Appropriation Bill, 1945 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed). – Seanad Éireann (5th Seanad) – Friday, 27 Jul 1945

Appropriation Bill, 1945 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Professor Magennis

When I moved the adjournment of the debate last night, I was dealing with the speech which Dr. Moorhead delivered at the Mansion House meeting, which is part of this campaign, the beginning of the protest committee which is to conduct propaganda on behalf of the demand for the publication of the evidence given at the inquiry, or the reinstatement of the board. The point in Dr. Moorhead's speech to which I was directing attention is that, while he admires the Constitution, he is appalled by what has happened in the Ministerial suppression of the board, he, too, knowing nothing about the laws enacted in this Parliament in virtue of which the Ministerial action was taken. In the course of his speech he said: "It is the kind of thing we would cry out against if it were done, in fact, by Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany," and then he turned away to demand the production of the report of the inspector. That, of course, was the watchword for the stage army on the platform of the Mansion House meeting. They all demanded that the sham inquiry should be exposed in all its hideousness by the production of the inspector's report.

Having heard the speech of Senator Kingsmill Moore, we can guess very well the source of the inspiration. Lord Palmerston once is reported to have said to his Ministers: "It does not matter what we say so long as we all say the same thing", and the members recruited for this stage army all agreed to say the same thing: "The sham inquiry is intended to report as preordained by the lawless Parliamentary Secretary for Health; why does he not produce the report of his inspector? Well, we can all make a guess"—we all know well theirs is a guess, and yet these people talk about "reckless, inconsiderate statements and action," all founded upon a distortion of the evidence—"we all know well that, in the last few weeks he would have been only too delighted to produce the report if it backed up his action; if he does not produce it the public will continue, as they are doing, to draw their own conclusions." In other words, the purpose of this Mansion House meeting, and the further propaganda that it is to father, is that the Minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary, refuses to publish the report, and continue to refuse to publish it, and the public is provided with the explanation that they dare not. Now when a man of such standing as the President of the Medical Council of Ireland can be persuaded to talk like that, it shows how dangerous this propaganda can become. All, or at any rate most of us, know about the famous dancing mania that broke out in Germany in the 14th century. The infection spread, for hysteria, remember, is an infectious disease and the Cork Street Fever Hospital functions for the cure of all infectious diseases. This infection spread through the leading cities of Germany and the delirium and the mad antics of the people were beyond all believing. They seized religious houses. Some of them dashed their brains out against the walls. That is not likely to happen in the case of these propagandists, but who knows? The Church tried to meet the obsession by exorcism but a great physician, Paracelsus, advised a cure—cold water. The cold water of truth in this case will be the cure for the Cork Street fever, which has been generated by the hysteria of which we saw some displays in the speech of our colleague last night.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

May I ask, is that a promise that the report is going to be published and that we are going to have the truth?

Professor Magennis

No. It is a promise that the truth will be given. I began by reading last night the statement that the minute of evidence will be published and it will be procurable. I daresay every member of the House will get it for nothing, but in any case they will not be deterred by the charge of 2/6 from procuring it. Senator Kingsmill Moore's interjection is merely a repetition of what he knows himself to be the sophism that the report of the inspector is the principal item—I will deal with that presently —that it is the cardinal thing in the investigation. I quoted him a greater authority than he in law that that is not so. If I may turn aside from my argument to deal with his interjection momentarily, he has assured us that there is no legal obligation on the Minister to publish it. If there is no legal obligation on the Minister, what dereliction of duty is there on the part of the Minister in keeping it a confidential document, a document meant for his information and not for public circulation?

This hysteria is exhibited in its worst form by Mr. Wood, senior counsel. I mentioned him incidentally in connection with the Mansion House before, but it was to exemplify how successful this propaganda can be in speaking with two voices, one the respectable and gentlemanly voice and the other the voice of the hysterical, obsessed, patient, Mr. Wood. "I believe that this Minister," he says, "has deliberately distorted the facts. I believe that he has indulged in a sham trial. I stand or fall by the inspector's report." I pointed out that Senator Kingsmill Moore exonerates the Minister from all culpability. He looks upon him as a man deceived by a subordinate, but in the Mansion House, addressing an overflow meeting, well organised, with its platform all bound to repeat the same cry: "Give us the report," there is a different voice; there is this direct accusation. Senator Kingsmill Moore, within the recollection of the House, made his charge against the Parliamentary Secretary for Public Health. It was the Parliamentary Secretary whom he inveighed against so vehemently. But here is the direct accusation of the Minister —"The Minister has deliberately distorted the facts. I believe that he has indulged in a sham trial. I stand or fall by the inspector's report."

I would have expected that Mr. Overend would have been reported in the Irish Times. The only reference to him is that he appears in a photograph depicting him speaking into a microphone, but nothing comes out in the columns of the paper, so I do not know how he performed his little part in the play and how he rang the changes on “sham inquiry” and “give us the report”.

We have Mr. Alfred Byrne, T.D., of course, who has his part in the accusation—it reminds one of the description of the assassination of Julius Cæsar wherein the smallest of the conspirators has his dagger through the toga of Caesar. He says: "I think those in power want to get complete control by fair means or foul means and the other boards should take warning from what has been done to this particular board." The hysteria is to be spread to other hospitals and they are to join the dancing crowds of fanatics and behave with delirium like the platform orators.

We reach the very limit in the deliverances of a man who has figured before in the debates of this House, Mr. Seán Ó Faolain. He said: "The people have been brought to an unusual pitch of excitement as a result of the manner in which the board have been treated." Apparently, he thinks that the culmination of the excitement has not been reached and in that he agrees with Senator Kingsmill Moore, who is going to write another pamphlet and renew the indictment.

"What the Minister was doing, in fact, was expropriating a hospital just as effectively as if he had sent a squad of soldiers down to Guinness's Brewery and took it over."

Only a writer of short stories and romances could have exercised his imagination so freely and, I might add, so frantically. The man who said that has no sense of responsibility and no sense of facts. These words "expropriating a hospital" are an echo of passages in the pamphlet Justice and we have heard Senator Kingsmill Moore directly on it. These seven who got, under the Act of 1936, a special college of electors provided for them, have still the idea that the Cork Street Fever Hospital is their property rightfully and that, in some way, it has been confiscated. It is clear that they have still that idea. I propose to show, from the evidence quoted in the White Paper, that that is the source of a great deal of the friction and the discord which has occurred ever since the new board began to function in 1937.

There are all sorts and conditions on the board but there was no supporter of the Government on the Mansion House platform. There were foolish men who went there to support the Government, and they were promptly squelched. The chairman of that meeting is the Chief Whip of the Fine Gael Party in the Dáil. That is the only "supporter" of the Government that I could detect, and he supported it by his opposition. These expectations of the Senator, that the public will be excited by the declamation of a frenzied clique, instead of relying upon the evidence, are rather, I think, too much of egotism. "Athanasius against the world" is the only parallel I know of to Senator Kingsmill Moore and Mr. Alfred Byrne against the evidence. I do not know what is in the report, neither does the Senator, and neither does any of them, but they are quite confident about what it will reveal. It is the old story of the Spanish Chest, the fraud perpetrated some years ago about uncountable wealth being stored in it and people fooled into making contributions to buy it, and when the chest was, by order of the court, opened, it was found to be empty. All said was to blacken the procedure of a dictatorial Government.

Notice the consilience here again between the Senator's henchmen who spoke at the Mansion House meeting and this brochure. This is a clever device; it has been used, I must say, very cleverly. Dr. Moorhead said:—

"In the Dáil the Taoiseach had stated that he was not a dictator.

A Voice: Moryah!

Dr. Moorhead: I think that what Mr. de Valera said is true. He is very fair and very just and not reckless; but I think that a good many of his subordinates are very different. Amongst other things I hope this meeting will do to-night is to put a check to the dictatorial Government that has swept over the country."

It is a dodge to make it appear that there is an incompetent Government in office, that the Taoiseach who is head of the Executive Council does not know what is going on, and that Ministers are irregularly acting under the aegis of the Taoiseach emboldened by the conspicuous innocence of their chief. That will not pass muster. These people say they are proud of the Constitution, but they are ignorant of a principal item in it. Senator Kingsmill Moore and Mr. Wood are brothers at the Bar, being senior counsel, and we would expect them to know a little bit more of law than the ordinary man in the street.

Senator Kingsmill Moore demanded production of the report. Notice his comment: "You may take it from me". We are not taking it from him. At least, I am not taking it from him. I am taking it from the House of Lords, which, next to the Privy Council, is the highest authority with regard to statutes, legal arrangements and all that sort of thing. We took over all that legal system. What is the law with regard to Ministers and Inquiries? With the permission of the House I shall read it, because Senator Kingsmill Moore only read the obligation to behave decently and justly. I think when he was so eloquent upon the selecting of evidence while suppressing the remainder, that when he did profess to quote from these judgments in the House of Lords, he should have given the parts upon which this atrocious Secretary of Health relies. This is from a great Attorney-General who is reputed to be one of the greatest lawyers that England ever had, the present Lord Chancellor, who was then Sir John Simon, Attorney-General.

"The holding of local inquiries by the Local Government Board is directed by many statutes and it has always been the practice of the Board to treat the reports of their inspectors on such inquiries as confidential documents for their own use".

Yet, the Mansion House audience was told that the Government could not shelter behind its being a confidential document, that it was an ad hoc invention of this Parliamentary Secretary, one of the many things that he invented to cover his own offence of unjustly suspending the board. There it is declared by Sir John Simon as the law regulating the relation between an inspector conducting an inquiry and the Minister to whom he reports. There is an old maxim, centuries old, but its authority is no wise lessened by its age, “Qui nimis probat nihil probat”, Who proves too much proves nothing.

The Senator appealed to the psychology of the situation: the inspector saw the witnesses, saw the tremors of their bodies, the facial expressions, all the outward and visible signs of their mental state and so on, acted like the lie-detecting machines we have become so familiar with; that he is the most competent person to arrive at a judgment on the evidence that he procured and because of that we must have the report.

Mr. Wood, if I may come back to him again, though I really think he was drunk with animosity when he spoke and was so carried away by his hatred of Fianna Fáil that he was not quite responsible for what he said, also stated, and it is made a headnote of by the acting editor of the Irish Times:—

"I have been appalled by the Minister's cynical disregard for what seems to me to be the elementary principle on which justice is founded—an elementary principle of justice that you shall not be condemned by a tribunal by which you have not been heard."

That was repeated to us in the debate last night. There is no such principle with regard to the conduct of the statutory business of the Minister for Local Government.

Now I shall again read from the House of Lords' report which will show you the real position. Lord Haldane said:—

"The Minister at the head of the board is directly responsible to Parliament like other Ministers."

It is not to the Mansion House, but to Parliament that he is responsible— that is not from Lord Haldane I need hardly explain. I shall be accused later on of interpolating my own views into it.

Mr. Douglas

I hope the Senator will not hesitate to do so, as it would be very interesting.

Professor Magennis

But I cannot punctuate when I am speaking and the report can be misread accordingly.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

That is a difficulty from which we all suffer.

Professor Magennis

No doubt. I am sure the Senator is conscious of it.

"The Minister at the head of the board is directly responsible to Parliament like other Ministers. He is responsible not only for what he himself does but for all that is done in his Department. The volume of work entrusted to him is very great and he cannot do the great bulk of it himself. He is expected to obtain his materials vicariously through his officials, and he has discharged his duty if he sees that they obtain these materials for him properly."

"Obtain these materials for him properly"; that it is the function of the official whom he appoints to conduct an investigation, to inform the Minister in the discharge of the duties of his office.

Now, my friend, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, also stated:—

"To set up any rule that that decision must on demand, and as matter of right, be accompanied by a disclosure of what went before so that it may be weakened, or strengthened, or judged thereby, would be inconsistent with efficiency, with practice, and with the true theory of complete parliamentary responsibility for departmental decisions"

As a counsel, of whom I am sure the Senator has heard before, once said in a Dublin court: "My lord, if there is any case more than another case like my case then this case is that case." That fills the bill. Senator Kingsmill Moore tried to make it appear that the judgment was purely a decision in regard to a single person in his letter to the Irish Times published on the 24th July. But this is in the judgment of Lord Shaw, one of those great Scottish lawyers to whom everyone, no matter what his national or political prejudices may be, looks to with profound respect:—

"To set up any rule that that decision must on demand, and as a matter of right, be accompanied by a disclosure of what went before, so that it may be weakened or strengthened or judged thereby, would be inconsistent, as I say, with efficiency, with practice and with the true theory of complete parliamentary responsibility for departmental action."

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Will the Senator quote the passage in which Lord Shaw said that in many cases it may be advantageous?

Professor Magennis

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I do not think that I said what the Senator suggests at all but I believe it to be a fact. However, the Senator will not tie me down to that admission.

Professor Magennis

I do not want to take any unfair advantage of the Senator. It would appear that the Senior Wrangler in all these wrangles was the member, Mrs. McKean, and I should like to read to the House the evidence which the skilful cross-examination of Mr. Costello wrung from her. The number of the question is 1914:—

"You did not offer any evidence of the difficulties of the board or the difficulties you had as a member of the board in carrying on the business here a few years before this inquiry was instituted?—That has nothing to do with this inquiry."

That is a sample of her peculiar attitude towards the inquiry at which she appears as a witness for the purpose of affording her assistance.

"You heard Mr. O'Leary give evidence of the difficulties he had? —That he had?

He told us of the difficulties he was having in connection with the bloc vote on the board and matters of that kind——"

The bloc vote is what I am referring to when I say there were from the beginning parties formed. The previous witness had, evidently, deposed to that.

"He [Mr. O'Leary] told us of the difficulties he was having in connection with the bloc vote on the board and matters of that kind?—I heard him. I never saw any bloc voting. There was a bloc of votes on both sides."

I am afraid that I have not read that distinctly and that I have not been heard—"I never saw any bloc voting. There was a bloc of votes on both sides." She never saw any bloc but she saw a bloc of votes on both sides. I once heard a man passing in the street say to his companion: "The divil a one but two." She saw no bloc but she saw two blocs. She added: "There was a bloc on more sides than one."

"Do you say you never saw any signs of that?—It was on both sides."

She is not going to give the credit to one side for having maintained a steady unity of purpose. It was on both sides.

"Would it be true to say that you yourself made a charge against a certain section of the board?"

I interpret " a certain section of the board" as the seven élite.

"Would it be true to say that you yourself made a charge against a certain section of the board that, for six years, you had to suffer vilification and abuse at the hands of certain members of the board?"

"Vilification and abuse at the hands" is, of course, a slip.

"Would that be true?—It would not.

Did you ever write on the 13th November, 1942, a letter to Mr. O'Donovan in which you used these words?—Which words?

Did you write this to him—‘We, appointed members by the Minister....'"

I emphasise that. Those were, apparently, the antagonists—the seven élite and the appointees of the Minister. That is my interpretation.

"Did you write this to him: ‘We, appointed members by the Minister, have had to endure almost six years' vilification and abuse at the hands of a bitter section of the board, mainly due to our efforts to curb expenditure and improve the administration of the hospital?'— I did not think that was six years ago."

Evidently it was still a living memory; she could not believe that time had passed, so poignant was her present consciousness of it. The next question was:—

"You forgot that. Do you accept that you wrote that?—I don't think that has anything to do with it."

Then Mr. Costello asked:—

"Do you accept that you wrote that letter?—Oh, yes. And you forgot about it?—I did.

Do you now want to change your evidence that you gave to the inspector, that you knew of no bloc voting or anything of that kind and that you had not to put up with this for six years?—I say that that has nothing to do with bloc voting. I don't think it has anything to do with the last six years."

May I express my heartfelt sympathy with Mrs. McKean if, for some six years, she had to engage antagonists whose performance is of this order? But the revelation has come from an unwilling witness. She wrote a letter, but she forgot she wrote the letter. Mr. Costello, when Mr. Early, on a point of order, wanted to interpose, said:—

"I am cross-examining the witness and she has admitted writing this. I am asking her about this particular sentence. That letter was written by her. (To witness): That letter is in your handwriting?—It is not in my handwriting."

Then Mr. Costello went on to ask:—

"Do you agree that you wrote the sentence that I have read out to you? You had to endure almost six years' vilification and abuse at the hands of a bitter section of the board, mainly due to our efforts to curb expenditure and improve the administration of the hospital?' "

Then she answered:—

"That is right. I don't agree that it was in the last six years."

The witness further said:—

"I stand over that if I ever said it.

Mr. Early: I suggest that the letter be given in full.

Mr. Costello, S.C.: I am putting the one sentence of the letter for the purpose of dealing with the evidence she has given and nothing else and she admitted that she wrote that particular sentence. (To witness): You wrote that?—Yes. It was not for six years. I admit the rest of it.

Roughly six years?—Yes."

Now, that is a picture of the enmity with which this board, as constituted under the Act of 1936, conducted its proceedings.

Let me turn to another piece of evidence, of the same kind of constant friction, irremediable — no remedy could be applied to it, because the one party regarded itself as the inheritor of a proud tradition and the other antagonist regarded itself as the watchdog of the taxpayer, to secure more complete control over public expenditure and the administration of the hospital. There is evidence here of efforts on the part of the popular party—let me call it that for convenience—to have better administration. I am now looking at page 37 of the White Paper. The same Mr. O'Leary, already referred to, "in his evidence set out the objects which he and his two colleagues had in mind in putting forward their proposal". I do not propose to read the whole memorandum. If I may, I will summarise it. The medical superintendent appears, from his own evidence and from this, to have been a sort of Pooh-Bah; he was not only the medical superintendent, but the whole authority. I understand that is not uncommon in hospitals— that the general medical superintendent has, by the implication of certain duties, to look after a whole lot of things. The proposal was that there should be a layman appointed who would take over from the overtaxed and heavily-burdened general medical superintendent a lot of things which could be more competently, and in any case more constantly, attended to by an officer specially appointed for the purpose. On the ground, I think it was, that the board could not afford the expenditure, that was turned down.

Now, these three wrote a memorandum complaining of the administration and the inefficiency of the board, not of the seven but of the board of which they were members. We have here on the minutes of the board a fortnight later an acknowledgment of the receipt of this memorandum. Now, one of the accusations is that these three—I will summarise it again, so that the Senator need not interrupt me—were spies, agents, engaged in espionage on behalf of the Minister—he spoke of the appointment of anyone of that sort as imbecility. I would use a very much stronger word—if a Minister desired, in appointing members of the board, that their functions should be to spy and report as spies on their colleagues, it would be a despicable thing. I do not think any man or woman of honour would accept such an appointment if he or she had any reason to suppose that that was the nature of the appointment as understood by the Minister.

There is the case of the dismissal of the gate-keepers. There is, of course, a dispute as to what were the exact terms of their appointment, but we will accept the account given by the chairman of the board in his evidence A man and his wife were to be joint gate-keepers, and, like that old index of the weather, when the man is in, the woman is out and when the woman was out, the man was in. They were to be something like that; they were to share the duties of gate-keepers, but unfortunately the man was a handyman, and when he should have been discharging the duty of gate-keepers, he was fitting a fuse as an electrician, or acting as coadjutor transport officer carrying a patient from one ward to another, in this hospital for infectious diseases. He might be hurriedly called upon to drop his patient, to cease being a transport officer and to get back to the gate.

It happened on one occasion that he was doing one of his multifarious handyman jobs when an ambulance arrived with a serious case. The woman at this particular moment was incapacitated by illness and the gate remained closed. The man had to be sent for and sought after, and the delay was complained of by the doctor whose case was affected—very properly complained of. What sort of hospital was this? Were they so poor in circumstances as to be obliged to have such an arrangement? Because of this dereliction of duty on the part of the man, that, being a man, he was unable to be in two places at once, he is visited with dismissal. Under what circumstances? He is threatened by the general medical superintendent and the chairman of the board — remember that I am quoting from sworn evidence given by the chairman of the board and the general medical superintendent—and was told that if this occurred again, he would be dismissed.

That, as every man of commonsense will admit, meant that he was not to be dismissed on this occasion for this offence, but that if he repeated it, he would be dismissed. The chairman of the board dismissed him without any recurrence of the offence and defended his action, when giving sworn evidence, on the ground that, when the man was charged, he was guilty of impertinence. We want the courtly manners of the 18th century to be a possession of a joint gate-keeper. When I read that evidence, I recalled the famous French rhyme:

"Cet animal est tres méchant

Quand on I'attaque, il se défend."

This is a wicked animal; if you attack it, it will defend itself. The gate-keeper, reproached with the enormity of his offence was not polite enough, did not come up to the standard of politeness of the chairman, and it was for that offence therefore that he and his wife were both dismissed.

That shows the spirit of the management. There are so many things of that kind, apart altogether from this constant friction between two parties on the board which show that that board had to be got rid of and the public are asked to believe that there is "a monstrous miscarriage of justice"—I am quoting from the pamphlet "Justice"—in getting rid of the board. Why, in Heaven's name, was it not got rid of earlier? No such board animated by such feelings as have been revealed in that inquiry could possibly be left in charge of a great medical institution, of a hospital intended to take charge of all the fever and infectious cases from the city and county. I apologise to the House for the length and for the tedium of my speech. The tedium is not due to me and the length is due to the introducer of the matter.

Liam O Buachalla

Is maith liom gur tugadh an cheist seo os comhair an tSeanaid, biodh gur cheapas i dtosach nach ceist í a mbfiú mórán áirde do thabhairt uirthi. Tá súil agam, ó tá spéis dúisithe i muintir Bhaile Átha Cliath agus i muintir na tíre ins an gceist seo, go leanfaidh siad den spéis sin go dtí an deireadh. Rachadh sé do leas gnotha poiblí agus gnotha tráchtála pobal na tíre go leanfadh siad d'anspéis a chur ins an gceist.

I should like to say, in the first instance, that when I received a certain document described under the title "Justice," I felt, on first impulse, that I should send it to the Minister for Justice. Some years ago, there seemed to be a tendency in this country on the part of some people to indulge in a very vile form of conduct, namely, the writing and circulating of anonymous letters. A certain judge in the West of Ireland quite properly looked upon this conduct very severely and made public his intention to end it, and, I believe, in his particular circuit, did end it. However, much though I should like to have known who the author, the authoress, or the authors of this anonymous letter was or were, I consigned it to my wastepaper basket. The basket was not emptied for some days—not before the arrival of this White Paper—and I was very glad to have this document "Justice" and the White Paper by me at the same time. I do not intend to go through an analysis of this document. Senator Magennis has analysed it exceedingly well, and I think has earned the gratitude of the House for the manner in which he dealt with it.

In this matter the Minister for Local Government has very many duties imposed upon him, but in this particular case four duties stand out. One is to see to it that public moneys are properly spent, another is that he will see to it, as far as lies in his power, that there shall exist the right of all citizens to equal opportunities whether in business life or in private life. A third of his duties is to see that the sick are protected and a fourth to see that the poor are protected. If the Minister failed to carry out these duties he would deserve not alone to be censured, but he would deserve to be despised.

In due course, Messrs. Jones were awarded this contract by the board. The contract came before the Local Government Department and they refused to sanction the decision of the board. The board there and then, although it seems it was convinced that Messrs. Warren were an incapable firm, agreed to the handing of this contract to Messrs. Warren. In due course, the work was done by Messrs. Warren for the sum of £566. In due course, the work as done by Messrs. Warren was examined not alone by the people inside but by people outside and it was admitted by all parties that they had carried out the work properly and efficiently. I am not making any charge, but I could not help remembering during Senator Kingsmill Moore's address that it does happen among contractors that contracts or parts of contracts are sub-let, and when he mentioned in this House about these four or five new tenders being in or around the same figure— the figure quoted by Messrs. Jones—I could not help feeling that something strange was likely to happen.

This Mr. Webb, an authority on painting for this firm of Crampton and Co., a member of this board, must have been aware that Messrs. Warren were technically efficient and commercially sound. If he occupied that position in the firm of Messrs. Crampton he must have been aware, as Senator Quirke pointed out yesterday evening, that this firm of Warren and Sons had been engaged in and had completed satisfactorily many very important contracts. Among them were the Customs House in 1943 at £1,200; the new Industry and Commerce building at the other side of Kildare Street, for Messrs. Sisk and Co., a contract to the extent of £2,700; and the Dundrum Asylum, for the Board of Works, at a sum of £1,500. What I want to know in connection with this particular item, and what I think the ordinary business people in this city, the workers in this city and the people of Ireland will want to know in connection with this contract, is: did Mr. Webb and some members of the board know just a little bit more about Messrs. Warren than it was good for Messrs. Warren that they should know about them?

The second case—the first case in order of time—is this repairs contract. Here again, there were two quotations. It might be somewhat difficult for a layman just to find out how one tender happened to be somewhat lower than the other. However, tenders were received. One was from the firm of Messrs. Higgins, Ushers' Quay, Dublin, and the other from a firm named Hull. Higgins' tender was for £2,395, and Hull's tender was for £2,539; that is to say the first tender I mentioned was the lower by a few hundred pounds approximately. The architect of this board, examining the tenders, provided two reasons why the tender of Messrs. Higgins should not be accepted. The two reasons, as I have been able to make out, are these: first, that certain items were not included in Messrs. Higgins' tender. Senator Kingsmill Moore estimated the value of those items at between £150 and £200. The second reason was that Messrs. Higgins had not included in their figure a sum for contingencies. This sum amounted to £200. By adverting to those two facts—that certain minor items had not been included by Messrs. Higgins, and this question of the contingency items—it worked out that Messrs. Hull's tender was the lower by a few hundred pounds. Messrs. Hull's tender was accepted.

It will be remembered—it is important, although perhaps the amount may not seem very significant—that Messrs. Hull's tender at £2,539 included £200 to cover contingencies. All very well so far as it goes, but what happened? Messrs. Hull came in on the job. They got to work on the contract for which they had tendered, and without further ado they were allowed to perform many other important works and to get paid for them. They were allowed, for instance, to estimate for additional work in connection with the subject of their contract to the amount of £812 10s. 2d. Further extra work was done on a time and materials basis to the amount of £208 8s. 7d., and certain other work—pointing, to be precise—was done to the extent of £28 4s. 6d. I have not finished the list, but it was mentioned yesterday that the architect could not have been aware that this work needed to be done. The buildings were old. It was only when a ladder was thrown up and some scaffolding erected that he was able to ascertain precisely what should have been done. That was how that architect fulfilled his duties in regard to a public hospital. If those buildings had collapsed, if servants or patients or members of the public had been injured or killed, what a fine come-back it would have been on the part of the architect to say that he was not able to get up to examine those buildings and find out their condition. This firm also had paid to them the sum of £19 11s., the amount of their guarantee bond. They were allowed the sum of £107 mentioned by Senator Kingsmill Moore, because of the increase in the cost of materials due to emergency conditions. I wonder how many Senators took in just what Senator Kingsmill Moore had to say on that particular item?

These contractors, he assures us, were entitled to a 33? per cent. increase because of the change in the prices of materials, yet these public benefactors calculated their costs and their profits to a nicety and were willing to, and did, forego how much? About 23 per cent. on what was due to them on that particular item. I could not get it out of my head, when I heard Senator Kingsmill Moore, that there was something rather fishy about the item. Well, let me go on. Extra work on building amounted to £46 15s. 4d., and, again, extra work on the Beneavin Home amounted to £68 9s. 6d. I make out the total for that to be £1,290 19s. 1d., over and above the contract tendered for and awarded to Messrs. Hull. I wonder was there anything wrong with the commercial solvency of Messrs. Higgins? I wonder was their technical efficiency the cause, or the reason, why that firm was not given that contract? I, and other Senators and the public, will be very interested to know just why that contract was dealt with in the manner it was, and I think we will agree that the Minister, who would be aware of that and who would have failed to act in the way he acted, would certainly be deserving of our most severe censure.

Just one word more before I finish. Apart from all these sweets that fell into the lap of Messrs. Hull, there is a question I want to ask with regard to this £200 for contingencies. When they tendered at £2,539, that figure included a sum for contingencies, and yet, as I have shown, this firm did extra work and was paid all along the line, and eventually they got this £200 besides. I wonder where did that £200 go? I wonder is there a doubt in any man's mind as to whether that board discharged its duties as it should have?

The thing that astonished me when I came to inquire into this was the fact that this board seemed to meet at 8.30 in the morning. All during the emergency this board met at 8.30 in the morning.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Nine o'clock to be correct.

Liam O Buachalla

They met for their breakfast at the institution, then they proceeded to dispose of the business of the board, and then they got away to their business as quickly as they could. It seems to me that, in all circumstances, the board was not in a position to discharge its duty either to the Department of Local Government or to the public. I intend leaving the matter at that.

What I want to refer to is the attack that was made on these members. I know only one of the three members concerned with this joint report to the Minister in connection with the affairs of the board, and that man is Mícheál O Foghludha, a man who has enjoyed a very honoured position and a very honoured place in the business life of this city for how long I do not know. Not alone that, but a man who day in and day out, so long as I can remember, and I am sure for a much longer period than I can remember, never wavered and never swerved in his duty as a public representative, and above all in his duty as an Irishman. The Irish cause, whether as a political cause or as a cultural cause, never had any more loyal or any more honoured soldier or servant than Mícheál O Foghludha, and I despise the infamous aspersions that were cast, or attempted to be cast, by Senator Kingsmill Moore, on that gentleman.

I want to say one other word. There has been a lot of talk about the report. Again, I am perfectly satisfied with the reply that Senator Magennis has made in connection with it, but what I want to know is this: is there a report? If there is a report, how does Senator Kingsmill Moore know it is there?

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

It has been stated twice by the Minister's Secretary.

Liam O Buachalla

I understand that a person carrying out an investigation, if he were to make a report would make a report of a confidential nature to the Minister, and it occurred to me during Senator Kingsmill Moore's speech, in connection with this report, that he was protesting too much. It occurs to me that if there is a report, then Senator Kingsmill Moore knows the contents of that report and, if he does, how did he come by it?

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I can state quite definitely that I do not.

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order. In view of the definite statement of Senator Kingsmill Moore, I think Senator O Buachalla should be called upon to withdraw. According to the ordinary rules of debate, an assurance of that sort is accepted.

Can the Senator really see the Department missing that? I cannot.

Towards the close of his speech, Senator O Buachalla referred to one member of the board whom he knew personally, and spoke highly of his character and integrity. I am sure that was quite correct. I could do the same in regard to two or three members of the board. But I would prefer to conduct this debate from the point of view that all the members of the board were persons of integrity who were carrying out their duties according to their lights. I see no reason why that should not apply to every member of the board, no matter what side they may have been on. I cannot think of anything much more extreme in the way of different outlook than Senator O Buachalla and Senator Kingsmill Moore. I personally have always believed, and still believe, that both of them are perfectly honest in expressing the views in which they believe. Why this should not apply equally to members of the board I do not know. I am not criticising Senator O Buachalla. I am only emphasising the point that that is the proper basis on which this should be considered.

Before the adjournment I was contending that, having regard to all the circumstances, the White Paper, plus the documents circulated by the Minister, did not provide sufficient cause for the abolition of the board. I was giving that as a reason, which I was starting to develop, why I believe it would be wise, provided of course the Minister is not prepared to reinstate the board, to publish the inspector's report. Now there has been a great deal of play made, especially by Senator Magennis, with a certain judgement in the House of Lords.

I confess that I cannot help viewing that with a certain amount of amusement. But, in the document issued by the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, he winds up by stating that the decision of the House of Lords in this case clearly establishes that the Minister is acting within his right in not publishing the inspector's report. That is quite correct. The House of Lords' decision, which is a legal decision and which, therefore, still affects our law here, does make it clear that, in law, he has the right to refuse to publish the report. But he goes on to say that the House of Lords' decision also establishes, as stated by Lord Moulton, that it would cripple the usefulness of public inquiries and be entirely mischievous if such reports were made public. I want to suggest that a personal opinion of one of the law lords on policy as distinct from law, given in 1915 or now, is of no value whatever to this country and cannot be of any value, and that the decision of the House of Lords does not necessarily establish everything stated by the judges. It is true that Lord Moulton, as quoted by the Minister, stated that it was not for him to express an opinion on the desirability of an administrative Department taking any particular course and, having said it would not be desirable, proceeded to do it. That is not an uncommon thing, but it has no validity or no effect on what is wise or not wise at the present time here. It has no validity except in respect to the law at present, and that is that the Minister is free, as far as the law is concerned, to withhold or to publish the report.

It seems to me that there are reasons why this report should be published. The first reason, which I have already given, is that these two documents do not satisfy a very large number of persons and that the White Paper does suggest something which, if not corruption, is very much bordering on it, in the statement that the board were disposed to give the work to a particular firm without due examination. That, if it be true, is not fully proved in the documents. That is a very serious charge. Men, accepting a public position, whether on a hospital board or any other board, must recognise that they are subject to criticism. They have to be subject sometimes to unfair criticism which everybody in this House knows quite well. But it is not right to suggest that their motives are wrong or that they are guilty of corruption. Without further specific reasons being given, it seems to me that that ought not to be allowed to pass without further evidence of some kind, and that the most conclusive and best way of dealing with it would be the publication of the report.

Senator Kingsmill Moore gave details to suggest and, as he believed, to prove — and subject to other evidence which may be forthcoming, he seemed to me to prove—that there are statements in this White Paper which are not correct. I do not think that should be left there. I think it should be answered. It cannot be properly answered here to-day. I think it should be answered, and I believe it will be best answered by the publication of the report, because we would know then what a man, who had access to all the documents, and who, everybody admits, would have obtained everything he needed, believed to be the truth.

Now there are other reasons that I want to put forward. It was argued by Senator Magennis, and I think it is argued by the Minister, that in the ordinary way an inspector's report, under normal circumstances where the inquiry was ordered by the Local Government Department, is not usually published. I think that is probably correct. When I say "probably" I mean that I have heard some suggestions that there are occasional cases where it is published, and therefore I am not going to tie myself down, but I am assuming it to be correct. I would point out to the House, however, and I think it is important, that this is not an ordinary case. I suggest that it is equally unusual to publish a White Paper and that it is equally unusual for the Minister to write to the inspector who has been appointed by him and send him 39 pages, including suggestions of corruption. I am not saying that it is never done, but I am saying that it is unusual, and it helps to make this case unusual. There are, however, reasons which appeal to me to a greater extent even than those I have put forward. In this case my only object in desiring publication of the inspector's report is because I believe it is the best way of disabusing the public mind, or the mind of a very large section of the public in Dublin, of a very considerable amount of uneasiness. Of course there are always people who are prepared to raise any matter as a purely political weapon, but there are a large number of people in this case who are genuinely uneasy. I know that to be true. Senator Magennis astonished me by speaking of one Government as our Government, and of the Government of ten or twelve years ago as not being our Government, so to speak. To my mind, the Government is our Government. We are concerned with its good name, and so long as a large number of people feel that a matter is not being dealt with properly, justly, and conscientiously, that is a bad thing, but I believe that that is the feeling of a large number of people at the present moment in regard to this question of the Cork Street Hospital, and the question is how the minds of that large section of the people can be disabused of that idea, because I am satisfied that it has not been disabused of it.

I want to recall one or two of the circumstances. This inquiry was called for because of a report made by three members for the board to the Minister. That report contained what might be regarded as charges—they were certainly allegations. When the inquiry was held, not only were certain members of the majority of the board represented by counsel, but counsel were present representing these three members of the board who had made charges or allegations, and witnesses were cross-examined for the purpose of proving these charges. Now, to the mind of the ordinary public here, that was a trial. It had the effect of a trial. There were charges made against certain individuals, counsel were engaged on both sides, and, without going into the question of whether he was there in a semi-judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, there was a person there who was regarded by the public as judging the case. That is not always the case, but there were charges, and those charges are repeated to a certain extent in the White Paper, and in my opinion the best way to deal with that is by publishing the report.

Again, I repeat, it is a matter of whether it is good policy to publish the report, and not whether you are legally bound to publish it or not. But when I look into many of the points raised either in the White Paper or in this letter — all of which, we may assume, if they are not the actual reasons why the board was abolished, were considered by the Minister to be relevant to the board's abolition — I find it very easy to understand why there should be a difference of opinion. We have an allegation that the medical superintendent was allowed to make a suggestion that there should be an increase in nurses' pay, and that he was allowed by the board to quote the rates payable in England. I cannot see, for the life of me, what is wrong in that, and I think it is the height of absurdity that that should be objected to while the Minister comes along and quotes an opinion, not merely on a point of law, but an opinion of the House of Lords in 1915. It may be good enough for the Minister, but it is not good enough for the purpose of a comparison as to whether the nurses are paid sufficiently or not. It is also suggested that the nurses had not asked for an increase. I think it is wrong for a public institution to wait until its employees ask for more. If you want to have a good and satisfied staff, the board ought not to wait until they ask for an increase in their pay, but even supposing that they were wrong in that, it is no reason for dismissing the board.

In this accompanying document I find a speech made by Dr. Ward in this House quoted as relevant to the matter, and in that speech he sets out a whole lot of points in which there was a difference of opinion with the board. They were all matters in which perfectly honest people could have a difference of opinion, but there could be no grounds whatever for abolishing the board because of that difference of opinion, and why they are brought up here is beyond me. Let us consider a few of them. We find that the board advocated the provision of a swimming pool for nurses, a covered ball-alley at a cost of £1,500, and 23 cottages for male employees at a cost of £650 each. The Minister recognised the need for recreational facilities, including tennis courts, a ball-alley—uncovered—a recreation hall, a billiard room for the medical staff, and common rooms for nurses and domestics, but considered that the provision of the other things could not be justified. Now, what, fundamentally is wrong in a public body suggesting that there should be additional accommodation, such as a swimming pool, a covered ball-alley, cottages, and so on? I can easily imagine a board, when it comes to the question of erecting a certain type of hospital, which is expected to last for 100 or 200 years, wanting to look ahead and see to it that these things should last as long as possible, and, I can also easily see a Minister for Local Government wanting to cut these things out, although I feel that when it is expected that the hospital will last for 100 or 200 years, you ought to bear that in mind, and at any rate to make it as modern as you possibly can.

We find various economies being enforced as against the wishes of the board. The board wanted the floor space per patient in the cubicle blocks to be 144 square feet, and it was reduced to 110 square feet. What has that got to do with the abolition of the board? It is perfectly proper for a board to suggest that it would be better to have the larger floor space provided. More absurd still, however, we find that the board proposed that each maidservant should have a separate room. Is there any crime in that? The Department of Local Government decided that that was not desirable and that the maids should be accommodated in cubicle dormitories, thus reducing the cost of their accommodation. Now, that is a fair reason for a difference of opinion, but it is certainly not a matter to justify the abolition of the board. I have no difficulty in seeing that, in matters of that kind, there could be legitimate differences of opinion and I can even see that heat could develop from those differences of opinion. On an issue of that kind, there would, probably, be heat in this House. What I cannot understand is why the existence of differences of opinion in the board, and with the Local Government Department, should have any bearing on the abolition of the board. Senator Magennis quoted from the White Paper the evidence of a lady which seemed to operate more against his own argument than in favour of it. Knowing the lady and knowing several members of the board, I do not think that the heat was any greater than the heat which is occasionally developed here, after which we all go out laughing. As for "vilification and abuse" I know several of the members and I do not think that such took place. Nobody could really believe that there was serious vilification. If a strong difference of opinion justifies the abolition of a board, then it would be better to abolish the Dáil.

He would not dare to do his job, if he wanted to preserve his life or liberty, by making statements of what he thought about certain people or classes of people. Suppose there was a contradiction of evidence in certain cases. He would have to say which side he believed and which he did not believe. It is a difficult thing for a man to say who is telling the truth and who is not. I do not suggest that, in this case, a particle of evidence was given that was not correct. There was no suggestion that the entire evidence was not perfectly truthful. But if there were a contradiction of evidence, would the inspector state that he believed some witnesses and disbelieved others if he knew that the statement would be published? He could not live in the City of Dublin, or even in Ireland, after making a report of that kind. It would be an unfortunate thing if the Government were to decide to depart from the practice which has been in operation in the Local Government Department and say that they would in future publish the reports of inspectors. If such a thing happened, the most the inspector could write in is: "I have taken a full note of the evidence; here it is and make the most of it." That is all the inspector could write; he could give no other opinion. Therefore, if an inquiry is to be an inquiry, if it is to be for the benefit of the Department which the inspector represents, he must have an absolutely free hand and that report must be a sacred document, confined to the Minister and to the Minister only. That has happened in every case; no exception has been made with regard to this Cork Street Hospital. Therefore on that ground they have no cause for complaint.

Senator Kingsmill Moore started off by saying that the Local Government Department refused to give them particulars of the matters to be inquired into. He seemed to base his case on that and regarded it as proving that the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary, had a spite against the governors of this hospital. I can tell Senator Kingsmill Moore that there have been numerous inquiries held in this country and in no instance have particulars been given to the councils concerned of the matters to be inquired into. I was at an inquiry into the affairs of the Galway County Council and we asked what were the matters to be inquired into and we got no information beyond an indication that there would be inquiries made with regard to affairs over a period of ten years, or some period like that.

Mr. Sweetman

The sooner the system is changed, the better.

Mr. O'Dea

There was an inquiry in Limerick which lasted for 35 days and I asked Senator Ryan, who was counsel at that inquiry, if they had asked the Minister to enumerate the matters to be inquired into. He said they had and the reply they got was that all matters concerning the work of the corporation from a certain year to a certain year were to be inquired into. That is the only information they got. Therefore no exception has been made in this case and no different policy has been adopted with regard to the Cork Street Hospital from what has been adopted with regard to every council in Ireland. We have had numerous inquiries all over the country. I thought that in Galway we had one of the best boards of health in Ireland, without exception. The members of that board of health were asked to appoint an assistant county medical officer of health. They did not refuse; they said: "In a short time we believe the necessity will arise and we will then appoint one". They were abolished for that.

An inquiry was held into the affairs of the Clare County Council. It was found that a certain amount of rates had not been collected. By the time the Order came out abolishing the council they were one of the best councils in Ireland, yet they were abolished and we had no debate in the Dáil or in the Seanad. A very curious thing arises from a statement made by Senator Kingsmill Moore. He referred to the older members; he appears to represent the older members. There is no talk about the majority of the members of the board. I have heard of no great complaints by them. I understand Senator Healy was a member of that board. I do not see him here listening to the debate and I do not see his wife here to cry over him because he was abolished.

Mr. Hearne

He has not a wife.

Mr. O'Dea

He ought to have a wife.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

His wife might not like him getting up at 9 o'clock.

Mr. O'Dea

Anyway, he had not to go any longer since the inquiry. There were many matters mentioned in connection with this report. Senator Kingsmill Moore said, when the inquiry was held, that because the inspector showed a certain belief that there was nothing in certain charges, counsel representing the board discontinued his cross-examination—I think that is what he said—and also did not produce certain witnesses that he would have produced if a different attitude had been taken up by the inspector. Now we know that, from the time local government started in this country, the inspector's duty is to take evidence and that that evidence has to be considered by the Minister. Therefore every particle of evidence must be given, no matter what expressions you see on the countenance of the man holding the inquiry. We all know that at inquiries we do not bother whether he looks pleasant or indifferent. The witness is examined and cross-examined and it is really what is written down by the shorthand-writer that is examined by the Minister. That is the only thing the Minister has to go on. If they now complain that the Minister, or the assistant Minister, had to come to his conclusions because all the evidence on their side was not given, I say that is not the fault of the Minister or the assistant Minister; it is their own funeral when they did not give the evidence they ought to have given at this inquiry.

Take the White Paper that we have here. It differs practically in no way from the letter written to Mr. McLysaght when he was appointed to take charge of this hospital. Certain matters do appear and they have not been denied. There was, for instance, the contract for painting. Senator Kingsmill Moore said they could have accepted that tender, whether the Minister liked it or not, and it was only as a matter of grace and courtesy that they accepted the higher tender, subject to the sanction of the Minister. I do not think that is all. I do not know whether the Minister has power to refuse to sanction a tender accepted by any council. I am very doubtful about it. I do know that a council is bound to accept the lowest tender, and if they do not accept the lowest tender they must put on the minutes their reasons for not doing so. I also know that if they do not accept the lowest tender and there are not very good reasons given, the auditor will come along and surcharge the members who voted for the acceptance of the higher tender— surcharge them for the difference between the higher and the lower tenders.

That is possibly the reason why the Minister's sanction is asked for—in order to protect the members against a surcharge, not through any courtesy or anything else, but simply in order to protect them. That is what happened in this case. They did accept the higher tender and the difference was very great. They say: "We were told by a member that if we accepted the lower tender the man contracting could not supply proper paint." If they really believed that, they were not fit to be members of a public board, because we all know that every contract is founded on a specification, that the specification specified the nature of the paint and other materials to be supplied and that the architect has to see that those things are supplied. If, therefore, a contractor contracts at a figure which is too low, that is his loss and not the loss of the board.

Besides it is absurd to suggest that, if I am a contractor, I could not tender lower than somebody else. Suppose I have paint in stock which I have bought at a lower rate, what is to prevent my tendering at a lower figure and making as much profit as the man who tenders at a higher figure would make, if he has to buy in the open market? There is no point in that at all. I think that what was really worse than accepting the higher tender was that, after they had opened the tenders, they invited certain people to tender again. That is unheard of in my experience—and I have had a good deal of experience—of public life.

It may happen that no tender at all is received, but when tenders are opened, they are opened before a board of so many people—in this case, it is not said that there was even a tenders committee—and it is almost impossible to keep them a secret among so many members unless they are sworn to secrecy, and they are not sworn to secrecy, to keep the members from talking in public houses or other places outside and letting everyone become aware of what is the lowest tender. It is also opposed to public policy to readvertise for that reason.

I have dealt with cases of contracts again and again and I know the position in which boards very often find themselves. I can give particulars of one case that occurred quite recently. It concerns a contract for the erection of a building, and I think six or seven people tendered. The tender of one of these people was about £500 or £600 below the amount of the next lowest tender. The tenders varied from about £500 to £1,000 above the lowest tender. We decided to accept the lowest tender but at the next meeting we had a letter from this man refusing to go on with the contract on the ground that he had since found out that he was so very much below the other people who tendered. The board was in a different position in that case because the figures had been exposed. When you advertise again, the figures are known and the question then arises as to how contractors, aware of what is being done, are going to arrange their tenders. The board in this case would appear to have recognised that difficulty and they asked five people to tender. Again, I am assuming that these five persons were decent people—people who could be relied upon. Prima facie, it would appear to me at any rate that the board acted as a body of honourable men, because the tenders received from these five people were above the higher of the two tenders previously received. They could have made their tenders 5/- or 10/-, an insignificant amount, below the tender and secured the contract but the tenders were actually above those previously received.

I can see that it might also be alleged that the person who tendered at £944 could have said: "We can arrange our tenders so that we can all be above the higher of the two first received." If that is the allegation— it seems that could be alleged and that may be at the back of the mind of the Minister or the inspector—it is a serious position. It is a position that occurs very frequently in business. I have had a good deal of experience in connection with contracts and of trying to meet the tricks of the trade, if I might so refer to them, resorted to by contractors. We find a person going below a certain figure on certain items and putting up the figures on other items. His total would appear to be the lowest tender until it is very carefully examined by the architect. Very frequently while his tender appears to be the lowest, it would actually prove to be considerably higher than other tenders. Any architect who knows his business at all is aware of that danger. You have got to keep your eyes open the whole time. Unless you do so, there are some curious results. As regards the painting contract there has been a reference, I think, to a sum of £200, that was a provisional item. It was suggested this morning that that £200, while being a provisional sum, was paid in addition to the sums charged for extras.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Since that suggestion was made, I have got hold of the facts and the House would probably like to know them. I have been in communication with the architect. He says that the whole of the contingency item was exhausted and that it was all accounted for in connection with the settling up of extras. That should settle any difficulty in regard to that.

Mr. O'Reilly

Had it been a fact that the £200 was paid in addition to the other payments, then I say the architect was responsible and should have been surcharged for that amount. That was his responsibility, not the responsibility of the board. My personal opinion is that in one of the two cases, that is the general maintenance case, the White Paper fails to establish the Minister's case. I think the evidence goes overwhelmingly to show that. In the case of the other contract the most that can be said is that there would appear to have been an error of judgment and I should like to know the people who were the members of the board before coming to a final decision on that.

With regard to the point about the gatekeeper's dismissal, a rather peculiar contradiction occurs. On the one hand throughout the report it is stated that the board were recommended to do certain things and they refused to do those things because, had they done them, extra expense would have been involved. When it comes to the gatekeeper, we are told that the board in order to avoid the necessity of making another appointment decided that the wife of the caretaker would occasionally hold the fort while the husband was engaged temporarily on other work. There is a bit of a contradiction there because on the one hand when the board does economise they are blamed in the report and when they failed to expend money in another direction they are blamed for that too, so that the position is rather peculiar.

Reference was made by some Senators — it may have been Senator Magennis; I forget for the moment—to this question of dual control. I know that the Department with which I have been connected for a long time does not believe in dual control. I think anyone who has the slightest experience of a mixture of administrative and technical work will see at once that there must be some one person exercising general control over both sides, otherwise there is a cause for constant friction internally. I do say that, to the extent it is possible, such people should be relieved of drudgery and all assistance possible should be given, but in the long run one person must control both functions. There is a reference on page 27 of the report which I think is rather remarkable. I think it was rather small on the part of the authors of the report to put it there. Here is the doctor faced with a very serious condition of affairs; nurses are not forthcoming and he then puts up innocently the suggestion to the board regarding a means which will ensure a supply of suitable persons. He does not force that down the throats of the board. He simply submits it to them. Then the chairman says that this report should be circulated to the members. The medical officer is blamed for doing that. The suggestion is that that was a wrong thing for him to do. I would venture to say that that is simply implementing something which is killing this country, something that will make it die and fade off the face of the earth. Because officers generally know that they will not get the smallest bit of thanks for doing the slightest thing outside their duty, the very souls of those officers and the soul of the whole system are being destroyed. Here is an officer who has exercised a bit of initiative, and he is condemned for having done so.

On page 28 there is a reference to the effect that there was no recorded evidence of any direction being given to the medical superintendent to investigate and submit proposals. There again is the military discipline, the soul-destroying attitude, brought in. I see that Senators are incredulous about that, but I know what I am talking about in connection with this matter. Again, on pages 31 and 32, there are some very curious references to the figures of 1/7 per day for the patients and 2/6 for the other people. Those, I think, are rather small, and have been fairly well explained by the lady in charge. To my mind—and I know exactly what I am talking about, because I have been in the habit of making calculations and giving statistics—it is a reasonable explanation.

I myself was engaged on a case which took ten days in the High Court, and I got discovery of documents. The files of certain Government Departments were produced in court. If that report were produced in court, I suppose the fact of its production there might give it a certain cover, but I do not know to what extent the individual would still be entitled to attack the author of the things in it.

Before I come to the larger issues to which I have referred, I should just like to apologise to Senator Magennis for an interruption I made last night. I have the highest possible respect for the Senator. I expressed my gratitude to him for a certain attitude which he adopted here on several occasions, and I still feel in that way towards him. I raised the question last night as to whether Senator Magennis was entitled to quote the opinions of Dr. Moorhead and various other people. I do not think we are concerned with the opinions of Dr. Moorhead or of anybody else. We are concerned with an investigation of, and an ascertainment of, the facts, and as I had not read that pamphlet I felt rather handicapped, because it seemed to me that it was not the White Paper, but this particular pamphlet, that was under discussion.

There were some regrettable personalities introduced even prior to this discussion yesterday afternoon. I associate these personalities with some circulars that were issued recently in connection with the Thomas Davis centenary celebrations. I think everyone here knows that the spirit of that man was a large one, that his idea was that this nation must integrate all its elements sooner or later if we are going to be a great nation. Every great Irishman has felt the same. I think, therefore, it is a pity that people like the Society of Friends who were mentioned last night, and various other personalities, were introduced at all. But since they were introduced I think everyone present will admit that, whatever we may think about other bodies, the members of the Society of Friends have always been highly respected here. They have been looked upon as genuine Christians. I often think, when passing by their final resting-places and seeing that there is no difference in the gravestones at the end, that they have a high degree of Christianity. Therefore I think it was very cruel to reflect upon such people.

Mr. O'Dea

Would the Senator say who made any reflection on them? I did not hear the least reflection cast upon them by anybody who spoke here.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Senator Kingsmill Moore was rather severely castigated because he is supposed to have some connection with other documents, and for various things which he said. There is the saying: "Much is forgiven her because she hath suffered much." Now I think it was obvious to all of us that the Senator has suffered a great deal in connection with this. It was fairly obvious that he has suffered much in spirit. We all look upon him, and admire him, as a perfectly honest man. He may be very wrong in his opinions. I am not going to exercise judgment on that, but I think we must all be satisfied that he was perfectly honest and straightforward in explaining this matter.

I come now to the question of inquiries in general. Some time ago I read a book written by two Italian professors, now associated with Harvard University, in which they gave the origin of this inquiry system. They traced it back to the Fascist system in Italy. They pointed out that if a body in any part of Italy did not agree with the central body of the Fascist organisation it was disbanded. Ultimately, this system of dissolving bodies was carried over to America, so that we got it in a roundabout fashion here. The feeling of our people generally about the system is that it is destroying all idea of democracy. The feeling in the country is that a board is already doomed even before an inquiry is held. That is the general opinion of the people. There is the old saying: "Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." We may change that slightly and say: "Whom the Government in power wish to destroy, they first hold an inquiry." That would be the modern equivalent of the old saying.

We have then this inquiry system. Is it doing any good at all? Is it making the country one bit purer? Is it making our public men more sensitive to the nature of the very great trust that is given to them? I cannot see it, because I imagine that, while the present Government is in power, they may have certain difficulties with certain people down the country. They will decide then, when these difficulties accumulate, that the only way of dealing with them is to destroy them —to abolish them. If another Government came into power, let us call it the Fine Gael Government, exactly the same thing would occur. The Fine Gael Government would at once proceed to abolish its opponents down the country. I believe that, as a matter of fact, this inquiry system originated here with the Fine Gael Government, or the predecessors of it. My suggestion is—Senator O'Dea came very close to it and I was afraid that he was going to anticipate me altogether because he said that the powers of the inspectors should be increased and should be of a judicial character — that there should be a further development of that argument, and that it is the courts that should hold these inquiries. They should be regular judicial proceedings, and the Minister should have nothing whatever to do with them.

Professor Magennis

On a point of order. Is it in order to advocate, in a debate of this kind, an amendment of the whole system of local government inquiries and of the status of inspectors, and call that relevance?

Mr. Duffy

The inquiry is over and this will not prejudice the result. This is a point which should be made available in judging the case before us now. I could be informed on the 17th May that this inquiry had been ordered, but when I met six members of the Laoighis County Council next day, not one of them knew a word about it. I then made inquiries as to where the information came from and discovered it came from a gentleman who holds a public office in the neighbouring County of Offaly. He apparently advised some friends that he had been in Dublin and was told by some of his political friends in Dublin that the inquiry was to be ordered and he told those fellows: "Keep your eyes and ears open, to see you do not get into trouble." It is a scandalous state of affairs if inquiries of that kind are ordered and discussed with certain politicians down the country before the facts are made known to the authority whose life is being investigated. It is desirable that Senators realise that notwithstanding the eight hours' discussion we have had here, there are certain aspects that have not been touched on at all. There are certain features colouring the administration of local government which seem to be very undesirable and it is, in fact, these other hidden things that are at stake now, rather than the abolition of the Cork Street Hospital Board.

This debate has already gone on for eight hours and I do not imagine it can go on indefinitely. The whole discussion will be useless if there are merely assertions on one side or the other. It will have served no purpose unless we can decide that, having listened to the matter, we have finished with it, those concerned having vindicated their views or, alternatively, that we take a serious view of the abolition of this board in particular and wish to be informed of the facts. In the latter case, our only way is to appoint a small committee from the members of the House to make that investigation.

Sir John Keane

I did not intend to speak until I heard the remarks from the last speaker, with whom I am in very close agreement, indeed. I am sure the records of this House over the last 20 years show numbers of occasions on which I have deplored the tendency towards centralisation of the business of Government Departments, the inclination of the Government to think they know better, and their officials can do better, than the popular representatives. After all, there is not much essential difference between the Dáil elected by popular vote and the county council also elected on the same franchise. The Dáil was given very wide powers and, happily, nobody has yet thought of abolishing it. On the other hand, the local councils are curbed, tied and confined by Ministers and officials who think they know better. We have a very good example of that in this case. I am not saying, for the purpose of my argument, whether the board has been as businesslike as is required, but I do say that no one seems to refer, except incidentally, to the Department's method of business.

In this matter, the Department's method must be regarded as lamentable, the very negation of business. If an inquiry can be held into the business methods of a public board, it is only reasonable that there should be some means of inquiring, more or less directly and specifically, into the methods of business of a Government Department. That seems to be rather a weakness in our administration. One can bring a motion in either House or can criticise a Minister on the Estimates and can go to the length Parliament sees fit, on an ex parte statement, of passing a vote of no confidence and turing out the Government. Of course, that is not a suitable way to deal with a specific lack of business procedure in regard to some Department of State.

In this case, the record of the Department in regard to the Cork Street Fever Hospital, if inquired into, would show that the Department's methods were far more unbusinesslike than those charged against the board. It is common knowledge that the Hospitals Commission said in 1933-34 that the provision of these extra beds was an urgent matter. The board set up a committee, which went into the whole question of the site and submitted a report, in December, 1935, recommending a site. In January, 1937, the board wrote, asking the Minister's views on their report of December, 1935, and the Minister replied rejecting the site, advising new methods of looking for the site and asking the board to start again. In 1938, many months afterwards, the Minister approved of the original site recommended by the board. To make a long story short, the recommendation of 1933 by the Hospitals Commission, to provide extra accommodation was not implemented by 1939, while the cost of the work, if it has to be carried out now, will be enormously higher. On the facts as I have them, that is due to the dilatory methods of the Local Government Department in dealing with matters that the board brought before them.

I will take another matter, the appointment of engineers for Cork Street Hospital. In November, 1938, the board asked the Local Government Department for advice about consulting engineers. The advice given was followed, a firm was appointed and the Department informed. Ten weeks later the Department refused approval. There is definitely a case where you could test whether this Government Department is qualified to sit in judgment on the businesslike conduct of other people. Ten weeks it took to refuse approval of certain names submitted. The board again asked what the Department wanted, and following new instructions, appointed an engineer, but four months later the Department refused approval of the appointment. Six and a half months later, a year after advice was asked, the Department decided that two engineers were necessary. Again the board concurred and within six weeks engineers were appointed. Take the case of the disinfector. It was nearly worn out and sanction was sought to buy a new one. Sixteen months went by before this was granted and then only because the hospital insurance company refused to continue the insurance. Coming to the X-ray department, it was hard to get X-ray apparatus during the war. One was needed for Cork Street, and there was a chance of a secondhand one, which had hardly been used, at an advantageous price. The board applied for sanction on the 4th July, 5th July, 20th September, 1940, and on March 5th, 1941. The Minister's first reply came on 24th March, 1941, after eight months, and then it was a set of queries. I only mention these points because they have not been adequately stressed. When you make charges against a board I think the record of the people making the charges deserves to be investigated. When I find people with a record of that kind sitting in judgment and abolishing boards the members of which have for years given loyal service to the country——

Professor Magennis

May I inform the Senator that that question was asked in the Seanad and a long explanation given with regard to delays by the Secretary. The record I have is in the Official Debates for March, 1942. I refrain from reading it because I spoke so long already.

Sir John Keane

May I ask if that is a point of order?

An Cathaoirleach

It is a point of explanation.

Professor Magennis

It was through lack of information that the statement was made and I desired to rectify the mind of the Senator and of the House.

Mr. Sweetman

I intervene only because I could not allow the comments made by Senator O'Dea to pass without putting myself on record as being totally opposed to portion of them. Senator O'Dea for whom I had until this afternoon the greatest respect as a solicitor, and as a man of common sense, must have had I am afraid some sort of slight hiatus when dealing with the question of law, as far as privilege of publication is concerned. I have here a report published by other inspector in respect to an accident on the railway, and if anybody is going to suggest that anything the inspector said in that report could form the subject of a libel action against him, I am afraid, if they go to a judge on those lines, they are going to find out their mistake very quickly and have to pay the inspector's costs.

Professor Magennis

That is why the report was published; it was innocuous.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not matter in the slightest from the point of view of law, and I am only dealing with it from that point of view. If an inspector makes a statement in the course of his duties, and if that statement is subsequently published, unless there was malice or such recklessness as would amount to malice behind it, as a matter of law the inspector is completely and absolutely protected and privileged. I am equally clear as a matter of law that there is no law which compels a Parliamentary Secretary or Minister to publish the report of the inspector. Whether a report of an inspector is published or not is a question that comes within the realm of purely public policy as apart from law. But the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, in the memorandum sent out from the Department, went to great pains to show that there was no legal obligation to publish. I do not think it was really suggested that there was any legal obligation to publish. If it was, I think it should not have been suggested. The fact is that there was, either rightly or wrongly, a very substantial number of people who felt that a grave injustice had been done. When a very substantial number of people believe that a grave injustice has been done, then I suggest it is good public policy to allay that feeling, to prove as my friend on the opposite benches said that there was no injustice. Taking it from that point of view, I suggest that as a matter of good public policy it is desirable to prove, if it is a fact, that there has been no injustice. Whether that is proved by publishing the inspector's report, by setting up a select committee, which I suggested to Senator Duffy, or by setting up a judicial tribunal is a matter of complete indifference to me. But I suggest that, when a very substantial body of people feel that this is a matter of public policy, it is desirable to allay that feeling.

I fail to appreciate what exactly Senator O Buachalla meant by his speech, unless it is one of two things: unless it meant that the board were guilty of corruption, or unless it meant that it was all founded purely on the basis of the one contingency item of £200, which presumably can be found out. I gathered from Senator O Buachalla, and he will correct me if I am wrong, that he was charging that board with corruption of one sort or another. If that is so, then I think it is even more necessary that there should be a judicial inquiry or an inquiry by a select committee of the House. If it is not so, I will be glad to hear that my interpretation of his remarks was entirely wrong and, needless to say, if he assures me that my interpretation was wrong, it will be withdrawn.

The fact remains that we heard a very great number of statements. So far as I could hear, no statement was made by Senator Hearne which dealt with any facts, nor was there any statement by Senator O Buachalla which dealt with any facts, except the question of this one contingency item. It always gives me very great pleasure to listen to Senator Magennis. Perhaps no man in this House has such a vocabulary and to listen to him is always a matter of great pleasure to me. But I would suggest that he did not deal at all with the charges made by Senator Kingsmill Moore. It seems to me, therefore, that the situation is one in which no attempt has been made so far to justify the action taken, that a large number of people feel that they are labouring under an injustice and that, in these circumstances, as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of law, some step should be taken by the Minister or by this House —it is immaterial which—to set up a tribunal or a select committee and let that tribunal or select committee report on the facts without, if you like, bringing in the almost constitutional question of whether the report of the inspector should be published.

Senator Kingsmill Moore has handed me a note stating that he has already informed the House about the contingency item. I was not in the House at the time as I was out telephoning. In that case the whole of Senator Hearne's argument falls to the ground, though perhaps he might term it a lawyer's smoke-screen, as he termed another interjection of mine. But, above all, to term anything in this discussion a lawyer's smoke-screen would come rather badly from a Senator supporting the Parliamentary Secretary who quotes Sir John Simon, Lord Moulton, Lord Haldane, Lord Shaw, and Lord Parmoor.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Sir John Simon not being a member of the House.

Mr. Sweetman

That is one of the things that, if it were not so late, I might go into. When it suits people to sneer at lawyers, the sneer goes, but, when it does not, we are great fellows.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I do not propose to enter into an analysis of the White Paper or the other literature circulated in connection with this matter. I should like to approach it from the point of view of the ordinary citizen who would not have these documents at his disposal to help him in forming an opinion, or from the point of view of any visitor who might have been here since the discussion was initiated yesterday by what I consider the excellent case made by Senator Kingsmill Moore, which impressed me very considerably. I listened with rapt attention to his exposition of his side of the question and also to the opposite view put forward by Senator Magennis, Senator O Buachalla and Senator O'Dea. Approaching the matter as an ordinary citizen would, without having access to any of the documents quoted, I can only come to the conclusion that the only way the mind of the ordinary person would be set at rest is by the publication of the report. Though it is not incumbent on the Minister to publish it, it would not be illegal for him to publish it.

As a person who was for a very considerable time connected with public bodies, I am of the opinion that, if the affairs of several public bodies in this country were supervised in the manner in which the affairs of the Dublin Fever Hospital were, very few would survive abolition. I have known a case where a tender was submitted and accepted and afterwards, because the lowest tenderer made a plea that he filled up the tender under a misapprehension or that he made a mistake in the figures, he was allowed by the committee, if the Minister would sanction it, to alter his tender with a view to bringing the amount up to what might be considered reasonable for the work to be done. I certainly was amused with the readiness or the quickness, if I may use that word, with which certain people, in justification of the attitude of the Ministry, rushed into the quotation of the opinions of certain British law lords as to what is right or not right so far as this country is concerned. As a citizen, I should like the Government to be able to justify their conduct, as I am sure they can, without invoking the opinions of eminent law lords on the other side of the channel.

I think it was Senator O Buachalla who inquired whether there was a report as a result of this inquiry. I would imagine that, when the Minister ordered an inquiry into the manner in which the board was discharging its duties and sent an inspector to take evidence, the result of that man's labours would not be the mere submission of the evidence in the form of question and answer but the submission of a report as to the manner in which the particular body whose conduct he was investigating carried out their duties. I hold that this whole question, if it is left as it is, may create a very bad taste in the country, and as the people interested in this matter and who feel aggrieved would be satisfied if the report were published, I hold that an unanswerable case has been made for its publication. I imagine that that report would be a privileged document, and I cannot visualise any circumstances in which the inspector or any of those concerned would suffer as a result of its publication. It would clear the air very much if it is done, and I sincerely hope that, if the discussion here will serve no other useful purpose, it will lead, at least, to a decision on the Minister's part to make that report available to the general public.

Mr. Aiken

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, Senator Kingsmill Moore opened up this particular debate with a three hours' speech which he punctuated occasionally by emotion, well calculated, I thought, not to interfere with the rest of his speech. Now I do not know why Senator Kingsmill Moore and those who are associated with him in this particular case have come to the conclusion that the Irish people have no brains to judge a situation for themselves. The ordinary people are not going to be led away by Senator Kingsmill Moore's hysteria, or by hysteria worked up at Mansion House meetings, which are only allowed to be addressed by one particular side. Senator Douglas, supporting Senator Kingsmill Moore, said that there was not sufficient evidence in the White Paper and the other documents circulated to convince him that the board should have been abolished by the Minister, and Senator Kingsmill Moore, in reply to Senator Professor Magennis, said that the Minister was determined to abolish the board no matter what the evidence was.

Now the people are going to be allowed to judge for themselves whether the Minister was right or whether the Minister was wrong. The Minister has stated that he took his decision upon a perusal of the evidence submitted to him as evidence which had been given at the board. That evidence is going to be published and the people can decide whether the Minister was right in his judgment in abolishing the board or not. I do not propose to go into the rights or the wrongs of the matter at all. I believe that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, being anxious to see that the affairs of local authorities would be conducted in a reasonable manner, would not abolish the board if there was any reasonable chance that they would be so conducted or that they had been so conducted by this particular board of the Dublin Fever Hospital. The evidence will be published, and the people can judge whether the Minister had sufficient evidence at his disposal to enable him to arrive at his decision and whether, in their opinion, his decision was a proper one in all the circumstances. One speech that I must say I resented contained an allegation by Senator Duffy that three men of public spirit, who agreed to go on this board, as representatives of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, acted as pimps.

Mr. Baxter

He withdrew that.

Mr. Aiken

Well, he should not have said it at all. I think that if Senator Duffy reads the letter which these three gentlemen sent to their own board as to the matters about which they had grave complaint to make, he would agree that he has no right to say that they acted in any dishonourable or underhand way, but that the action they took was dictated by their sense of responsibility to the general taxpayers of this country, to the ratepayers of County Dublin, to the welfare of the patients who have to attend that institution, and to the welfare of the staff who have to attend the patients within that institution. Portion of the letter which they sent to the Minister and which they sent to the board complained about the manner in which two employees of the board were dismissed, and they stated quite definitely their opinion to the rest of the members on the board, that the dismissal of these two lowly-paid members of their staff, a gate-keeper and his wife, was marked by "a callous indifference in regard to the rights of the persons concerned, and displayed a most undesirable manner of dealing with the employees." I think that that is true, from the evidence that I have seen published in the White Paper. It was true that in regard to this particular case the members of the board who voted for the dismissal of these people did act with callous indifference in regard to the rights of the two people concerned. Senator Professor Magennis dealt pretty fully with that, and other Senators have dealt with other aspects of the case, and so I shall not go further with it, but I must say that I did resent that coming from Senator Duffy, and I think he had no right to say it.

On the verbatim report of the evidence tendered at the inquiry in relation to the terms of reference. That was what the Minister made up his mind upon in relation to the Cork fire inquiry and it was on similar material that he made up his mind in relation to the inquiry into the Cork Street Fever Hospital. The minutes of evidence will be presented to the public and the public can decide whether the Minister was right or wrong in his decision to abolish the board. If the Minister attempted to publish the reports of inspectors, I have no doubt that, in many cases, he would be gravely criticised. He would be asked how he expected inspectors in the future to inquire into cases and give him their mind freely if he was going to publish the minutes made by the inspectors for his information. Anybody who has acted in a ministerial capacity for a number of years will have had demands made upon him, time and again, for the giving to some person or persons, or to the public at large, of documents and reports which contain the advice of subordinate officials. I have had to resist that demand and to point out that those reports were made to me by army officers or civil servants, as the case might be, for my information and that, when they were being written, the officer concerned had not the consideration before his mind that they would be circulated to anybody but the Minister. I had steadfastly to resist requests for the giving of confidential documents made to me as Minister to those who had no right to receive them and I believe I was absolutely right in that. I do not care what the law is in other countries but I think that the Minister for Local Government was quite entitled, when the case was made that he was doing something unprecedented, to point to the law and to precedents in other countries. I am relying on my own good sense. I know perfectly well that, if I ask a subordinate officer to report to me on a certain matter affecting personalities, he will write with greater freedom and state the facts with greater candour if he is clearly aware that he is writing a confidential report and that the Minister will not break the confidence. It is of the utmost importance, if we are to continue this system of sending officers of the Minister for Local Government down the country to hold inquiries, that these officers should feel that their duty is done when they present the Minister with the verbatim report of the evidence collected.

There is one other aspect of this matter to which I take exception. Certain individuals are accustomed to complain about the power of bureaucracy. If a civil servant had to make decisions without having to bear responsibility for them to the public, we should have a type of bureaucracy which would be very undesirable indeed. Every Minister of State is absolutely responsible for the official words, actions and omissions of those servants of the State who are under his instructions and it would be a bad thing for this country if a Minister could avoid responsibility for the acts of the civil servants under him. If he is not responsible, who is? He is the authority. He has the right to direct civil servants. If his directions are within the law, the servants of State under his authority are bound to carry them out. It would be very bad, indeed, if a Minister could avoid acceptance of responsibility, for, the day he did so, his authority over the servants of State in his Department would be destroyed.

There is another aspect of this matter to which I should like to call attention. If any individual is to be tried, he should be tried by a person who has to take responsibility to the public for his verdict. No civil servant can take such responsibility to the public. If any attempt were made to put such a system into operation, it would be pointed out very quickly that the civil servant in question was subordinate to a Minister and that his verdict might very well be dictated by his Ministerial principal. Our system of government is set out in the Constitution. We have the Oireachtas, the Government and the judiciary. If a citizen or a public body is to be tried by a civil servant, if its fate is to hang upon the decision of a civil servant, then that civil servant should be taken out of the usual category and put in the same independent position as the judiciary, with the same tenure of office as is enjoyed by the judges appointed to keep the balance between the Government and the ordinary citizen. I believe that even if there had been, before this State was set up, precedents in another country for the publication of such reports, we should have ignored those precedents and established a precedent for ourselves and, when a civil servant reports confidentially to a Minister, no matter upon what subject, the Minister should keep that confidence.

I do not want to go into this matter at any great length. The House has been discussing it for long enough. It has been said, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that there was not sufficient evidence given to the Minister to enable him to arrive at his decision with justice. That question can be decided by the people within, perhaps, a couple of weeks, when they will have at their disposal a transcript of the evidence upon which the Minister made his decision. I am satisfied from what I have seen that the board in this particular instance acted very callously and unjustly towards some of their own servants, and acted, in regard to the contracts, in a manner which showed that they should no longer be allowed to handle vast sums of public money. The Minister was quite justified in abolishing them and putting in a commissioner for the time being to run the affairs of that institution. I am of the opinion that the people as a whole will be satisfied when they read the evidence upon which the Minister made up his mind to abolish the board.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 27 Jul 1945

Appropriation Bill, 1945 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage (Resumed).

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Jul 1945