Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1943

Vol. 27 No. 16

St. Laurence's Hospital Bill, 1940—Report.

Sir John Keane

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 10, Section 26, after sub-section (1), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Before approving a scheme under this section the Minister shall have regard to any schemes that may have been formulated by other hospitals.

I put down this amendment to try to get the Minister to be more frank with us about his intentions with regard to this hospital. I really find it hard adequately to deal with the subject within the ambit of this Bill, because the matters I have in mind raise the whole question of hospital policy, in which the Government plays a really large part and has a dominating power. In this Bill and in the powers that the hospital is given under this Bill, you see the dangers of possibly unfair discrimination under the present practice. The Hospitals Commission in their first report outlined a comprehensive policy for all the voluntary hospitals.

At the moment, I am concerned only with the hospitals in the City of Dublin, but the report to which I have referred outlined a comprehensive policy. A feature of that policy was amalgamation of certain hospitals, rebuilding in other cases, and—the Minister will agree that this is very important—the provision of a substantial number of additional beds. I think it will be admitted by everybody that the need for additional beds is far greater now, some eight years afterwards. Under this measure, there is the danger that one hospital can, and I am afraid will, get an unfair priority with regard to its finances. It would be all right if there were plenty of money for everybody, and if all those schemes could proceed concurrently, but I think it is now admitted that that is not likely in the near future— nor for many years to come.

As I stated on the Committee Stage, the bulk of the capital now in the hands of the hospitals trustees-I think that is the right word; the terms are rather confusing—is required for deficits. It may not be all exhausted, but it is approaching the stage when the income from the £8,000,000 will be needed for deficits. The deficits are increasing and, in view of the rising cost of everything, they are likely to increase. I feel very strongly that there is a danger that the Minister may say: "Well, there is only enough money for one hospital and, therefore, I am going to give it to this hospital." I think that would be unfair. The Minister, I think, is inclined to say: "You cannot have a lot of hospitals operating concurrently if there is no money to support them and it would be much better in the interests of the sick poor that any effort feasible should be concentrated in one hospital. This being a sort of pet of my own, I am rather inclined to give it to that hospital." I think on the face of it that is unfair. You must have regard to a number of needs. I do not know that the need in the case of the Richmond Hospital for reconstruction and modernisation is any greater than in the case of the other hospitals. I know that under this fortuitous system of finance that we have provided there is a dilemma, but I think the Minister ought to give the undertaking asked for in this amendment. Before he gives priority to the Richmond Hospital, he ought to consider the claims of other hospitals which have formulated schemes, and he should not let himself get into a position in which he is inclined to favour one hospital because it is what might be called a State hospital. I think he might quite logically say: "This is a State hospital; in the past it has been financed largely out of State funds. I should be inclined to ask the State to finance it and let this hospital be subject to State finance and let the other hospitals have their share of the sweepstakes money."

I put this amendment down so that the Minister might give us, at least for what it is worth, an undertaking that he is not going automatically to let this hospital get control of any limited amount of money that is available and that he is going to make some effort to try to give a fair apportionment on the different claims. It is an essentially complicated problem because it might be argued that if you are going to be faced in the next ten years with stringent finance or if you are going to rely entirely on the sweepstakes and sweepstakes do not come up to expectations and fall far behind what they did in pre-war years, you might say: "It is better to have no rebuilding at all; it is better to give the existing hospitals according to their needs what they want, to bring themselves up to date on their present sites." I cannot help feeling that circumstances may arise when that would be the most sensible proceeding. I do not want to enlarge on the general question of hospitals. I have a motion on the Order Paper on which I hope to deal with the matter comprehensively, but I hope I have said enough to indicate what I have in mind on this point and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something to relieve my anxiety.

Dr. Rowlette

I have very little to add to what Senator Sir John Keane has stated. I think he has done an important service by drawing attention to the abnormality of the present proceeding. The Minister has full power to make what grants he thinks fit from the Hospitals Trust Funds and, therefore, he has whatever power this section proposes to give him. I think it is the first time in the history of disbursements by the Minister from the Hospitals Trust Funds that he seeks power to bind himself by Act of Parliament in advance to make a certain grant. He has power under the existing Act, but here we have, as Senator Sir John Keane has pointed out, a section which will tie his hands. On his own motion, he will tie himself in advance by statute to limit his discretion as to what grants he is to give, as empowered by another statute. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary in this House or, as far as I know, in the other House gave any reason for this alteration in the usual procedure. There is the other point that I think is objectionable, that not merely are the hands of the present Minister tied but the hands of any future Minister are also tied. The hands of future Ministers are tied in advance by statute, and they can only escape from these shackles by coming to Parliament again and having the section repealed.

Yet another point to which I should like to call attention is that there have been commitments to many other institutions with regard to rebuilding or the establishment of new hospitals. Probably Senators are aware that the main part of the scheme of the Hospitals Commission for the City of Dublin was the establishment of four large hospitals in or near the city. One of them, the Richmond, on its present site was to form a nucleus which was to be later enlarged. Another was the Mater Misericordiæ Hospital, also on the north side of the city, which was to be enlarged to hold a considerable number of patients. Another was St. Vincent's Hospital, on some site on the south side of the city—whether it was a site which they themselves had chosen at some time or some other site, I do not know. The fourth hospital was to be amalgamation of the three small existing hospitals—Mercer's Hospital, Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital and the Royal City of Dublin Hospital. These were to be amalgamated into one institution. None of them has a suitable site at present, but a site for such a hospital was under discussion both with the Hospitals Commission and the Dublin Town Planning Committee. No decision as to this site has been come to but the scheme of the Hospitals Commission had received the approval of the Minister, and Bills had actually been drafted to make it possible in case existing statutes bound these hospitals. The Bills were drafted some years ago and, no doubt, are in safe receptacles in the Custom House. That was the scheme for four main hospitals.

The Minister is now to be put in a position under which he is to be prevented from distributing funds which may be at his disposal, according as he thinks proper. He is to be tied by this Bill to show preference for this one hospital. I think that is a grave injustice to the other schemes which have received the approval of the Hospitals Commission. Presumably the Department has had to employ officers drafting Bills conformable to the wishes of these several hospitals. As the Minister has already the power which the section asks, of distributing funds as he thinks fit, and as the section tends to tie his hands in regard to the exercise of his discretion, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not see any objection to accepting Senator Sir John Keane's amendment.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)

The amendment sets out, as the House is aware, that before approving of the scheme the Minister shall have regard to any scheme that may be formulated by other hospitals. The entire case made in favour of this amendment by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Rowlette is based on the premise that the Minister may do something in relation to this hospital, because it is a State hospital, that is not altogether proper, and that he will show a leaning towards this hospital which would react rather unfairly against the interests of other hospitals.

Dr. Rowlette

On a point of order, the Parliamentary Secretary has misrepresented me and I ask that the statement should be withdrawn. I made no such claim nor did I impute unfairness.

Dr. Ward

Senator Sir John Keane mentioned the possibility of unfair discrimination. I think it is rather unfair even to suggest the possibility of unfair discrimination in the light of the fact that the Minister has had the statutory power for the past 11 years, and no charge of unfair discrimination in relation to this hospital has ever been made against the Minister.

This amendment, apart altogether from the premise upon which the case for it is based, would, in my opinion, achieve no useful purpose at all. Before the Minister makes a grant to any hospital he has to have regard to a number of things, including matters not embodied in any scheme before him such as the amount of money available in the Hospitals Trust Fund, and the speed at which that fund is being encroached upon either by hospital deficits or by capital charges. Some scheme that comes before him must, if it is to be implemented at all, get a priority. There must be some plan under which priorities will be arranged having regard to all the factors entering into the problem. The financial factors are bound to have a big determining influence in deciding what particular scheme should be permitted to operate if there are not sufficient funds in the Hospitals Trust Fund to permit all schemes to become operative at the same time. Regard also will have to be had to the geographical distribution of existing institutions, and to how far the public needs are being met by existing institutions. It may be that some of the existing hospitals are in reasonably good condition of structural repair, that they may be well equipped as compared with others. Other hospitals may be in a completely dilapidated condition, and such a factor would have to be taken into consideration in deciding whether one or the other would be permitted to proceed.

The most important factor, however, would be the needs of the community. If you have two or three modern hospitals, so equipped as reasonably to meet the requirements of the community, in one end of the city, and if you have a shortage of bed accommodation in another part of the city to the extent that the poor cannot find admission to the hospitals in that area, you may have to decide deliberately that a hospital in such an area must get the preference, and that while it is desirable, at the earliest possible time, to put the full scheme of hospitalisation, recommended by the Hospitals Commission and accepted by the Minister, into operation, the most urgent parts of that scheme must be given priority, and the Minister must, in all reason, be given the right to determine what the urgent needs are in any particular area.

Apart from anything I have said regarding it, the amendment would be, I think, unworkable if incorporated in the Bill. Hospitals might formulate schemes that the Minister would not know anything about at all. Every scheme formulated is not submitted to the Minister, but every application for a grant has to be submitted to the Hospitals Commission. If this amendment were passed, the Minister might have to disregard the views of the Hospitals Commission suggesting or recommending that priority should be given to a particular institution. The authorities of hospitals very often submit unsound schemes — schemes which, in the present circumstances, should scarcely be considered at all. If the amendment were to be accepted the Minister would have a statutory obligation, regardless of the merits of the scheme, to have regard to it. It seems to me that the amendment is unnecessary, that it would be unworkable, and I think that Senator Sir John Keane ought not press it. If it is carried through this House I would have to oppose it in the Dáil.

Sir John Keane

I agree with the Minister that if he did accept the amendment it would not get us much further, but I put it down largely to give an opportunity of expressing my uneasiness about the whole future of hospital policy. Here you have a vague, grandiose, and, no doubt, idealistic scheme put forward by the Hospitals Commission on most precarious finances. I am afraid that this is likely to happen, that the Minister will say: "Let us go on with one part, anyhow." Not unfairly, but in his discretion he might say to the Richmond that it was the best one to go on with and he might commit himself perhaps to £500,000 of capital expenditure. Unless the finances of the commission are adequate, the Minister may have to cut down rigorously on all the others in order to finance the Richmond. He will be committed, on the Richmond scheme, to the provision of a sound, good, modern hospital with an increased number of beds, and that will be a commitment from which he cannot escape. Well, I am afraid that unless he is exceedingly wise and cautious the effect will be that the claims of the other hospitals even for apparatus and, say, better nursing quarters on their present sites will be all held back until this Richmond Hospital is built. I feel that will be uneven and unfair. When I say unfair, the Minister will appreciate that I do not say deliberately unfair. He would not act unfairly, but it would operate unfairly. I am afraid that that danger is present, but as the Minister says that even if the amendment were accepted it would not mean anything I will ask the House to let me withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment:

In page 10, Section 28, sub-section (1), to delete the words "Saint Laurence's Hospital" in line 54, and insert instead the words "Ospidéal Lorcán Naomhtha, or, in the English language, Saint Laurence's Hospital".

Dr. Ward

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Pádraic Ó Máille

Ba mhaith liom athrú a mholadh ar na focail sa triú agus sa cheathrú líne den leasú so. Sílim go gcuirfeadh sé feabhas ar an leasú.

With your permission, I wish to propose verbal amendments in lines 3 and 4 of this amendment. In line 3 I wish to put "Ospidéal Lorcáin Naomhtha O Tuathail" or in the English language "Saint Laurence O'Toole Hospital". Senator Mrs. Concannon on the Third Stage suggested leaving out the possessive case in this. That would interpret more correctly the idea of the Oireachtas in naming this Bill, and in addition it would make for euphony. If the name of the Hospital were St. Laurence's Hospital, no one would be aware that the hospital was named after Ireland's great native saint, Lorcán O Tuathail, because there was another Laurence who was a saint. We venerate Lorcán O Tuathail because he was a great saint and also because he was a great Irishman. I think to make it in consonance with the idea of the framers of this measure it ought to be "Ospidéal Lorcáin Naomhtha O Tuathail" and in English "Saint Laurence O'Toole Hospital".

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I doubt if the Chair could accept such an amendment at this stage without notice.

Pádraic Ó Máille

It is just a verbal amendment. It is not a change of sense.

Dr. Ward

It is more than a verbal amendment.

Pádraic Ó Máille

I think there was unanimous approval in the Seanad when Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that the possessive case ought to be left out of the Bill. The Bill proposes to commemorate the name of a great saint, not to say that he was the owner or possessor of the hospital.

Mr. Douglas

It seems to me to be out of order to do this on the Report Stage but, if it is generally agreed, we could go back into Committee in order to put the matter in order. We could recommit the Bill in order to get over the technicalities if there is general agreement, but I do not know whether this is so. I understand that what happened on the last Stage in Committee was that the Parliamentary Secretary promised to consider this suggestion and to let us know the result of his consideration.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

In my recollection, that was the position. The Parliamentary Secretary promised to consider the matter.

Dr. Ward

The point at issue on the last occasion was as to whether the hospital will be called St. Laurence Hospital or St. Laurence's Hospital, and the Bill St. Laurence's Hospital Bill. It was a question of whether the name should be used in the sense of an adjective or whether the possessive form should be used. The other question is now introduced for the first time as to whether the surname should be attached. That was a matter discussed at length in the Dáil. In fact, it was originally intended that the title of the Bill should include the surname, but for various reasons it was decided in the Dáil that it would be better to omit the surname, the principal reason being that the hospital would be called by an objectionable abbreviation of the surname. It is not necessary that I should develop that. On the question whether it ought to be St. Laurence or St. Laurence's we could probably have an interesting academic discussion, but I rather think that there is something more to be conveyed than the adjectival use of the name would convey. The use of the possessive suggests to me, at any rate, that this hospital would be under the patronage, protection and guardianship of St. Laurence and will, in fact, be St. Laurence's Hospital. I do not think that to describe the hospital as St. Laurence Hospital conveys just that same idea. To me it does not. St. Vincent's Hospital was called St. Vincent's. We have St. Patrick's Guild, St. Mary's Hospital, and in almost every instance the possessive is used. Having considered that aspect fairly fully since the matter was raised by Senator Mrs. Concannon, this amendment was put down in the belief that it was more desirable that it should take this particular form. I would not be favourably disposed towards introducing the surname. In the first place, it would be a very unwieldy title; and in the second place, because of that unwieldiness the surname would certainly be abbreviated to an objectionable abbreviation.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The amendment could not be moved at this stage. Notice should have been given.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I would like to ask does this, in fact, convey the idea of protection of St. Laurence O'Toole. When you say St. John you do not mean St. John Vianney, St. John of God, or St. John of the Cross but St. John the Evangelist. There are two saints of this name, St. Lawrence of the Early Eastern Church and St. Laurence O'Toole. The name St. Laurence means not apparently the saint the Minister talks of, but, as far as I can see, it is putting the hospital under the protection of an early saint in the Eastern Church. That is quite all right but if you want to put it under the protection of St. Laurence who was a saint here about one thousand years ago, then the name is St. Laurence O'Toole.

Mr. Byrne

The point of view I took is exactly that of Senator Fitzgerald. St. Lawrence of the Eastern Church had nothing to do with Dublin, but St. Laurence O'Toole was not only a great saint and an eminent churchman but a great Irishman. His is a name that has come down for years and was accepted by ancient Dublin whether it was Danish or Norman. We had St. Laurence's churches, football and hurling clubs and other things. Nobody is going to misuse the name. I do not know whether or not I am in order in discussing this. I certainly think, if we are going to put it under the patronage of anybody, it should be under the patronage of St. Laurence O'Toole.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I cannot accept the amendment because it is more than a verbal amendment and notice of the intention to move it was not given.

Mr. Byrne

Why not?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Because it raises the matter of an amendment already made in the Dáil, and would necessitate other amendments to the Bill. It is more than verbal and the consequential amendments would have to be made formally. Shall I put the amendment under discussion?

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Dr. Rowlette

On that question, Sir, you were good enough when in the Chair last week, to suggest that a question which I then asked the Parliamentary Secretary might be more properly raised on this stage. I asked him particularly if he would divulge to the Seanad, what appears to have been kept a grave secret up to the present, the reason why this Bill, which has been hurried so much through this House within the last week or two, was held in reserve for something like two and a half years during its progress through the Dáil. Presumably, there was a good reason for that procedure. If there was, I think the Parliamentary Secretary would be wise to let the Seanad know what guided him, or the Minister, in that long delay in the passage of the Bill. If he is not willing to answer that question, then Senators can only form conjectures which may or may not be true, or which may or may not be complimentary to the discretion of the Minister. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the suggestion that that question may properly be put now, and that he will give an answer to it which will satisfy the Seanad that the Government has acted with due discretion and with due respect to the Oireachtas in this long delay of the Bill.

I addressed another question to him also which has not been answered, and am, therefore, driven to a particular conclusion in that case. I asked him whether the view of the Minister, as expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that the site for the hospital should be changed to some outside site was on the advice of the Hospitals Commission or not. That question has not been answered and no information has been given to the House on the matter. We know, because the information is contained in a public document, that the Hospitals Commission recommended that the new Richmond Hospital should be built as part of the scheme for four large hospitals for the City of Dublin. As well as I remember, the Hospitals Commission recommended that the present site was convenient and adequate for the purpose. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that it is not adequate, contrary to the knowledge of many people who probably know the site as well as he or his advisers, and contrary to the opinion expressed some years ago by the Hospitals Commission. I think we are entitled to ask whether the Hospitals Commission has withdrawn in any way the recommendation it made some years ago in one of its earlier reports, namely, that the new hospital should be built on the present site, which it considered to be both convenient and adequate.

If the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to tell us that the Hospitals Commission has proposed a change of site, or has approved of such a change, well there is no more to be said on that point by way of criticism. If he cannot tell us that, then we are bound to come to the conclusion that the Hospitals Commission has not changed its attitude or expressed approval of the Department's decision. We know that at one time the advice of the Hospitals Commission was that the site should not be changed. We also know that at one time that was the opinion of the staff and of the governors of the hospital. If the Minister has not received any proposal to alter the recommendations and opinions then expressed, we are driven to the conclusion that the Minister and his advisers are, in this matter, acting contrary to the wishes of the people most concerned, and contrary to the recommendations of their official advisers— the Hospitals Commission.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information on these points to-day. I pressed him for this information on two or three previous occasions, but was simply put off. I think that the members of the Seanad are entitled to the information, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not leave himself and the Minister in the difficulty that they have pushed a Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas by keeping back certain relevant and necessary points in regard to the advisability of the Bill.

Sir John Keane

I have a profound uneasiness about this measure, and must ask the indulgence of the House to say a few words on the Final Stage of it. The Minister is bound by statute to have recourse to the Hospital Trust Funds if he wants to rebuild this hospital. If he saw fit to ask for State finances for the purpose, he could not do that without getting amending legislation passed. If I am wrong about that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me. Suppose the Minister were to say: "Well, now, there is only a certain amount of money; I do not think it is fair to take all the money that is available for the hospital as it is a State hospital, and I think that, perhaps, I should ask the Minister for Finance to provide this and let the other hospitals share in the available sweepstake monery"— he could not do that. He is under a statutory obligation to finance this scheme in the manner set out.

That is what makes me uneasy. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this: can he give an undertaking that he will do for the other hospitals at least what he has done for this hospital, namely, hasten through the necessary statutory powers for them? He has done that in the case of this hospital, but there are other hospitals which require similar statutory powers. The delays that have occurred in providing them seem to me to be utterly unreasonable. I cannot say where the blame for that lies, but I think it is only fair to ask the Parliamentary Secretary that he should hasten through the Bills that the other hospitals require so that they may have an equal start, when the time comes, with St. Laurence's Hospital.

Mrs. Concannon

When the Parliamentary Secretary was introducing this Bill, he gave us a very interesting historical account of the hospital which it is designed to enlarge and replace. I think he could have gone a little further back, because the building has a longer history and one more appealing than that which he described to us. Because I should like to have some record of its past preserved in the new building, I have intervened at this stage. The Richmond Hospital is in what used to be called Chapel Ward. It was an old Dominican convent. Before that, it was built for the Benedictines in the reign of James II, and after the Battle of the Boyne they had to leave. The Dominicans of Galway, who had been in existence during the penal years, sent a little colony to Dublin, and they occupied that old convent and stayed there for more than a century. We have lost so much of our history that these little scraps of it, especially ones that are of such great interest, should not be forgotten, and I would like if the Parliamentary Secretary would see that St. Dominic and St. Benedict have their little share in the dedication of some of the wards, so as to preserve this historical continuity. I do not want to take from St. Laurence O'Toole the honour that is due to him in the Archdiocese dedicated to him, but the point that occurred to me is whether St. Laurence can really be St. Laurence O'Toole. I think that the saints are officially known by their titles in the calendar— Senator Fitzgerald would know more than I do about that. If it is so, we are miscalling St. Laurence O'Toole by giving him the title of St. Laurence. Because we are so young as a nation, it is important that we should be particular about the correct usage, and that is why I am calling the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to it.

Mr. Healy

I have a question to ask Senator Dr. Rowlette. Am I correct in assuming that the Hospitals Commission recommended the rebuilding of Associated Hospitals?

Dr. Rowlette

Of four large hospitals in Dublin, of which the Richmond was to be one.

Mr. Healy

Correct. Does the Senator know the surroundings of Associated Hospitals, the Richmond and Whitworth Hospitals?

Dr. Rowlette

Yes.

Mr. Healy

Is it the Senator's opinion that the place is sufficiently large or suitable for the building of a new hospital? As he knows, the old Dublin Union site lies at the north of those hospitals and the entrance is now used as the Morning Star Hostel. In my opinion, a new hospital should have a bright and cheery outlook if possible, and be in the best surroundings. The surroundings there are neither bright nor cheery, and possibly on reconsideration of the whole situation, the Hospitals Commission may be entitled to change their mind the same as many of us do.

Dr. Rowlette

Have they?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I doubt whether this is relevant to the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Healy

I was making the point that in my opinion, the surroundings are not exactly beautiful, but there is such a thing as a Town Planning Act in Dublin which can give consideration to all those matters.

Dr. Ward

Senator Rowlette raises the question of why consideration of this Bill was adjourned, it having been brought before the Dáil some two or three years ago and having been in a condition of suspended animation since. The Bill was not proceeded with in the Dáil at the request of the Opposition. It was introduced shortly after the outbreak of the war, and was looked upon as being contentious and it was considered that in these early stages contentious legislation should not be proceeded with.

Dr. Rowlette

Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that the war is over now?

Dr. Ward

The Parliamentary Secretary has not finished.

Dr. Rowlette

I beg your pardon.

Dr. Ward

In the interval developments took place that seemed to establish fairly definitely the necessity for proceeding with this legislation. As I stated on the earlier stages in this House, neither the board of governors of the hospital, nor the Minister, had power to acquire a site. Let the time be what it may when we will be able to resume hospital reconstruction in this country, anybody who has given any thought to this subject at all will agree that the planning of a hospital of 500 or 600 beds is a very tedious project. You cannot begin to plan, until you have acquired the site. Consequently, assuming that it would take three years—and that is the minimum to prepare the plans of this or any other hospital in the city—if we were to be ready to commence operations at the end of that three years, it would now be necessary to acquire a site, and if this crisis was over in three years, and materials and funds were available, we could then proceed to build.

There were other considerations bearing on the question. In the intervening period some of these old buildings that are included in the property —the House of Industry Institutions— are in a very bad state of repair, some of them in a condition approximating to being a danger to the public. In fact, proceedings have been instituted by a local authority here in the city against the board of governors because of the condition of some of these buildings. The actual position under the Act of 1856 is that the board of governors has power of management and power of management only. They had no power to demolish buildings or to carry out structural alterations or repairs. In so far as the property was vested in the Commissioners of Public Works, the Commissioners could carry out alterations and repairs, but without a full realisation of the statutory limitation on the powers of the board of governors, the board of governors acquired property. It is more than doubtful at the present time if they are the rightful owners of the property purchased, inasmuch as the Act of 1856 definitely defined their powers and these powers did not include the power of acquiring property. Consequently, the board were in the dilemma that they were being prosecuted because of the insanitary and dangerous condition of certain buildings they had acquired at a time when they had no right to acquire property, and no statutory power to deal with derelict buildings. That seemed to be rather a good reason why the necessary statutory powers should be provided by means of an Act of the Oireachtas.

There were other considerations which were of lesser importance. Under the Act of 1856, all increases in salaries and such matters had to have the sanction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and the Minister for Finance. Again, without a full realisation of the limitation of their statutory powers, the salaries of various officials were increased without sanction. The matter came to light when some of those officials were due to retire, and it was found that, within the law, they could be retired only on the salary as last sanctioned by the Ministers. That did not affect a very big number of the officers or employees of the committee of management, but it was a matter that fell to be dealt with rather urgently if an injustice to some of those people was to be avoided. Those were the main considerations before the Ministry in determining that this Bill had to be proceeded with as a matter of considerable urgency.

Senator Rowlette also raised the question as to whether the decision to build this hospital on a site other than the site of the existing institutions was on the advice or had the approval of the Hospitals Commission. For his information and for the information of the House I want to say that on 13th June, 1940, the Hospitals Commission, stated in a communication to the Minister that the suggestion to transfer the hospital's activities from the present congested location to a more open site on the outskirts of the city was to be commended as a progressive step which will provide an improved distribution of general hospital facilities on the north side of the Liffey. I think that disposes of that.

Senator Mrs. Concannon and others have referred to the name of the hospital. The general trend of the discussion—although the orderliness of it, as the Cathaoirleach has pointed out, has been a matter of some question— has been to the effect that, by calling the hospital "St. Laurence's Hospital" we do not necessarily mean St. Laurence O'Toole. There are, in fact, three St. Laurences set out in the Ordo: 10th August, St. Laurence, with the letter (M) after his name, meaning “martyr”. This was St. Laurence who was roasted on the gridiron. There is no other identification; there is no surname. Then there is: 6th September, St. Laurence Justinian, with (C) meaning “confessor”. The word “Justinian” is to indicate that he was a descendant of the noble family of Justinia. Then there is: 14th November, St. Laurence, Ep., C., Confessor, Bishop. He is our Irish saint. His official title is simply “St. Laurence”. There is no reference whatever to his surname.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Where is that from?

Dr. Ward

From the Ordo. In fact, it amounts to this, that if we, the people of Ireland, consider it necessary to attach a surname in order that he be identified, we are thereby admitting that in Ireland he is not looked upon as the great St. Laurence, but, by calling the hospital “St. Laurence's Hospital”, we proclaim that our St. Laurence is on a footing of equality with the great St. Laurence.

Liam O Buachalla rose.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Does the Senator wish to make a speech or merely to ask a question?

Liam O Buachalla

I merely want to say that the Irish form of the name, "Ospidéal Lorcáin Naomhtha," puts the question beyond yea or nay.

Dr. Ward

Senator Sir John Keane mentioned the question of speeding up legislation relating to other hospitals. I will undertake to do that, and will have the necessary legislation introduced as soon as possible.

Question put and declared carried.

Ordered: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil with amendments."