Vol. 17 No. 3
I move amendment 1:—
Section 1. To add at the end of the section the following:— the word "nurse" means a person registered by the General Nursing Council of Saorstát Eireann or certified as a midwife by the Central Midwives Board of Soarstát Eireann.
I am not sure if this amendment is necessary or advisable in view of the amendments previously inserted in the Bill. There is a definition of a nursing organisation, but that only applies to the nursing of the poor.
I second.
On the Committee Stage the Seanad inserted a number of amendments designed to give the Minister power to make a grant out of the Hospitals' Trust Fund to a nurses' pension fund. I do not think it would be in order at this stage to offer any observations on these amendments, but there is considerable doubt whether they are capable of achieving the object that was in the minds of the Senators responsible for them. The amendments really mix up two matters that to me appear to be separate. One is a subvention of portion of the fund towards a pension fund, and the other, a subvention of the fund towards a benevolent fund. A fund for helping necessitous, aged and infirm nurses is quite a different proposition from a pension fund of the type that Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger had in mind. The latter is essentially a form of endowment insurance, to which hospitals and nurses contribute, by which nurses benefit as a matter of legal right, whether necessitous or not. I realise that it is open to considerable doubt whether these remarks are in order or not, but I am leading to the point that this whole question has not got the examination that it should have got, even before this amendment could be accepted by the House.
I have given a considerable amount of thought to the question, both since it came before this House and while it was before the Dáil. I think if the matter were not pressed on this particular Bill and if Senator Dowdall and the House would agree to the withdrawal of the amendment until the question had further examination, I would undertake to the House to try to bring together the nursing organisations, the Committee of the Associated Hospitals and the various interested parties to see if a pension scheme could be evolved and, possibly, a benevolent fund established apart from any contributory pension scheme that might be evolved: that when that scheme would actually be in operation and a body set up to administer it, further legislation could be introduced enabling the Minister to give it the necessary financial assistance. I would suggest to Senator Dowdall that perhaps that undertaking might satisfy him and that it might satisfy the House. The question of a benevolent fund is a very simple matter, but a pension fund, as I indicated on amendments that were before the House on Committee Stage, is extremely complicated and difficult of solution. I cannot give an undertaking that these difficulties will be resolved because the establishment of a pension fund for nurses depends on factors that are altogether outside the control of the Minister. The undertaking which I do wish to give is, that we shall endeavour to bring the affected parties, or their representatives, together and see what can be done, and that we shall consider favourably proposals for legislation to enable any agreed scheme that may be evolved to be assisted out of the Hospitals' Trust Fund.
In view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. When I was tabling this amendment I did recognise that this was a very complicated matter. I am pleased to learn that the Parliamentary Secretary has devoted his attention to this, and I am sure, having regard to what he has said, that if all we desire is not obtained a considerable amount will be obtained. I do not know what the procedure is as regards deleting the amendments already adopted, but if the Minister moves in the Dáil to disagree with them, I can assure him that when the matter comes again before the Seanad he will have my support.
I welcome the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I think he has taken a very wise and judicious course. I think if it results in a scheme such as he anticipates—I hope it will eventually be introduced—it will be not only to his credit but to the credit of his Department.
I move amendment 2:—
New section. Before Section 18 to insert a new section as follows:—
18. Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall empower the Hospitals' Commission to make and submit to the Minister a scheme which shall involve an alteration of the constitution or an interference with the administration of a hospital which did not receive any benefit from any sweepstake promoted under the Public Charitable Hospitals Acts, 1930 to 1932 and does not receive any benefit from a sweepstake promoted under this Act and which does not receive any grant from a local authority.
The object of this amendment is to protect the hospitals, which take no money from the sweepstakes, from any interference by the Government in their constitution or their internal administration. It is only in Section 17 of the Bill that any danger of that kind can exist. The only danger to the hospitals which do get money under the sweepstakes is because of the conditions which the Minister can put on any grant that is made from the Hospitals' Trust Fund. I am speaking of hospitals, of one of which I am myself a governor, which do not take and have not taken any money whatever under the sweepstakes and, in all human probability, never will. Now the danger to these hospitals of possible Government interference is in Section 17. That is the section which applies to all hospitals, whether they take money under this Bill, or have taken it under the old Hospitals Acts: May I call the attention of Senators to two paragraphs of this section which define the functions of the Hospitals' Commission. The first of these functions is in paragraph (a). They are to do the following things:—
(a) on their own motion to inquire into, examine, and survey generally the hospital and nursing facilities existing in Saorstát Eireann and to collect, record and digest information in relation to such facilities, the needs of the people for such facilities, and the adjustment of such facilities to such needs;
That is altogether right. There is no objection whatever to that paragraph in the section applying to the kind of hospital on behalf of which I am speaking. On the contrary, I know from the board, of which I am a member, that they will welcome any application to them under that paragraph. They will be delighted to give any information and any help possible. It is paragraph (c) that contains the danger. Under this paragraph the Hospitals' Commission shall:
(c) at the request of the Minister, to make and submit to the Minister schemes for the improvement and co-ordination of hospital or nursing or both hospital and nursing facilities in the whole or any particular part of Saorstát Eireann.
Now that includes hospitals that do not take a grant; that do not take money under the sweepstakes. Under such a scheme for the co-ordination of hospital facilities—say a scheme which amalgamated a hospital that takes no money from the sweepstakes with another hospital—it would be quite possible that the scheme would interfere with the constitution and the internal administration of the affairs of a non-participating hospital. It is quite true that probably that could not happen without further legislation. I do not know what view the Parliamentary Secretary takes of that, but it is quite possible that that is the case. My objection is that it should not get into a scheme even under this Bill. There should not be any possibility under this Bill, which is really a measure for the administration of money that comes from the hospitals, of interfering, in the way I have described, with the internal affairs of a hospital that takes no benefit under these Acts.
I second the amendment.
There is no difference of opinion between Senator Brown and the Ministry is so far as the principle aimed at in his amendment is concerned. It seems to be entirely a question of the legal interpretation of the Minister's powers under the Bill. I am advised by the legal advisers that the Bill, as it stands, does not confer any power on the Hospitals' Commission to enter any institution that is not participating. Section 17 sets out the functions and duties of the Hospitals' Commission. The Senator will observe that these functions and duties are purely advisory. The Hospitals' Commission will not be an executive body. They will inquire, examine, investigate and report on draft schemes, but they may not visit the premises of non-participating hospitals. May I direct Senator Brown's attention to sub-section (6) of Section 14. As I have already stated, Section 17 sets out the functions and duties of the Hospitals' Commission. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 states that:—
For the purposes of performing his duties under this Act every member of the Hospitals Commission may visit all or any of the premises of any hospital or nursing organisation which shall have participated in any sweepstake promoted, under the Public Charitable Hospitals Acts, 1930 to 1932, or under this Act, or which shall have applied for a grant out of the Hospitals' Trust Fund under Section 23 hereof ...
and so on. That sub-section enables and authorises the Hospitals' Commission to visit the hospitals that are participating or applying for a grant for the purpose of performing the duties set out in Section 17. But there is nothing whatever in the Bill empowering the Hospitals' Commission to visit any institution that is not participating, or that does not apply for a grant. If this amendment were accepted it would raise the assumption that the Minister had power to alter the constitution of non-participating hospitals.
I have not alleged that.
Well, it would naturally be assumed that the Minister had power.
I have only stated that something included in a scheme say, for the co-ordination of hospital facilities might bring about Government interference with the internal affairs of a non-participating hospital.
At any rate it is a matter of interpretation of sub-section (6) of Section 14 read in conjunction with Section 17, and I am very definitely advised that the Minister has no such power.
I agree that the Minister has no such power. That is not my point. My point is that the Hospitals' Commission have the power of making and submitting to the Minister a scheme which might include conditions which would affect the internal administration of a non-participating hospital. If it is quite clear that there is no such power in the Bill, why not put it into the Bill? It can do no harm.
The only reason why we do not put something into a Bill prohibiting the Minister from doing something that he has not power to do is, that if we were to include all the things that the Minister has no power to do, the Bill would become very unwieldy.
Might I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that sub-section (6) of Section 14 only defines the powers of entry and examination into the accounts which the Hospitals' Commission shall have. If they were preparing a scheme for submission to the Minister they would, of course, prepare that scheme with a view to the Minister taking action, whether he had to get Parliamentary sanction or not. Assuming that he would have to get Parliamentary sanction for most schemes, they would include such a hospital, but they would have no powers to force such a hospital to submit to entry or examination of accounts. It is pretty obvious, however, that if the non-participating hospital found that it was going to be referred to in the scheme, it would much prefer that the full details should be available. It would not refuse permission because if it did, then it would be placing itself in an impossible position if it were liable to be included under a scheme which had not proper examination.
It is quite true that sub-section (6) does safeguard the non-participating hospitals so far as entry and examination are concerned but it does not safeguard them from being included in a scheme without such examination. While I do not think that that is likely to happen or that the Hospitals' Commission is likely to include a hospital without investigation, it might place a hospital in such a position that it would be virtually forced to comply inasmuch as, if it did not agree, it might give a false impression. This is not quite on a par with the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary as to putting everything you cannot do into a Bill. In this case, there is a definite section suggesting that the Hospitals' Commission may make an investigation.
Senator Brown admits that the Minister has no power to alter the constitution of these hospitals?
I agree.
Apparently, he has some uneasiness lest the Minister should attach conditions to the making of a grant which would have the effect of altering the constitution of a hospital.
I never suggested that. I merely said that the Hospitals' Commission might submit a scheme which would involve interference. I do not deny that the Minister has no power to interfere but, with the Commission, it is a case of "shall."
If the Hospitals' Commission did put something into a scheme which would involve alteration of the constitution of a hospital, the Minister would naturally delete that from the scheme, as he would have no statutory power to interfere with the constitution. The fact that such a recommendation was embodied in the scheme of the Hospitals' Commission would not bring it any further.
The Minister might have to take statutory powers to carry out the scheme. I want to prevent this being included in the scheme.
If a group of hospitals refuse to apply for assistance from this fund, does Senator Brown suggest that this Commission, which might be inquiring into the hospital and nursing services of the Free State, should be prohibited from suggesting anything to the Minister which might ultimately involve some interference with them? If that is the argument, I think that the amendment goes altogether too far. Surely, the Commission, if its inquiry into the larger question of hospital services is to be of any value, should be empowered to make a report to the Minister which might involve non-participating hospitals? Something else will have to follow that. We are not now speaking of empowering the Commission to do certain things but merely to make a report on hospital services. Half a dozen hospitals may decide to have nothing more to do with this scheme and yet the Commission might find that, in the interest of hospital services, there should be some sort of general co-ordination. If the Commission were prohibited from reporting in favour of such a reform, it would be calamitous.
Senator Johnson has, to some extent, raised the exact issue. This scheme is connected with the sweepstakes. If the State decides upon an investigation of the whole question of hospitals, apart from the question of sweepstakes, then a different question will arise. But here we have a scheme connected entirely with the sweepstakes. A hospital which decides, for its own reasons, to remain independent and to accept no assistance from the sweepstakes should be free to retain its independence unless some other complete State scheme is brought in.
The amendment would prohibit the Commission from reporting or inquiring with regard to such a hospital.
The Commission will be dealing with the allocation of funds in connection with the sweepstakes. The Senator wants, through the medium of this Bill, dealing with sweepstakes, to drag in these other hospitals so that the Hospitals' Commission will have power to include them. Hospitals which, for their own reasons, prefer to rely on voluntary subscriptions should not be interfered with except a general State scheme is brought in. Two or three hospitals may prefer to remain absolutely independent. They should be free to do so, so far as any Commission set up under this Bill is concerned. If the Minister desires an investigation of all the hospitals of the Saorstát, that will be a subject for a Hospitals Bill and not for a Sweepstakes Bill, since the sweepstakes may go on only for a few years or, on the other hand, may go on for a considerable time.
I think that there must be some misunderstanding. The Minister cannot interfere with non-participating hospitals. The Commission, which formulates a scheme for him, cannot interfere with non-participating hospitals. The scheme may, however, contain some reference to a non-participating hospital. Senator Brown is afraid that, if the scheme contains such a reference, which the Minister has no power to accept, it will be, in some way or other injurious to the non-participating hospital. Is not that what the Senator's amendment comes to? I do not see that the acceptance of Senator Brown's amendment can do any harm, nor do I see that it will do much good. I do not know why he should be so desperately anxious to preserve his non-participating hospitals from all inquiry. If they are so anxious to avoid inquiry and so afraid of the possibility of being mentioned in any hospitals scheme, it rather gives the impression that there is something to conceal. I know that there is nothing to conceal in respect of these non-participating hospitals. If the Parliamentary Secretary has no real objection, I should favour the acceptance of Senator Brown's amendment. However, that is a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary.
I am authorised by the Hospital Board of which I am a member to say that we will welcome any inquiry and give any assistance so long as our internal administration is not interfered with.
I support the amendment, which I think is a very reasonable one. I see no real objection to it. If certain hospitals prefer to remain outside the sweepstakes, I do not see how it will interfere in any way with the functions of the Hospitals' Commission.
I should like to support Senator Brown's amendment if I thought it was necessary. Let us suppose this amendment was not inserted in the Bill, and the Hospitals' Commission made a recommendation which included alterations in a non-participating hospital. If the Minister thought the idea was a good one, am I not right in assuming that he would have to bring in legislation in order to include that hospital in the scheme? I do not see the necessity for the amendment. It presupposes that, because hospitals have accepted moneys from the sweepstakes, their whole internal management is to be interfered with by the Hospitals' Commission. I do not believe that is going to occur. I hope it will not occur, and I do not think the Minister or anybody else would encourage that sort of thing. I do not see what real difference Senator Brown's amendment would make.
One point has, I think, been forgotten in this discussion. We know that these hospitals depend on private subscriptions. There has been a great deal of discussion as to persons sending subscriptions to hospitals which have accepted money from the sweepstakes. If any scheme was put forward by which an independent hospital was joined with a hospital accepting aid from the sweepstakes scheme, I can easily understand that the board of that hospital would be seriously concerned lest they should lose subscriptions. As Senator Brown has said, inspection is not the thing that is feared at all. What is feared is interference with internal management and the effect on the finances. If one of these hospitals was joined up with a participating hospital, subscribers would probably decline to send in their subscriptions. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to consider seriously whether Senator Johnson's reading of this provision is not the right one. Senator Johnson reads into the Bill what Senator Brown fears. The Parliamentary Secretary says he has no power to do anything of this kind. Senator Johnson says: "I think it is a very good thing, and the Minister should have power, if this Hospitals' Commission puts up a scheme whereby hospitals that have never taken money from the sweepstakes should be joined up with those who have——
That is not the point at all.
The Senator would enable the Hospitals' Commission to bring in a scheme, and he sees no reason why that scheme should not include hospitals which never had anything to do with the sweepstakes. The Parliamentary Secretary said it was impossible that such a thing should happen. I understood Senator Johnson to say that he thought that was included and that it ought to happen. Even if I have misquoted the Senator to any extent, it is quite evident that there is a difference of opinion. There are people who believe—perhaps they are right in their belief—that this Hospitals' Commission can put forward suggestions even without making inquiries in respect of hospitals that have not partaken of assistance from the sweepstakes. That fear shows that Senator Brown's amendment requires a great deal of attention. I think really that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to look into the matter and be quite clear that what Senator Brown is afraid of cannot possibly take place.
May I continue my original speech and draw attention to the change in the form of this amendment? An amendment introduced by Senator Brown on the Committee Stage read as follows:—
Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall empower the Minister to alter the constitution.
Senator Brown gave notice of that amendment on the Committee Stage.
I withdrew it.
I am drawing a distinction between the two wordings. I would have been entirely in favour of that proposition. The amendment read:—
Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall empower the Minister to alter the constitution or to interfere in the administration of an hospital which did not receive any benefit from any sweepstake, etc.
That is a proposition to which I imagine there would have been no difficulty in agreeing, on any side of the House, but Senator Brown did not proceed with it.
It did not arise under Section 17.
The same idea is there nevertheless. Here is the amendment now. It deals with Section 17 which imposes on the Hospitals' Committee certain duties one of which is "at the request of the Minister to make and submit to the Minister schemes for the improvement and co-ordination of hospital or nursing or both hospital and nursing facilities".
I suggest that the Commission surveying the facilities for hospital services in the country may come across one, two or three hospitals that are entirely apart from the scheme and may suggest to the Minister that it would be desirable to bring those hospitals into review and to fit them into a scheme with the hospitals which are getting a benefit from the sweeps, without at all touching the administration, without in any way interfering with the management but simply saying: "Here are hospitals that are entirely apart from the sweepstakes and they are doing certain work. There are other hospitals which are participating and they are doing certain other work. Let us see whether we cannot suggest to the Minister a scheme for co-ordinating the work of these hospitals but leaving the independent hospitals still with their independence". This amendment would prevent the Commission from making any such suggestion.
No.
"Nothing contained in the last preceding section shall empower the Hospitals Commission to make and submit to the Minister a scheme which shall involve an alteration of the constitution or an interference with the administration of a hospital".
That is the only limitation.
But the report of the Committee does not alter the Constitution, the administration or the management. The report of the Committee simply says to the Minister: "There are services and facilities for dealing with the sick and infirm. Here is another institution which is outside this general scheme and it is also dealing with the sick and infirm. We suggest to the Minister that that institution ought to be approached with a view to co-ordinating its work with the general hospital services". It seems to me that if you prevent this Commission making an enquiry and reporting on those lines you are diminishing very gravely the value of the Commission.
Senator Johnson in his very laboured speech has not answered what Senator Jameson has said. Senator Jameson's objection is that the mere fact of this Commission making a report involving a non-participating hospital will have the effect of depriving the non-participating hospital of its charitable donations. What answer is given to that? I think the Minister ought to consider carefully what Senator Johnson has said.
Might I remind Senator Johnson that my amendment objects to a scheme involving interference? I specially set that out.
I think the House ought to remember that there are a number of people here who, possibly for very bad reasons, dislike sweepstakes. They are extremely chary— one hears it from various quarters— that the few hospitals which remain independent should be brought into the scheme or forced into the position later that they would have to take part in it. I am not suggesting that that is a good or a reasonable point of view. I am only stating that I know it to be a fact that some people hold that view. If this Bill gives to the Committee the liberty of suggesting, as Senator Johnson said, the inclusion of such hospitals in the scheme, even though that gives them no actual power, there is very grave danger to the hospitals who remain independent. People may say to them: "You cannot hold out much longer, and we will stop subscribing." I think the House may take that as being the fact.
I suggest this amendment would prevent the Minister doing things which he has power to do now.
There are a couple of points to which I should like to refer. It appears to me that if this amendment were accepted by the House it would interfere with the Hospitals' Commission in completing a survey of the hospitals services. Senator Brown agrees with me that the Minister has no statutory power to alter the constitution of any hospital, participating or non-participating. It is perfectly clear then that there can be no damage done to any non-participating hospital, if the Hospitals' Commission in their report make a recommendation in regard to that hospital in the scheme that they submit to the Minister. It is argued by Senator Jameson and Senator Douglas that it might do definite harm or might interfere with the flow of subscriptions if it became known or if a suggestion for the incorporation of a non-participating hospital in a scheme of co-ordination, went out. Senators should bear in mind that the report of the Hospitals' Commission regarding any scheme of co-ordination will be to the Minister and no scheme will go to the public until the Minister has approved of it. He cannot approve of any scheme or operate any scheme that involves interference with the constitution of the hospitals. Senator Brown admits that the Minister could not operate such a scheme interfering with any of the non-participating hospitals, but he says that the Minister may come along and take statutory powers to put such a scheme into operation. It appears to me that it would be quite time enough to press that point when the Minister sought statutory powers to put such a scheme into operation.
Might I put it this way to the Parliamentary Secretary? Suppose, instead of a number of subscribers, one philanthropic gentleman maintained a large hospital, regulated it himself, and bore all the expenditure on it, would that hospital not be independent of the Hospitals' Commission? Are not these hospitals exactly in the same position? I think it would be monstrous to expect that these hospitals, who get nothing out of the sweep, should be in any way interfered with, or that anything should be done in regard to them which would deprive them of subscriptions. As Senator Johnson has said, the effect of the sweep has been to reduce voluntary subscriptions all round. These hospitals that have to depend on voluntary subscriptions would probably lose practically all their subscriptions if they were included in such a scheme as is suggested. I think Senator Brown intimated that there would be almost a complete desire to have inspection and so on.
Might I ask the question: is there anything in Senator Brown's amendment, if carried, to prevent the Commission from making reference to the non-participating hospitals in regard to any scheme, provided that scheme does not involve interference with the hospitals? I think there is not.
The wording of this amendment is perfectly clear. If it were accepted the Commission would not be empowered to make or submit a scheme "which shall involve an alteration of the Constitution or an interference with the administration of a hospital." They could not report to the Minister in regard to it. To my mind it would be necessary that they should report to the Minister and recommend schemes of hospitalisation that would involve all institutions. While the Minister would have no statutory power to interfere in the way that the Senator is afraid he might, he could not, if this amendment were accepted, negotiate with the non-participating hospitals to see how far they might be included in a co-ordination scheme.
I move amendment No. 3:
Section 24, sub-section (5). To add at the end of the sub-section the words: "Provided, however, that no conditions shall be attached to the receipt of any such grant in any way relating to the appointment, dismissal or control of the staff of any hospital or nursing organisation or to the management or administration of any hospital or nursing organisation.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent undue interference by the Minister in the ordinary management of the participating hospitals. As I am anxious to meet the Parliamentary Secretary as far as possible, I should like, with the permission of the House, to alter the wording of the amendment and, in the second last line, to delete the words "or administration" and to insert the word "internal" before the word "management." The amendment would then read:
. . . . . . . or to the internal management of any hospital or nursing organisation.
The position is that these hospitals have carried on, and have carried on well, for many years, on voluntary subscriptions. With this sweep money coming in now and with the Minister claiming the power to make certain orders in connection with the hospitals there is a genuine fear amongst certain hospitals that there will be undue interference and it is really to prevent that that I have put forward this amendment.
Might I interrupt the Senator? It is rather a pity that the Senator would not go a little farther, when I would try to meet him in this matter. Perhaps, the House might agree to stop the amendment at the word "organisation" and to leave out the question of management because we are going to have the same difficulty about interpreting what "management" means and as to the very wide meaning that might attach to it if it became a matter of interpretation, subsequently, in a court of law. It would save a great deal of the time of the House if the Senator could come that distance to meet me. We do not want to interfere with the staffs at all or with the ordinary internal management, but "management" is capable of a very wide interpretation.
I think I would be prepared to accept that. It is really what I wanted to get at. The Minister assures us that he has no intention of interfering in the internal management and it was about the staff that I was really anxious. It is undue interference I want to prevent.
There will be no interference, even without the amendment.
The amended amendment will then read:—
Provided, however, that no conditions shall be attached to the receipt of any such grant in any way relating to the appointment, dismissal or control of the staff of any hospital or nursing organisation.
Might I point out that it would require a further amendment, unless it is intended to deprive the Minister of certain present powers? It is probably a matter for lawyers, but, as the hospitals concerned include hospitals provided by local authorities, the Minister must have power to interfere with the staffs to some degree in that respect, and therefore the amendment, as amended, would require a further proviso setting out that it did not intend to restrict the powers of the Minister in respect of public authority hospitals.
I think that that would really not be necessary. This simply provides the conditions attaching to a grant and these would not be conditions attaching to a grant, but to the whole hospital. The Minister will, no doubt, look into it, because Senator Johnson may be right. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to accept this. The last amendment was designed to enable some hospitals to stay out of the scheme and this is to enable some to stay in it.
Judging by previous discussions on other Bills, the Minister made grants to local hospitals on certain conditions and these conditions may involve certain administrative changes and, therefore, I think that this amendment would require a proviso setting out that it did not apply to public hospitals, that is, publicly owned hospitals of local authorities.
Has the Minister not already got ample powers to deal with local authority hospitals under the various Local Government Acts?
I fancy he has, but it is as well to consider the point raised by Senator Johnson.
It can be dealt with between now and the time when the Bill goes to the Dáil.
If the Senator who has proposed the amendment has not agreed to the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion, I should like to ask——
He did agree. I will put the amended amendment, as follows:—
Provided, however, that no conditions shall be attached to the receipt of any such grant in any way relating to the appointment, dismissal or control of the staff of any hospital or nursing organisation.
The Final Stage will be taken on the next sitting day.
Is there any great difficulty in taking the Final Stage now?
There would be. Amendments have been passed and they have to be carefully perused to see that they are all in order.
Final Stage ordered for the next sitting day.
