Vol. 26 No. 17
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 3, sub-section (1), line 41, after the word" committee" and within the brackets to insert the words "or the board of a hospital the constitution of which is provided by a special Act of the Oireachtas".
As the House will see, there are two amendments down in my name. Would it be permissible to have one discussion on them?
Yes. That is agreed.
The House will remember that a fortnight ago I had an amendment down which was designed for a somewhat wider purpose than the amendment I have on the paper to-day. It was shown here in the course of the discussion that the Minister could not consider with any degree of sympathy the rather broad amendment which I had then tabled. In the discussion which arose, I suggested the hardship that might be imposed on particular institutions, hospitals, if the Bill were to go through in the form in which it stands. There was one suggestion that I made at the end of the discussion on that part of the Bill in regard to which I thought the Minister showed some approach to my point of view. At any rate, he assured the House that he would give the suggestion—I do not want to tie him to the words—sympathetic consideration. It was the suggestion which is in the second amendment before us to-day, that the words "not less" should be omitted, and the word "more" inserted.
If that had been accepted, it would have meant that the power which the section places in the hands of the Minister could only be applied in the case of a board of which more than half of the members were nominated by local rating authorities. I think the Minister understands that that would have given some protection to the particular hospital I had in mind, namely the Dublin Fever Hospital, commonly known as Cork Street Hospital. I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept that amendment. I am quite sure that he gave it the consideration he promised, but I am afraid his sympathy must have become rather frozen in the atmosphere of his Department, or perhaps it was not quite as lively as it appeared to us in this House a fortnight ago. I have that amendment here, so that we may hear the Minister's views on it, and also on amendment No. 1, to insert the words "or the board of a hospital the constitution of which is provided by special Act of the Oireachtas."
I admit that I have, in particular, the same hospital in mind, the Dublin Fever Hospital. It is in a peculiar position. There may be other hospitals in the country whose constitution has been provided by a special Act of the Oireachtas. If there are, I am not familiar with them. At any rate, the Cork Street Hospital is in a peculiar position, because it has a peculiar history. As I mentioned a fortnight ago, it is 120 or more years old. It was founded by a number of benevolent citizens of Dublin, most of them as it happens belonging to a religious body, which through the centuries has had a noble reputation in Ireland for general charity, never limited to those of its own religious beliefs, the Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers. It was managed by a committee, mainly of that body, for a period of over 100 years with complete success, and performed great service to the sick poor of Dublin—those suffering from infective diseases. Some seven or eight years ago it was decided that it would be desirable to substitute for that voluntary body, acting on its own funds, in the hands of trustees, and maintaining itself, a body coming to some extent under public control; it was decided that the local rating authorities should have some voice in the management. As I am sure the Minister is aware, considerable discussions took place between the Department and the existing board, the proprietors of the hospital who had kept it going for so long. Naturally, the views as to the power that the constitution of the hospital gave to the new authority gave rise to considerable differences between the various persons concerned in those discussions.
A final agreement was come to which satisfied some of the claims of the existing board and which gave to the Minister of the day all the power he considered necessary. That agreement was brought before the Oireachtas. After discussion in the other House— and I suppose in this House, too—the agreement was approved by the Oireachtas. The agreement, which was passed into law by the Oireachtas, was regarded by the members of the old board, acting on behalf of themselves and the existing board as fixing—I shall not say for all time, because one cannot say that of any human institution—for a considerable time the constitution of the board. They took it for granted that that constitution would not be altered without the consent of the board. Within the very brief period of six years, another measure is proposed to give the Minister power which may, in its application, interfere gravely with the existing constitution and with the powers of the authority so constituted. I am not suggesting that there has been any real breach of faith, but I think it is undesirable that an Act of Parliament, which is the result of agreement between two bodies, one of whom hands over a very considerable sum of money and very valuable property, should be interfered with within the short period of six years. I ask the Minister to consider that point of view very carefully, if he has not already considered it, and to recognise that, in the case of this particular hospital, there is a special claim for protection on account of the fact that the Act governing it is the result of an agreement which could hardly have been got if the board at the time had not been assured that the Act framed on the agreement would continue in effect for a reasonable period.
The present Bill does not, in set terms, alter the terms of the old Act but it may alter the effect of that Act very appreciably in its application. While it may not be possible to make the legal point that the present Bill interferes with an existing Act of the Oireachtas, it virtually gives power to the Minister to interfere with the constitution of a body established by an Act of the Oireachtas of only six years ago. I have said that the old board, in coming to this agreement, bound themselves to make a substantial contribution to the finances of the hospital for the time being. I understand that, in cash and investments, they handed over about £25,000 and that they handed over property—buildings, site and so on—to the value of about £100,000. It would seem only equitable that that contribution to what was considered by the Government and, probably, by the public an important service in regard to the treatment of infectious diseases in the City of Dublin and neighbourhood, should be still borne in mind. The local authorities, with that gift in the pocket of the hospital, are now contributing largely but I do not think that that should be regarded as even tacit consideration for altering the constitution of the Cork Street Board.
The suggestion in my second amendment which, I thought, the Minister received sympathetically a fortnight ago, would have saved this situation from the point of view of the board and the members of the former board who still have an interest in the hospital. It may be of some interest to state the constitution of the hospital as laid down by Act of the Oireachtas of 1936. The County Borough of Dublin was to appoint seven members of the board, the board of health three members, a body representing the old governors—I shall explain the meaning of this presently—seven members, three members to be nominated by the Minister. That is the board as it has existed during the past five or six years. The body which I said I would explain is called "extraordinary members electorate". It was what I may call, without claiming any legal signification for the term, a corporation with perpetual existence. The old trustees were to represent the electorate and, as vacancies occurred, they were to fill these vacancies by nomination to the board. Their duty was to elect seven members to the board, from time to time, as vacancies occurred. The board, as thus constituted, had a minority of representatives of rating authorities. Under recent Acts, I understand that that minority is likely to be changed and that half the electorate will represent local authorities and the other half the extraordinary members electorate, plus the Minister. I ask the Minister, considering the history of the institution which I have tried to give as tersely and as clearly as possible, to accept one or other of the suggestions I have proposed and thereby protect the views of the historic board of Cork Street Hospital and also protect—if I may say so without being offensive—the good faith of the Minister who discussed matters with the representative body and made a bargain with them.
Such a bargain should not be liable to alteration or change within a few years by the action of the Department which made the bargain. I hope the Minister will give me a more favourable answer on these matters than at our last meeting, and that he will do something better than the amendment which follows. I would ask the Minister to give this really sympathetic and friendly consideration, and to do the two things I have asked—maintain the good faith of his Department, and relieve the minds of the old friends of Cork Street Fever Hospital who follow in the footsteps of those who kept the hospital going for 100 years.
I am rather at a disadvantage in discussing amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. There are strong grounds for saying, I think, that an amendment on the lines of No. 1 as suggested would be unacceptable in any case, because, first of all, there are particular institutions established under Acts of Parliament, and also institutions established for special purposes by special Acts directed to those purposes, and in every one of these it would be impossible if the amendment were made for the Minister to apply the managerial principle.
For the information of the Minister, I may say that the amendments will be put to the House separately, of course, when questions come to be put.
Apart altogether from that, amendment No. 1 as it stands, and I think amendment No. 2, would bind our hands in regard to boards not yet established, but which are in contemplation, and the third point is that it has been decided that so far as public institutions are concerned—and the Dublin Fever Hospital is a public institution, the greater part of the burden of which is borne by the citizens and ratepayers of Dublin—we should apply the managerial principle. I am quite prepared to accept the argument that in the case of the Dublin Fever Hospital there are special considerations—the considerations to which the Senator has referred—and I am prepared to give due weight to these considerations, but he himself has admitted that even since the passage of the 1936 Act, far-reaching changes have been made or are contemplated in the general system of local government here, changes which, for one thing, may completely upset the balance of representation, as originally fixed, on the Fever Hospital Board, and there has not been any suggestion by the Senator—notwithstanding the other suggestion he has made that this thing smells of a breach, or of bad faith—that it would be equitable to try to re-establish the balance of representation.
I do not propose to take any action in that regard now—that will depend on later developments—but it is quite clear that there has not been any objection on the part of the body of trustees where they have felt that the changes were operating to strengthen their position on the board. I realise these are public-spirited men, and that this is a charity with a very long tradition, and I am anxious to give all the weight I can to that, but I cannot go to the extent of setting up a precedent which, when we come to deal with boards later on, would be constantly referred to and would tie the Minister's hands. I am taking my stand that it has been accepted as a principle that the managerial system can be applied to all these institutions where the greater part of the financial cost falls on the general body of the taxpayers and I am prepared, as I have indicated in amendment No. 3, to allow the special cases of existing institutions to get particular consideration, if it is felt in the future by the Minister for Local Government, whoever he may be at the time, that the managerial system ought to be applied even in these instances.
I cannot for the life of me understand why there should be this objection to applying the managerial system to an institution of this sort which is, in fact, except for the traditional element in it, a public institution, a public authority hospital, when we have decided that the principle will be applied to mental hospitals and fever hospitals in rural areas, fever hospitals even in urban areas, and teaching hospitals in urban areas and, in general, to all local institutions and public authority hospitals throughout this country. I see in this case no real difference in principle. But after the representations made here on the last day to which I gave very sympathetic consideration, and the representations made to me by representatives of the original trustees recently, I have decided that I can at least meet them to this extent: that I will not take their views on the application of the managerial principle to the Cork Street Fever Hospital as something decided, but I will amend the Bill so that it will receive further consideration at the hands of the Oireachtas if the occasion for applying the managerial principle to the hospital should arise, in the opinion of the Minister for Local Government of the day. That is the purpose of the amendment I have put down. If Senators will look at it they will see it is drafted in the widest possible terms. I think it is almost unique in so far as it prescribes that before any Order bringing an existing institution of this sort within the scope of the managerial system becomes effective, the Order of the Minister will lie on the Table of this House for 21 sitting days, and if during that period the House decides to annul the Order, the Order will not become effective at all.
That will give whoever may carry responsibility for the Department of Local Government an opportunity of putting before the House in greater detail the reasons why he feels compelled to make such an Order. It will also mean that before such an Order is made, the Minister of the day will consult the board of the hospital, will inform them as to what his intentions are, and will give them an opportunity of making representations to him, of meeting him, and, possibly, getting agreement as to the type of Order which should be made. I think it is unreasonable to ask us to go any farther. If we were to accept the views expressed by Senator Rowlette I should be creating a precedent which would be referred to in every case in the future. If I made an exception in this case, it would be held that it would be quite illogical not to apply it in every case. If in the case of this institution, which is not the largest hospital with which the Minister for Local Government has to deal, and certainly, perhaps, not nearly as large as some which may come into existence in future, I were to make an exception, a Minister for Local Government would find his hands bound by that precedent in all future negotiations. In view of the changes which may have to be made here in the general administration of these institutions—changes which the exigencies of the time may force upon us—I think it would be unwise, and quite contrary to the public interest, for me to fetter myself, and perhaps my successors, in the way the Senator suggests.
I hardly expected that the Minister would go back on what he put before the House, so I cannot say I am disappointed; but I am sorry he has not given some further reason directly bearing on the point of a majority, or half, of the board of the hospital being the deciding factor as to whether it comes under this section or not. I thought he was coming to that to-day, but what he came to was rather the question of the contribution than the representation on the board of the hospital. That is entirely a new principle, which has not appeared elsewhere in this Bill, and which did not come before us at the last meeting, when we discussed the question of the proportion of representation.
It seems to me that these questions are entirely distinct. If it is a question of contribution at a particular time, one has to cast one's mind back to the fact that the initial establishment of the present hospital six years ago was rendered possible by the contribution of the old hospital. Therefore, if finance has to come into it and the support of the hospital at a particular time, that initial contribution of something between £100,000 and £150,000 should have a bearing also and representation should not have any direct bearing on the contribution at a particular time. This amendment provides only a slight protection. It is a matter of difficulty to have any Order annulled once it has been issued. Naturally, the Government has the confidence of, probably, a majority of the members of both Houses, and it is extremely difficult to have an Order annulled. Therefore, the amendment is not really a check on the action of the Minister, but suggests that he must use grave discretion before issuing the Order, as, if the Order is objectionable to a number of citizens, it is likely to be challenged and brought up for discussion. Therefore, the amendment he has put down is some slight check on the actions of the Minister and his Department.
I regret he has not been more willing in regard to the amendment I put down. He has suggested that it may give confidence to the board of the hospital, if the question of the appointment of a manager comes up, and that he would consult with them and hear their representations, and he used the phrase: "and agreement might be reached." Agreement was reached six years ago and while agreement may be reached in the future with the Minister or his successors, confidence in such an agreement will be gravely decreased by the Bill.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In page 3, to add at the end of Section 3, a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Every order made by the Minister under sub-section (1) of this section in respect of a board or committee which is in existence at the passing of this Act—
(a) shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made, and
(b) may be annulled by either such House by resolution passed within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after such order is laid before it, and
(c) shall (unless so annulled) come into force at the expiration of the time within which it may be so annulled or, where a date is specified in such order for its coming into force, on that date or at the said expiration, whichever is the later."
