During the debate on Second Reading, I asked for certain information from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the effect of such changes as would be made in the status of an established hospital by its establishment. In particular, I invited him to tell the House in what relation the established hospital would stand to the authority of the Minister, whether it would be in the same position exactly as, say, one of the county hospitals or other old hospital under a local authority which is under the supervision of the Minister and the expenditure of which is subject to the approval of the Minister in matters of detail. I asked him whether an established hospital would be to the same degree, or comparably, under the control of the Minister after he has made the Establishment Order. On some other matters the Parliamentary Secretary, though not regarding the observations of those who took part in the debate as being serious or important, made what, no doubt, could be called a reply to the observations, but on this point, through an oversight apparently, he did not give any information. I invite him now to give some more information to the House on the matter I have just raised.
Hospitals Bill, 1938—Committee and Final Stages.
I think I can deal with Senator Rowlette's point very briefly, when I draw attention to the fact that the many matters set out in the Schedule to the Bill are matters regarding which provision may be made—"may be made"—and that matters in respect to which provision will, in fact, be made in an Establishment Order are matters for agreement between the committee of management seeking the Order and the Minister. Nothing will be included in the Order unless by agreement with the committee seeking the Order. When a local authority is concerned in conjunction with a voluntary hospital the full acquiescence to the agreement of the local authority has to be sought and obtained before the Minister can make an Order. I think that Senator Rowlette will agree that in a Bill such as this, as I think I stated here on the Second Reading, power must be taken to deal with practically all and every set of circumstances and conditions that may present themselves. It is impossible accurately to anticipate at the moment what exactly might be incorporated in any Establishment Order which, in fact, can only be worked out by the people seeking the Order in consultation with the Minister and the local authorities concerned.
The Parliamentary Secretary has, I think, probably due to my fault, somewhat misunderstood the nature of my query. I agree with what he said, that in dealing with the various provisions of the Bill on Second Reading, he endeavoured to settle the doubts of certain Senators and many members of the public, by stating frankly what was the intention of the Minister and himself in regard to the working of this Bill when it becomes law. I quite accept all he said now as to the details being a matter of consideration and agreement in such cases, but what I would like to get from him—I suppose I did not make my request sufficiently precise a few moments ago—is what in general would be the intention of the Minister as regards the position I asked about, namely, the degree of control which the Minister would have over these established hospitals. I do not expect him to go into details, but just to give us a general notion as to whether the hospitals would be entirely under the control of the Minister as a rate-supported hospital or whether it would have a degree of freedom. As he endeavoured to reassure us on other points by stating the intentions of the Minister, I hope he will endeavour to reassure us on this point.
I am afraid I cannot give any more specific assurances than I have already given to the House. The degree of control that will be exercised by the Minister in an Establishment Order will, in fact, represent the conditions and the terms of the Establishment Order. It is in relation to such matters as these that an Establishment Order will be made. As the House is aware, apart from the very elaborate machinery to ensure complete agreement before the Order is made, an Order can be annulled by either House. If you get complete agreement between the local authorities concerned and the governing body of the voluntary hospitals, and if the Order after being made by the Minister comes along to the Dáil and survives the test there, if it is subjected to a test, and also gets through this House, I think there cannot be anything very objectionable in an Order which manages to wend its way along that rather difficult passage. I cannot be more specific than that. I cannot anticipate what will be in the Order. I might mention perhaps, as a guide or an indication to Senator Rowlette, that it could reasonably be assumed that an Establishment Order would take the shape of the Cork Fever Hospital Act, or the recent Dublin Fever Hospital Act. I think it could with safety be assumed that the Ministerial control embodied in these two Acts would ordinarily be incorporated in an Establishment Order.
I should like to say a word on the Schedule, partly arising out of the fears which Senator Rowlette obviously has about the future and apparently about which he prefers not to be too specific. The Parliamentary Secretary is making certain that he will be just as remote from the probabilities of what an Order may contain as he conceivably can be. You have in the Schedule all the matters to which an Establishment Order may refer, and the Parliamentary Secretary says that power must be taken to deal with any set of circumstances that may arise. Obviously, what is in Senator Rowlette's mind is what the Minister will do in a particular set of circumstances. What will this Establishment Order contain and what will be the Minister's reaction to the attitude of the voluntary hospital if the Establishment Order is not to their liking? That, of course, is the problem. What will the Parliamentary Secretary do? He was questioned here on the last day on Second Reading by Senator Rowlette, who raised the point as to whether there would be any political pressure exercised.
Financial pressure.
Financial pressure which of course, would be the same thing, because the peculiar position in the country is that political powers have also the powers over finance. I would not be too sure that if the Parliamentary Secretary wanted to have a particular Establishment Order made operative, rightly or wrongly, if he came to the decision that it should be made operative, that he would not be prepared to exercise all and every pressure within his power. I would urge Senator Rowlette to press as strongly as he can for a declaration from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary that, when it comes to the time to deal with any particular hospital, political considerations will not weigh, that questions of the proper treatment of the sick, the desires and the competence of the people who have been running the voluntary hospitals— and not other considerations that might be present to the Parliamentary Secretary—will be the factors that will determine the decision. In reply to an interjection of mine the other day, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he did not agree with me. He took pride in the fact that he did not agree with me. I am not apologising for not agreeing with the Parliamentary Secretary because, from my experience, I am quite prepared to say in this House that, in my judgment, the Parliamentary Secretary will not stop at exercising any and every pressure that he can exercise, if he wants to achieve a particular aim.
It would be well for Senator Rowlette and those who are interested in the voluntary hospitals to get what guarantees they can possibly secure from the Parliamentary Secretary now, and to do their best to see that, when an Establishment Order is being made out by him, he will live up to the promises he gives now, if they can extract a promise from him, because those of us who watch the exercise of authority in the sphere of local government, who are very close to things and who know very well what goes on, cannot take pride in many of the things done by the most responsible people in control and, unfortunately, when they set the standard for the lesser lights down the country, we are not elevating the tone of local administration. The statement of the Parliamentary Secretary that power must be taken to deal with any and every set of circumstances that would arise is an indication that he wants from this House carte blanche authority to exercise what way he wills in any set of circumstances, and, judging by our experience in the past, it is not always justice and what is right that will be the dominating consideration. If I have to be any more definite or specific, I can.
I am sorry I have to repeat a remark I made on the previous day, that I am afraid still that, so far as Senator Baxter is concerned, all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye.
I was hoping that Senator Rowlette would have repudiated the suggestion by Senator Baxter that he had made charges of what amounted to political corruption.
I did repudiate it. I corrected it by an interruption. I said "financial" and not "political."
I hope the House will note that. I did not catch the interruption. In these circumstances, I think there is no need to delay the House in dealing with the little political tirade which we had from my little friend from Cavan. I just avail of this opportunity to tell him, in case he does not know, that any pressure I consider necessary to exercise for the people of this country in relation to hospitals or any other matter with which I may be called upon to deal I will exercise without any fear of the consequences of the type of criticism we have been treated to by Senator Baxter. I do not suppose the House pays much attention to him. I do not, because I know him too well.
You do not know him.
I pay to him the same degree of attention that the people of Cavan, his own county, pay him any time he gives them an opportunity of pronouncing judgment on him.
I do not know that the Parliamentary Secretary has shown a very benevolent attitude in this matter in talking about a member of the House as his "little friend from Cavan," and in introducing into his brief remarks as much venom as any man could possibly introduce. I am a little nervous about having the care of the sick poor of this country in the hands of that type of man, and, consequently, I should like to have some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department, or the Department of Local Government, is not going to act in such a biased manner as he appears to adopt here, because the care of the sick poor is an important function and ought to be in the charge of somebody who had at any rate toleration.
So far as the hospitalisation of the City of Dublin is concerned, it is not at all satisfactory. I do not suppose I can deal with the matter of hospitalisation generally on this Bill, but I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary when the central bureau is going to be established in this city and where the working people are going to get proper treatment in the hospitals in the city. In an organisation with which I am connected, complaints are general as to the treatment the people are getting, and I should like to know from him whether he is prepared to take this matter up soon and deal with it so as to give some confidence and satisfaction to the working class of the city. Too much time has been wasted and too little has been done to provide hospital accommodation for the working class. They are expected to pay more for hospital treatment now than ten years ago. They are presented with bills, and only the other day a case was brought to my notice where a man made application, through his medical adviser, to seven hospitals for the admission of his wife, and before they could get a bed for her, the woman was dead. This is creating a great deal of uneasiness in the minds of the workers of the city, and the great benefits we looked forward to seem to be as far away as ever. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Department generally, will become active so as to give the workers these benefits which ought to be available now. They are in abeyance and will remain in abeyance until the people become turbulent and give a lot of trouble.
I am very loath to intervene here, but a certain slur has been cast on the City of Dublin hospitals and, as I happen to have some association with some of them, I should like to have something specific from the Senator. It is all very well to say that application was made to hospitals, but he knows, and every other commonsense person knows, that the hospitals in the city are very much overcrowded and, very often, a bed may not be vacant. If a bed is not vacant, I suggest that a patient cannot be taken in.
Surely if there are not beds, there should be.
In answer to the Senator, if there are 30, 40 or 100 beds in a hospital already occupied, would he suggest that a sick person be taken out of a bed to make room for a new patient?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
This is a discussion more appropriate on the Fifth Stage. We are discussing the Schedule at the moment.
I thought we were on the Final Stage.
I want to express in the strongest possible manner my approval of the statement made by Senator Foran. I happen to be on public boards in and around the City of Dublin for the last ten years, and I am sorry to say that, despite what we see and all we hear about the thousands of pounds now being given to hospitals from Hospitals' Trust funds, the only hospital that is available for the poor patient from the city or county is the Dublin Union Hospital. That is the one hospital always open to the poor, and there is no other. I am not going to find fault with the Dublin Union Hospital because those in charge there go out of their way to do what they can for the poor, but there are many people who would die at home rather than go to the Union Hospital. I am not saying that that is a correct attitude, but they have a feeling that the Union Hospital has some stain about it which they do not like. So far as the officials, the R.M.S. and the staff in the Dublin Union are concerned, they are the hardest worked staff in the country. They are, however, only human, and capable of dealing with only a certain number of patients. They get more than they can give attention to and it is very hard on a sick person going there, because one doctor has to deal with more patients than he has to deal with in any of the other hospitals. I think we have reached a time when the poor of the county should get a good hospital where they would be removed from inmate attendance. I am glad to have the opportunity of drawing the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that that is the only hospital open day and night to the poor of the city and county, and to tell Senator Healy that I had experience of a case last year in which application for a bed was made to ten hospitals without success, and, finally, the only hospital was the Union Hospital, but the patient would not go there and he died at home. I do not say that that patient would have lived if he had gone to hospital, but that was the position. Surely it is time that the position with regard to the hospitals in Dublin was changed?
I am glad that we have it now from the Parliamentary Secretary——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the Senator going to discuss the Dublin hospitals?
No, the Schedule, and what the Minister can put in an Establishment Order. We have had it very definitely from the Parliamentary Secretary that any and every means will be employed when the Department want to take a decision with regard to a hospital.
For what purpose?
In an Establishment Order, when they want to get control.
Any and every means will be employed for what purpose?
When they want to get control. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary intimated.
That is not what the Parliamentary Secretary indicated.
Well, what did he indicate?
What I understood the Parliamentary Secretary said was, that any and every means will be taken to do what is best for the Irish people. I did not understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that every means will be taken to secure control.
If Senator O'Donovan is finished, I can continue without further interruption. The words used by the Parliamentary Secretary were "any and every means will be employed." Of course, we know he said also "to do what is best." He said that, but if the House knew the Parliamentary Secretary as well as I do, his interpretation of "what is best" is a very strange interpretation. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary made personal reference to what happened. I could point out very obviously in reply, that if we were all prepared to adopt the means the Parliamentary Secretary adopts with regard to people—purchasing one half and intimidating the other half—
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think this has gone far enough.
I must really interrupt the Senator at this stage, in view of the statement that a responsible Parliamentary Secretary would try to intimidate one half the people and purchase the other half. When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking, at least, he mentioned specific things about Senator Baxter. Let Senator Baxter be specific in his statements as far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, but let him not broadcast innuendoes.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
There will be full protection by the Chair.
It is Senator Baxter's reference caused this.
I am prepared to be very specific and to mention all sorts of names if the Parliamentary Secretary wants it.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think the Chair has something to say to this.
Would the Chair ask Senator Baxter to withdraw the definite statement he made here, that the Parliamentary Secretary had purchased one half the people and intimidated the other half?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think Senator Baxter should do so.
I am sorry that someone else did not advert to the statement.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think Senator Baxter should withdraw.
If I am asked to withdraw, well, I suppose I withdraw the words. With regard to the Schedule to the Bill, it is not good enough at all that the Parliamentary Secretary should indicate what is proposed in the manner he did when such extraordinary powers are being taken and where there is a feeling of a certain amount of disturbance on the part of certain people with regard to hospitals in the country. It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary when questioned to answer in a general way which gives him scope to mean that any and every means will be employed to carry out the policy he wants to carry out. The only interpretation that could be put on it by people who speak for voluntary hospitals is that when the Parliamentary Secretary makes up his mind that such and such is going to be done it is jolly well going to be done and there is no redress. People have been doing the work here before the Parliamentary Secretary came into power, and they gave a great deal of time and attention to the poor. It is not so easy to find people to-day who are prepared to give time and attention to that sort of work. Those who are engaged on it should get every possible encouragement. As a matter of fact, it is the sort of service that the country could do very well with. If such citizens find that it is only a matter of time until complete control is to be taken out of their hands their whole attitude towards that kind of service will be changed. It is quite clear from the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary the kind of reception he would give to a proposal when it came before him. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, has his way of doing things, and his way is very frequently open to considerable criticism. We have evidence all over the country with regard to this matter of hospitalisation, where some people can get everything and other people nothing, or if they are to get it they have to wait for years. Hundreds and thousands of pounds can be spent in one county and not a penny in adjoining counties. There will be suspicion if in one county, such as the Parliamentary Secretary's county, money is spent and in neighbouring counties not a penny.
I want to make it clear that, as far as the hospitals in the city of Dublin are concerned the accommodation is not nearly adequate for the requirements of the city.
That is better.
When Senator Healy talked about patients having to leave beds to make room for others. I want to point out that the reason why many of these patients are there is because they can give cheques for £3 or £4 a week, while Dublin citizens are not able to do so.
Poor people get into these hospitals without any cheques.
The influx of patients from outside is depriving city people of a proper hospital service. In view of all the facilities provided for the treatment of the sick poor, we are not nearly as far advanced as we should be, considering the advantages we have. Whoever causes the delays that take place should be scourged. My experience is that the working people of the city are not adequately provided for in the way of hospital service. I am perfectly satisfied that the Dublin hospitals are doing all they possibly can, according to their means, but every opportunity should be given them to increase the number of beds available. I venture to say that an increase of 10 per cent in hospital accommodation in the city is infinitesimal compared to other places. I am not putting any stigma on the Dublin hospitals, but I say there is a crying need for greater hospital services in the city.
I do not propose to follow some of the recent speakers, but I may be permitted to say to Senator Tunney, that if he put himself in my guidance for an hour some morning I could convince him that some of the statements he made are not accurate. He said something to the effect that there was no admission for poor patients to Dublin hospitals, except the Union. I can assure him that I could disprove that statement in five minutes.
Let him go over to the hospitals any morning at nine o'clock.
There is one hospital, and it is not a general hospital, whose doors have never been closed. That hospital never refused admission to a poor woman during an existence of nearly 200 years, and no questions are asked as to whether she can or cannot produce cheques. In the debate on the Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary remarked that he did not believe Senators who had spoken on the Bill had any genuine fears. I can assure him, certainly for myself and, I think, for other Senators, that there is anxiety as to the possible application of this Bill, and that people are very nervous indeed. I can assure him further, that a great many people interested in the work of the Dublin hospitals, people who have known something of the advantages of the work of the voluntary hospitals, have considerable anxiety about the application that could be made of this Bill. I am not charging the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister with any evil intentions, or any of his successors with evil intentions, but I think the powers given are dangerous, and might be used dangerously in future. The Parliamentary Secretary may or may not accept my statement that there is genuine fear and, in my view, fear amongst people in the country. He endeavoured to allay fears I expressed a few minutes ago as to what the effect of the terms of the management Order might be, with which we dealt on the Schedule. He relied on the machinery of the Bill as an assurance that nothing against the wishes of the management of voluntary hospitals, and nothing against the wishes of the local authority could take place in the Establishment Order, which must be a matter of agreement between them and the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary and everyone here know that the machinery in the Bill is not the only machinery which might be effective when dealing with an Establishment Order; that the machinery which might be effective, and might be imposed, might be the power of the purse with the Minister. That machinery, as I endeavoured to point out, as laid down in the Bill, does not provide such adequate safe-guards against such questions in the future.
I referred in a previous debate to the financial pressure that might be there. That might be with good intentions. I do not intend any other kind of pressure, and I dissociate myself from a word used by Senator Baxter when he thought he was quoting me. I did not use such a word or propose to use it. Others may think it proper or justifiable. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to recent Acts dealing with the establishment of fever hospitals as an assurance as to terms of management Orders in the future. I must admit that he has not reassured me by that reference. One essential difference between voluntary hospitals, and hospitals under public control, is the elasticity of the former as compared with the latter, whereby action can be taken at once, where it is urgently necessary, by the responsible authority on the spot, and where such authority has not to be secured from a superior authority. The approval may be given without the delay. Delay is a physical necessity in getting approval in the other case, and that is a danger to the efficient working of an hospital. If a voluntary hospital makes the mistake of spending too much money which on further consideration may not appear to have been necessary, immediate action can be taken. Immediate action and immediate expenditure may be necessary there, but such cannot take place in an hospital under the supervision of superior authority at a distance to which communications may have to be made. The experience of what one knows of the Acts which established the two hospitals gives one greater confidence that those hospitals can act with the alacrity that is necessary in many cases. I regret that this Bill is going to pass. It may save, as the Parliamentary Secretary told us last week, occasional legislation, probably in rare circumstances, but it does put a power in the hands of the Executive of the day which I think is dangerous and which should not pass from the Legislature to the Executive.
May I ask Senator Rowlette a question for my own information because I am interested in the point he raised? I would like him to develop his argument as to the extent a voluntary hospital and a local authority can be compelled to come together and jointly to frame an agreement for the amalgamation of what they call here the joint hospitals. I do not see where the Minister's powers can be exercised. He has control of the money in the matter of giving grants. Can he exercise his control by withdrawing the grants or not giving sufficient money to a voluntary hospital or a local authority in such a manner that he would force them to amalgamate? I would like to get an elucidation of that matter.
Did you not read the Bill?
I tried to develop that point——
A Chathaoirligh, nach ceart an cainnteóir labhairt leis an Cathaoir? Tá sé ag amare orm-sa agus ag cainnt liom.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Ní cheart. Please address the Chair.
I pointed out that most of the voluntary hospitals have to rely on the Sweepstakes funds to meet their annual deficits. The Minister, if he thinks that the institution would be better off as a joint hospital, can refuse to meet the deficit and the hospital cannot then keep its doors open. That action might be taken perfectly honestly and with full responsibility, but I submit that it does put a voluntary hospital in a difficult position in regard to the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in the Dáil that he would not give an undertaking either for himself or on behalf of the Minister that in certain circumstances he would not invite a hospital to amalgamate. If such an invitation were accompanied by a notification that the deficit would not be met I think it would be an extremely effective invitation.
But how would he coerce the local authority? In the first place, he must get the local authority and they will easily split the gaff if he is trying to do a thing they do not like.
Other Senators have suggested that the Minister has other means for that purpose too.
Which he would exercise.
That is what I was trying to get at.
Again I want to say that Senator Rowlette should understand that I have not criticised the voluntary hospitals. Like Senator Foran, I agree that voluntary hospitals have done a great deal of good——
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not like to interrupt the Senator but I think we should keep to the Bill. The Dublin hospitals do not arise at this time.
But this is arising out of Senator Rowlette's remarks.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would ask the Senator not to go back. I think we have had enough of the Dublin hospitals. It is open to the Senator to raise the matter on a motion if he wants to at any time.
I wanted to say that, as far as I am concerned, I would be anxious to give the Minister or someone else acting for him as much power as I could to deal with the present hospitals position in Dublin and to deal with the other hospitals. The hospital situation is bad—there is no question about that. We had cases of scarlet fever in County Dublin where the people had to be treated at home because there was no room for them at the hospitals. We have cases on a waiting list for tuberculosis treatment who cannot get the accommodation they are entitled to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
I do not think it has any relevancy to this Bill on the Fifth Stage.
I accept your ruling.
I do not know whether there is anything further to say. We have gone over the points that have been made by Senator Rowlette two or three times already and it looks as if we are not going to get much further on them. I quite accept his statement that he has genuine fears. I was not inclined to believe that on the last occasion I was before this House, but I accept without reserve his assurance that he has fears about the purposes for which this Bill might be applied when it becomes an Act. I cannot see, however, even assuming the worst from Senator Rowlette's point of view, that the Bill is going to place any voluntary hospital in any more precarious a position than these voluntary hospitals are in at the present time.
Senator Rowlette, I am sure, is fully aware that the Minister already has statutory powers to attach conditions to a grant to any voluntary hospital and if it is the Minister's policy, or the policy of the Department, to exercise a particular form of pressure on any voluntary institution he has all the statutory machinery he requires for that purpose at present and he does not need this Bill. He can attach any condition to a grant, and if the voluntary hospital concerned refuses to accept the condition, the Minister can refuse to make the grant and that finishes that, so that all this to-do about all the extraordinary powers of coercion which the Minister proposes to take is without any solid foundation.
Because he has them already.
He has them already. I do not propose to follow all the lines of argument we have had developed because I think that a considerable portion of the debate was only very remotely related to the Bill under discussion. In all probability, legislation more directly concerned with the big issues that have been raised will be before the House in the near future, but it does appear to me that there is either a misunderstanding of the terms of this Bill or, perhaps, the members of the House did not make an effort to understand them.
In so far as the Minister's relationship to voluntary hospitals is concerned and so far as this Bill gives him any additional machinery that could be used for a purpose that does not appear on the face of the Bill, I think that it is entirely without foundation. What is the first step he must take under this Bill? In order that this question of an Establishment Order should become a live issue—it looks as if I have to trace the weary course from the first step to the last again— I must refer the House to Section 2 of the Bill:—
"The governing body of any voluntary hospital may, pursuant to a resolution adopted in that behalf by such governing body, apply to the Minister for an Establishment Order in relation to such hospital."
The initiative is placed on the governing body of the hospital concerned. They may take a certain step and they may not, and if they do not, the Minister cannot do anything—there is no additional power in this Bill to what he has got already. Suppose the governing body of a voluntary hospital considers in its wisdom that it would be in the interests of the institution and of the sick poor who look to it for treatment to seek an Establishment Order, some member of that committee gives notice of motion that he will move at the next meeting of the committee that the Order will be sought. That notice of motion must be forwarded to every member of the committee and it cannot be considered until three weeks after it is handed in. The next step is the application for the Establishment Order. Notice of that application must be published in the daily press and local press in three successive issues. Anyone objecting— any member of the community—to the making of the Establishment Order is given a period of time in which to make that objection.
Finally, the Establishment Order comes before the Minister for his consideration when all this that I have related has already occurred. I do not think the House would desire that I should wade through Section 4 of the Bill which sets out what the Minister does on receipt of an Establishment Order, but at any rate, if the Minister makes any amendment of that Establishment Order, any amendment whatever, that amendment has to go back to the local authority concerned and to the committee of the voluntary hospital concerned, and unless they agree that amendment does not become effective. This is the dictatorial measure we hear so much about from certain Senators here to-night. When the Order is made, having got complete agreement between the voluntary hospital and the local authority concerned and the Minister, copies of the Order have then to be made available under Section 6 of the Bill for inspection by the public and again, any member of the public can take exception to any matter appearing in it and, finally, the Order is laid on the Table of the Dáil and on the Table of the Seanad.
Having got as far as the Oireachtas, the position is that either House may annul the Order. Neither the Minister nor the House can enforce an Order on any voluntary hospital. The initiative rests with themselves, but either House can annul the Order, and if either House annuls it by a majority that is the end of it. I feel that if the members of the House had studied the Bill closely they would realise that there is no room for the suggestions that have been made against this Bill. Perhaps it is a good thing inasmuch as it probably brought forward some explanation of the Orders that might not have been forthcoming otherwise on the grounds that it was not considered necessary.
As I said on the Second Reading, and I may repeat it here to-night, it is necessary in legislation, if you want to achieve a purpose for the general good of the greater number, to take powers that may not be exercised. Now the line of argument against taking such powers was that it was a very dangerous thing because some future Minister might abuse it. At that time, neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary was under any suspicion whatever—they were the grandest fellows in the world.
They are not under suspicion now, are they?
Perhaps the Senator was not here when Senator Baxter was talking. At any rate, we have one doubting Thomas here. As I said on that occasion, and let me repeat it, there is nothing to prevent any Minister in future taking any statutory powers he may require to implement his policy, and anything we may do in connection with this legislation in our time will not necessarily be binding on any future Ministry that may follow us.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The House will adjourn until next Wednesday at 3 p.m.
Has there been agreement as to the adjournment?
Leas-Chathaoirleach
There was an agreement by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and there was a general understanding that an hour not later than 9 p.m. be adopted for sittings of the House when business warranted sittings to that hour.
The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until Wednesday, 22nd March, at 3 p.m.