I want to have my opposition recorded.
Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill—Fifth Stage.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put.
I want to say just a few words and it is not in criticism of the Bill but in answer to some remarks made during the discussion on this Bill. Senators have said that we who were criticising the Bill had nothing to propose and that we were really opposing a Bill which was absolutely necessary for the hospitals. I would just like to make one or two remarks about the hospitals and their present position and I want to make plain the action of those of us who are criticising the Bill and the position we have taken up about it. The real object of this Bill is to raise money temporarily to get the hospitals out of the difficult position which they are in at present. My real objection to this Bill is that it is dealing in a temporary way with a problem that should be dealt with in quite a different way altogether. I hold that this Bill is not going to mend the position of the hospitals at all in reality or to make them good and efficient hospitals as they ought to be. This Bill will I hope get over the temporary trouble. It will pay off the bank overdrafts and relieve the guarantors of their difficulties. It will enable them to go on with their work and rid themselves of their debts in the next four years. But a good many of us think it is a Bill that will interfere very much with the support hitherto given by a great many members of the charitable public to the hospitals. If one were disposed in any way to make a suggestion of what might happen it might very well be this—there would be plenty of people who will say: "These charitable hospitals have now gone in for sweepstakes, and why should I spend my money in subscribing to these hospitals—why should I not spend my money in buying a ticket on the sweepstakes?" In that event the hospitals would get about 20 per cent. of that money. That is why I say that this is not going to place the hospitals on a permanently satisfactory basis.
We have been asked if we have any suggestions at all. My suggestion is that undoubtedly there ought to be some inquiry by a perfectly independent body of people into the present condition of the hospitals. They are admittedly practically bankrupt. They are admittedly unable to carry on in their present condition. We ought to have some independent inquiry as to whether there is not some other way beyond this merely temporary suggestion to improve the position of the hospitals. This Bill is only postponing the difficulty and we will be in a worse position to deal with it in four years' time. In my opinion we should have a proposition from the promoters of this Bill that during the time that this Bill keeps the hospitals going we are going to have an inquiry as to whether this large number of small hospitals should be kept on and whether it is not the experience of all people connected with hospitals in every country in the world that the way we are dealing with the problem is the worst possible way of dealing with it; whether we should not have in front of us the best ways in which the hospitals are worked abroad? That is to say one or two or three great hospitals with enormous economies in management would really do the work of the hospitals as it should be done and would enable them to have money to carry out great research problems.
The difficulties at present are that there is no money amongst the hospitals to enable them to carry on research. These hospitals are the schools in which our medical men and surgeons are reared and from these hospitals they get launched into their professions. Up to now the Dublin medical schools have held a very high name and men with degrees from the Dublin schools are taken everywhere. If we do not get modern research machinery and get special individuals paid for research work we will go down.
This problem is not alone before the Dublin hospitals. It is before the British hospitals of every description as well. At a meeting of a great British hospital in the North of England a week ago, one big Scottish man said that he gave five years to the British hospitals to be able to carry on on their present lines. He said that because of the great increase in taxation the usual sources of charity are going to be dried up and the hospitals will not be able to carry on as at present. Well, at the present moment we in Dublin are in the position in which the Scottish man said the hospitals in the North of England would be in in five years. We are not taking the proper steps to remedy this state of affairs now. The suggestion I make is that a really great committee of scientific people, with perhaps a few business people also, would be formed and go into the troubles of the present position and see what is wrong with them and how they could be remedied. If, for instance, it could be ascertained how you could build two or three great hospitals on the most modern plans, how steps could be taken to get the money for that purpose, by a loan supported with a Government guarantee, the problem might be solved. That could be arranged by a guarantee so as to put the hospitals on a basis for dealing with the problems facing them.
I hold that Dublin in its position in the Free State ought to be a great centre for hospital work. Undoubtedly, as far as education is concerned anyone can see what a great benefit that would be. If we let this go on as it is we will find four years hence that we will be in a much worse position than we are in at present. I hope that the discussion on this Bill will cause some of the hospitals hereafter to get together a committee of independent men to go into this.
I should add that on that committee there should be some ladies also, for they know a great deal about this question of the hospitals. Such a committee should go into this whole problem and let us have a report on it. If this Bill had been accompanied by any such suggestion, if it was stated that it was only a temporary thing, and that during the time that this sweepstake business was going on there would be a real inquiry into the hospitals, I would be one of the first to support the Bill. As the matter stands at present I will not vote against the Bill, but I do not think it is of any use in really improving hospital conditions in the City of Dublin. I am saying this because I feel that some move should be made in this either by the hospitals themselves or by the Government. It is quite possible in this way to evolve a great scheme for the benefit of the Dublin hospitals. It cannot be done by sweepstakes. It can only be done by big capital and the making of a great change in the state of the affairs that exist at present in the case of hospitals.
I am in full agreement with the views that have been expressed just now by Senator Jameson on this particular question. The reason I have endeavoured to give all the support I could to this Bill is because I believe it is purely a temporary matter. I know the conditions in some of the Dublin hospitals at present. Unless some relief is got immediately they cannot carry on. That is why I have done my best to help in getting this Bill through. Senator Jameson has raised a larger issue. I entirely agree that this Bill will not solve the problem and that some great effort will have to be made to deal with the whole position in connection with the hospitals. This is only a weak measure. But some effort has been made. Senator Jameson spoke about research. It is only a year ago that I went to one of the best hospitals in Dublin. The master of the hospital brought me around and showed me the work he was endeavouring to do. He told me about the research work that he was having carried out in one particular disease and the dreadful scourge this malady was to the women in Dublin. I know that he was paying out of his own pocket money in order to have this research work carried out. That was the late Doctor Louis Cassidy. Senator O'Farrell will remember that Dr. Cassidy waited on prominent Ministers of State asking them to get something done to help in research work but since then nothing has been done. In view of that, those of us who have supported this Bill— I must say against our will, because of its dire necessity we were compelled to do so—believe it is the best thing that could be done at the moment. I hope as a result of this measure that some real practical steps will be taken on the lines suggested by Senator Jameson to deal with the whole question of the hospitals as it requires to be dealt with. In conclusion I want to say that I have been playing a peculiar role in connection with this Bill. In my case it is the story of the poacher turned gamekeeper. My usual role has been to criticise measures introduced. But in this case I was placed in the position of trying to pilot this. Bill through its Committee and Report Stages. I had some passages with Senators during the debate on the Bill. I think they will appreciate that what I said was said without malice. I appreciate the earnestness of those who oppose the Bill, I thank them for the consideration they have given me in my task.
My opposition to this Bill is owing to two causes. The first is that it seems to be a Bill that is rather a ponderous and inelegant machine for getting what is really only a paltry sum for the hospitals. I use the term "inelegant" because it does not seem a graceful way for dealing with the sick and infirm, and it is ponderous because large sums will have to be raised. I might say millions will have to be lashed about, in order to get this sum for the hospitals. It reminds me of a Heath Robinson cartoon depicting an elaborate electro-hydraulic steam-engine specially designed to kill a wounded gnat. Those who are promoting this Bill told us that they tried other means; but that in the meantime the hospitals want money, and they say this is only a stop-gap. But the danger is that the stop may remain in the gap if this Bill is very successful. My main objection is the matter of the danger of such a measure. It is a thing that could have been obviated had the Minister been here—at least my difficulty in the matter could if I had realised the thing in time or had an amendment down. I refer to the dangers that the promoters are in. Amendments introduced to-day by Senator Farren have obviated the danger of general or wholesale corruption on the part of the sellers of tickets. But as far as the promoters are concerned there is very little protection except the audit. There are many ways of getting round an audit.
There is one question I would like to ask the Minister and, as he is not here, I will ask Senator Farren if he can answer me—though I am sure that the Senator could only deal with one section while the Minister could deal with the whole Bill. As the Bill stands it is quite possible for the Minister to sanction a promoter who would have been found guilty in a Court of Justice of defrauding. That is the position as the Bill stands. A man who might have been found guilty of defrauding the revenue of a great deal of money can, under this Bill, be made a promoter of a sweepstake. I think there should be some guarantee by those in charge of the Bill that, as far as they can, they will assure us that no such person shall be appointed promoter. I think it is an awful pity that the Minister refuses to come here. Whether the Minister is the promoter of the Bill or not is beside the question. Once this Bill becomes an Act he becomes responsible for the administration of it. For that reason I say it is a pity he is not here. I would like to ask Senator Farren or Senator Fanning what they have to say in the matter. A public statement will do no harm.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.