, insults by innuendo, and, at the end, a direct insult and attack, suggesting that up to the present these appointments in the voluntary hospitals have been by way of jobbery. It is a shame that we in Dublin who know our voluntary hospitals, who know the service they have given and are giving to so many of our people, should hear the responsible people in these hospitals attacked so unwarrantably as has been done in this House today.

It has been said that a Council of 40 would become unwieldy—35 men and women representing the hospitals, including 14 professional people, and five representatives from the health authority. Anybody who has served on a hospital board knows that each hospital board consists of nearly that number anyway. They have been well managed in the past and there has not been any suggestion of the proceedings being unwieldy. The meetings of these boards are conducted in an excellent manner with no division of opinion on political or religious lines. Nothing is considered except the concern of all, the welfare of the patients in the hospital and the well-being of the hospital itself. In the same way you are going to have each hospital board selecting from its membership three of its lay people, and not more than two of its professional people, so that there will be no fear of the Council being over-weighted with professional people, giving people like Deputy Dr. Browne an opportunity of saying that this Council was set up for the benefit and welfare of the doctors themselves. Together with the five representatives from the health authority, there will be a majority of lay people who will all be concerned with the hospitalisation facilities of the city.

I should like to tell the House that in all the discussions we had at our own board, and in all the meetings we had with representatives of other hospital boards, I did not detect any resistance to the Minister's intention to bring about this federation and ultimate amalgamation. I was at the meeting of my own hospital board when the matter was finally discussed and when they were made aware of roughly what was going to be in the Bill. I must say there seemed to be a perfect understanding and acceptance of the situation and a belief that this, through the help of the Minister and the help of the Department, was a step forward in the development of hospitalisation in the city of Dublin and a clear acceptance that if and when the Minister, whoever he may be, and the Department are ready to announce plans for the building of regional hospitals, there will be a willingness to surrender all that is in the hands of the Council to the new regional hospital idea, if that ever comes along, and we hope it will.

Deputy Dr. Browne spoke about how undemocratic it was to have only five representatives of local authorities on this Council. By implication it would appear that all the rest were either doctors or just stooges of doctors. Then he attacked the hospital boards, which are by a vast majority in each case lay people, with representatives of the local authority on the board, for jobbery in the appointment of doctors and the selection of the worst and not the best. He cannot have it both ways.

Anybody who has visited patients in these seven hospitals, or who has been himself a patient, cannot come away with any other idea but that in all circumstances we have been very well served. I am not competent to adjudicate on the ability of the specialists in these hospitals to act as teachers of students and young doctors but I do know and I am proud to say that in all my travels wherever I have been I have found that graduates of our Universities, trained in our hospitals including these voluntary hospitals, are always welcome wherever they go abroad and are always given credit for being the best qualified people and highly trained. So that there must be some credit due to our teaching hospitals at their present level.

It is a terrible thing to have placed on the records of this House, in our verbatim report, statements such as have been made by Deputy Dr. Browne, which are read elsewhere and which when read in other countries make us appear as a primitive people with the most horrible ways of going about our affairs, particularly those which concern humanity. I have been to hospitals in other countries. I have met professional people in other countries. I am quite satisfied that none of the innuendoes and allegations made by Deputy Dr. Browne deserves to be given any credence whatever. The poor man is suffering from some kind of medical boil for which apparently there is no proper treatment except that it must work itself out over a period of years. As a member of Dublin Corporation, representing that local authority on a number of hospitals, I want to say to the Minister that in this matter he has not only the acceptance of the various hospitals but also their gracious thanks for it.

This Bill when it becomes an Act and when the Council is set up will bring about vast improvements. There are various little items that have been discussed here. Deputy Dillon referred to the prohibition against any one of these hospitals using money that they might get by collection or otherwise, for instance, a big bequest, for expenditure of a capital nature without the consent of the Council. There is nothing wrong with that. The idea is that only a limited amount of up-to-date expensive equipment can be purchased and it cannot be available in each of the hospitals; but, if the hospitals work together, one of these items can be procured in the use of which all seven hospitals can participate.

The question of what joint appointments would mean was discussed in great detail. If you got a first-class heart specialist, why should he be confined to one hospital and the other six not have his services for their patients? This appointee will now be at the service of all seven hospitals and he will be on call at all seven hospitals and if he wants a particularly expensive instrument installed in one of the hospitals which he considers most suited for it, then the seven hospitals through the Council will have much more chance of getting assistance from the Department of Health for the installation of the apparatus than exists at the present time. The same goes for building.

I think this is a temporary Bill. I think the federation freely accepted, as the Minister has said, by agreement by the seven hospitals concerned, will in time develop into amalgamation. There will be great economies in the meanwhile and possibly the Department will be able then to indicate when it will be able to proceed with the erection in Dublin of regional hospitals which will be able to operate and to function as does St. Kevin's, which is one of the finest institutions we have from a hospital point of view, for the benefit of the people. We will not then have these older buildings which have been built up and extended from time to time. I do not know whether they are going to be 300 bed, 500 bed or 1,000 bed hospitals. These are things that the combined wisdom of all concerned will decide as being the best from a utilitarian point of view.

I regret that the Minister should have had to listen to this abuse of one section of our medical profession, but I can assure him on behalf of the seven hospitals that this Bill will be welcomed when it becomes an Act and that all concerned will be only too happy to work wholeheartedly to make the Bill, when it is an Act and when the Council is set up, a complete success.

After the speech of Deputy Briscoe, I do not think it requires any words of mine to refute the allegations which have been made by Deputy Dr. Browne. I deprecate very strongly the fact that he has seized on this Bill, which is a manifestation of the readiness of a section of the medical profession in Dublin to co-operate with one another and to co-operate with the Minister in order to give a better service to the public, to make an attack upon those concerned in bringing this situation about. I merely wish to say that I do not accept Deputy Dr. Browne's assessment of the profesional standing or competency of the doctors attached to these hospitals.

It is a very regrettable thing that, whenever an issue of any importance is discussed in this House, the Deputy is never able to approach it except from the point of view that everybody is motivated by narrow self-interest. That, of course, is the weakness of the Marxist philosophy which colours every pronouncement the Deputy makes in relation to any matter of public interest—the idea that every human effort is rooted in and dominated by materialistic motives. It is a pity that the Deputy, who, no doubt, is very sincere in his approach to social questions, should be inspired by a philosophy which disregards the spiritual instincts in mankind.

I am sorry that I had to say so much but I know how difficult in one sense it has been for those who were associated with these long-established traditions to come together and to turn their faces towards the idea that these traditions and the history which is behind them will be lost, as Deputy Briscoe has stated, in one regional or other institution which will supplant and replace them. There it is, however; I have said it and I do not want to say any more about it.

Deputy Dillon, the Leader of the Opposition, referred to the fact that the Central Council will consist of 40 members and suggested that that would be an unwieldy body to deal with the affairs of the federation. I have no doubt that those who compose that body, having manifested their ability to manage their own affairs and the affairs of their hospitals, will find a way of dealing with the problems which will face the federation. It is not outside their competency to decide that, from their 40 members, they will elect a central committee which will deal with the affairs of the hospital and the day-to-day affairs of the federation and, at the end of a period, present an account to the Central Council of their stewardship. I cannot see any real practical difficulty arising from the fact that there are 40 members on the Central Council.

The Deputy also seemed to think it rather strange that the committees which this Council might decide to set up should include in their number some persons who were not members of the Central Council. That is merely a precaution taken by these men of foresight to meet the situation where they might require specialist advice of a particular kind and where they might succeed in getting that specialist advice voluntarily. A number of matters which are dealt with in Sections 7 and 14 of the Bill partake of the nature, one might say, of the memorandum and articles of association of a company. They were anxious, and quite properly anxious, to provide for every contingency which they might be able to foresee and they have provided for that in the terms of the Bill.

There was one point of substance in what Deputy Dillon had to say. I want to make it quite clear that he was not antagonistic to the Bill, that his remarks were addressed to try to elucidate matters which appeared to him to require an explanation, and that in general he wished to be helpful. When I say "one point of substance," I do not wish that to be taken as a suggestion that he did not make a useful contribution to the debate. The point to which I refer, however, is a question whether, in relation to Article 6 of the Second Schedule, there should be the right of appeal to some person. I am not so certain that it would be easy to find an appellate tribunal which would be satisfactory to everybody, but I will put that point to those who are interested in the federation and, if they agree, on Committee Stage put some suggestion before the House in relation to it.

This is an agreed measure and it is permissive, as Deputy Dillon pointed out. It allows the seven long-established institutions to come together and to co-operate with one another with the ultimate purpose that one day they will merge into one institution. If they have come to an agreement on some rather ticklish matters, the House should be slow to criticise what they are proposing to do.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th May, 1961.
Top
Share