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.