Section 1 should be postponed until the final section of the Bill has been dealt with.
Meath Hospital Bill, 1950—Committee and Final Stages.
So that we can decide the matter of the "Municipal Authorities". We can then come back and discuss Section 1 after that.
We are not pressing the matter of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland.
As the amendment regarding the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland is not being moved——
We can leave it over.
That amendment was signed by me. Can I take it that we will be discussing it?
Oh, yes. There is no objection to discussing it.
Section 1 postponed.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (1), to delete all words after the word "before" in line 45, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following words: "the passing of this Act shall cease to hold office on the passing of this Act."
It is merely a drafting amendment. I think it will be an improvement.
In support of the amendment, I understand from the other section that immediately on the passing of this Bill the city manager takes over and, therefore, the committee will not exist. I suggest that Senator Quirke's amendment be accepted.
The scheme of the Bill is that on this Bill becoming an Act, the present committee ceases to hold office. The powers and duties are transferred to the city manager and on the appointed day the new committee will take over. Senator Quirke's amendment is necessary to cover the position during the interim.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (2), line 1, to delete the word "between" and substitute the words "commencing on the date of", and in line 2, to delete the words "the day next after" and substitute the words "ending on".
This is a drafting amendment because it is considered that it brings the section into line. Section 2, sub-section (2), would then read:—
"During the period commencing on the date of the passing of this Act and ending on the appointed day all the powers, duties ...."
It is thought that that form of words is better, and I move accordingly.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I beg leave to state that I am not moving the first amendment standing in my name. I know that in those circumstances I am not in a position to discuss the amendment in any way, but I think the House deserves an explanation as to my reason for withdrawing that amendment. My idea in introducing this amendment was to provide, so far as possible, a safeguard for some of my professional brethren. I thought they might be harshly treated under this section and by inference perhaps it might defend the present committee in certain of their activities. In view of the document which emanated from the committee and published in to-day's Press, I fear I cannot go any further with that proposed amendment. I am supporting this Bill. It is a sound Bill and is going to be an effective Bill. It will succeed in removing certain irregularities and systemising the state of affairs existing in the Meath Hospital. In this document which emanated from the committee this morning——
We are discussing the amendment.
I am explaining the reason for my not moving it. I cannot go further with it in view of the fact that members of the Oireachtas have been accused in that document of vindictiveness.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), line 10, to delete the word "board" and substitute the word "staff".
This is a purely technical amendment. Sub-section (2) states that on the occurrence of certain vacancies on the medical board certain statutory methods have to be employed for filling the vacancies. The medical boards of the general hospitals in traditional and in common usage consist of the senior surgeons and physicians in those hospitals. The board does not include assistant surgeons or specialists, for the reason that these hospitals are not specialist hospitals but general hospitals. The section, as it stands, therefore, does not direct the authorities of the hospital in the methods they employ in appointing, for instance, assistants or specialists. Nowhere in the section is there any provision for the appointment of assistants or specialists. The term "staff of a hospital" means all the medical men connected with the working of the hospital. It includes the board, but the term "board" does not include the staff, and I think that the substitution of the word "staff" for "board" would cover the intention in the mind of the draftsman. I think it is merely a question of drawing his attention to the definite distinction between the medical board of a hospital and the medical staff. The section provides the machinery for the election of members of a board, but does not take any cognisance of vacancies in the general medical staff, including assistants and specialists.
I consulted the Chairman of the Dáil Committee on this matter, and also the draftsman. The intention of sub-section (2) is to deal with the medical board, that is, the senior honorary life physicians and surgeons of the hospital. Heretofore, vacancies on the board were not advertised. Sub-section (2) provides that, in future, they will be advertised and that the members of the medical board will have an opportunity of making recommendations to the committee and that the committee will then appoint to the board. That sub-section deals with the board exclusively.
On the other question raised by Senator Barniville, the question of the staff, these assistants and other physicians and surgeons who are on the staff but not on the board, the committee constituted under this Bill will have power to appoint them. That power is in the Act of 1898 and it is quite clear that the committee will have power to appoint staff. This sub-section introduces a new matter with regard to the board, that the vacancy will have to be advertised, and, having considered a report of the medical board, the committee will make the appointment in future. The medical board heretofore made the appointment themselves.
Are we to take it from that statement of Senator Hayes that, in future, all appointments to the staff will be made by the joint committee?
Yes.
That is definite?
Yes.
What then is the position of the existing committee? According to the courts and various statements made in the Dáil, these people have been properly appointed and they are not to have any say in the making of medical appointments. Are we to get back again to the old position in which we had appointments made by methods about which we do not like to talk? Are we to have a position that the people already constituting the committee are to have no say at all in appointments?
I am not sure that the Senator's question is relevant to this sub-section. The sub-section deals with appointments to the medical board and quite clearly gives to the committee power to appoint to a vacancy on the medical board after considering the report from the medical board, which seems to be in accordance with common sense. With regard to the staff generally, as Senator Colgan has indicated, the committee will appoint the staff by such methods as they may think fit.
I am not too sure about this. It distinctly states here that the medical board shall consist of the physicians and surgeons of the hospital. Am I to take it that assistants to these physicians and surgeons are part and parcel of the medical board? It is questionable. What I want to see is the joint committee having power to appoint all staff, medical and otherwise. I do not want a position, as I am afraid will be the case, in which, if we leave in "board" instead of "staff", certain doctors—specialists or assistants —can be brought into the hospital without the authority of the joint committee.
Nothing can be done in this hospital when this joint committee has been appointed without the authority of the joint committee.
There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that.
The committee is set up to govern the hospital. This sub-section is a limitation of the power heretofore exercised by the medical board and transfers the power of appointment from the board to the committee of the hospital.
The point I am making has not been answered.
I am doing my best.
The point is that the medical board is defined as the physicians and surgeons of the hospital. Is that term all-embracing in so far as medical and surgical staff are concerned?
No.
Very well; if it is not, it means that somebody can be appointed without the authority of the board, because the committee only gets authority to appoint the medical board. There obviously will be—I am not a medical man, but Senator Barniville will probably put us right with regard to this—certain types of people in the hospital, doctors and surgeons, who are not part and parcel of the medical board and who will come for a period and go after a while. There will be others with special qualifications who will be brought in. I am afraid that under this Bill what happened before will be allowed to continue and that people will be appointed to the hospital without the knowledge of the joint committee who will be told that under the legislation they have no concern with the matter.
If the Senator reads the Bill as a whole, he will see that it is perfectly clear that the committee has complete power over the hospital, subject only to law and to any restrictions imposed by this Bill and it is clear also, if he looks at Section 7, that the joint committee can make by-laws which would be binding. The one outstanding exception is that, if they want to appoint a person who is to be a member of the medical board, they still appoint him, but, before doing so, they must carry out the provisions of Section 3. In other words all appointments are made by the committee, including the medical board, but there is a restriction in relation to the medical board in that they are bound by the Bill to advertise and hear what the medical board has to say about those who apply.
I am obliged to the Senator for the logical way he has put it, but I suggest that logic is not law, and it is not what we think here or feel that matters but what the interpretation of the sub-section subsequently will be. I am not satisfied yet, even though the intention of us all is to give complete control to the joint committee. I am not satisfied that, under this provision, the joint committee has complete control over the medical staff. It has only got control in relation to advertising and recommendation from the medical board. It has power only in relation to the medical board and not in relation to other personnel.
The section as it stands means that, where a vacancy occurs on the medical board, a certain procedure must be adopted. The vacancy must be advertised, an examination held and the person or persons to be appointed recommended to the committee by the medical board. The amendment goes much further and suggests that any persons appointed to the staff should be appointed in the same manner, that is, advertising of the post, recommendation by the medical board and appointment by the committee.
What Senator Colgan wants is to have it assured under the Bill that the committee of the hospital shall be supreme in all matters of appointment. Under sub-section (2), it seems to me that that is assured. I can quite understand the committee acting in this way: if a vacancy occurs in the hospital, it would expect the medical board to consider that vacancy, to consider what qualifications should be expected of an applicant for the position on the board, and, having considered the qualifications and having considered the applicants, the board would make a recommendation to the committee of the hospital. I take it that the committee under this section is not bound to accept the recommendation of the medical board. It will have to pay attention to their recommendations, but, if it thinks well of it, it need not appoint any person recommended by the medical board.
That is quite clear.
If that is the position, I do not think there is any reason for us to have any fears or feel uneasy about the section.
Perhaps I could give Senator Colgan this further information which might assist him. Sub-section (2) does not contain all the powers of the committee of the hospital. It merely concerns one particular thing, namely, the appointment of members to the medical board. As a matter of fact, it makes a change—of which I think Senator Colgan is entirely in favour—with regard to the appointment of members of the medical board. But the power of the committee over the staff is inherent in the committee under the Act of 1898 and, under Section 17, it can make such regulations as it pleases for the governing of the hospital, including the appointment of staff. I understand that this sub-section was inserted as a result of the decision of the committee in the Dáil that the medical board could not continue to reproduce itself, that vacancies must be advertised and that the medical board would make recommendations but, as Senator Ó Buachalla has said, these need not be accepted. With regard to the staff, there is no suggestion that anybody but the committee can appoint the staff. Under the 1898 Act and under this Bill the appointment of staff is a matter for the committee.
I should like Senator Hayes to define, and it would not be easy to do so, what is "staff" and what is not "staff".
It seems to me that it does not matter how they are defined. It is quite clear in the Act.
This committee will be all-powerful in the hospital and will have functions to control everything in the hospital. There is no doubt about that.
These last remarks of Senator Hayes have perturbed me more than anything else which he has said previously—that the committee is all-powerful. Surely they are governed by some statutory direction. I sympathise with Senator Colgan's doubts and difficulties and I do not think that Senator Hayes's reply has been in any way satisfactory. This section deals with vacancies arising on the board. Vacancies arising on the general staff must be dealt with in the same way. We are told that the committee will be all-powerful. That means that they can make these appointments without going through the machinery laid down for appointment to vacancies on the board. In other words, to reduce it to absurdity, it is quite possible that an all-powerful committee might hear of a very brilliant man in America—a particularly good man in his own department—and they might take it upon themselves that they had sufficient influence to invite him as assistant to the Meath Hospital, without going through the statutory methods laid down under this section for appointments to the medical board. That is the sort of thing I want to avoid. If this committee is all-powerful it should, nevertheless, carry out the appointment of all members of the staff of the Meath Hospital according to certain statutory regulations, similar to or identical with those they have to go through in respect of the appointment of members to the medical board. I want to safeguard the appointment of specialists and assistants in the Meath Hospital.
In my endeavour to satisfy Senator Colgan, I went too far.
You did not satisfy me.
I did not satisfy anybody. This section concerns only the medical board. The appointment of staff, I assume, will be done by the joint committee, in consultation with the medical board, with the senior surgeons and physicians of the hospital. A committee which does otherwise must be very extraordinary and unusual. I know that the committee has power to appoint the staff and I assume that they will appoint them after consultation with the medical board. But this particular sub-section was inserted by the Committee in the Dáil in order to deal with the question of the medical board which, under a section of the Act of 1815, was able to reproduce itself. This sub-section deals with that point. It does not concern the staff at all. Senator Ó Buachalla wants the insertion of a similar section with regard to the staff. Is that what he wants? Surely there is hardly any doubt that a committee, running a hospital, would not appoint doctors without consulting the medical board.
Consulting the medical board is different from the ordinary machinery of advertising, sorting out and so forth.
I think that Senator Barniville and myself have grave doubts as to whether this section will ensure that the point which we are making will be covered, namely, that nobody can work in the Meath Hospital or do any business whatsoever there without the authority and knowledge of the joint committee.
This section will not ensure that. No.
I asked about assistants and specialists but no one can answer my question. I do not believe that they are covered by the term. You will have the position that people will be brought in to assist physicians and surgeons—people who will, probably, be quite all right in their own way. However, it is suggested that if that is done it should be done with the authority and, particularly, with the knowledge of the joint committee. As I see it, the word "staff" instead of "board" is simply for greater clarification and to ensure that all people who are acting professionally in the Meath Hospital, and others—even the porter or the engine driver—will be there with the authority and knowledge of the joint committee. I suggest that under this section as it is at present drafted any doctor in the Meath Hospital could bring in an assistant to help him and he could have him there for months and years— and he could snap his fingers at the joint committee.
It seems to me that two points have been raised which are queering the pitch. One is the uneasiness of Senator Colgan that the committee will not have a final say in all the appointments. I am not going to try and persuade him in regard to that matter. I am satisfied that, in every appointment, the committee has the final say. Senator Barniville's point is somewhat different. He recognises that it is desirable that there should be advertisement and consultation with the medical board before any appointment is made on the board. If I understand him correctly, he also wants to provide that where there is appointment to the staff the same procedure should be followed. I think that is what Senator Barniville wanted to secure by this amendment.
Senator M. Hayes, who is a purist in these matters, says it is necessary to put in a section dealing with the medical board and the more correct way to deal with this matter would be to put in a different section covering staff. I think that the better way to deal with it would be to put in the words "for medical staff or other staff notwithstanding". I believe the House would be wise in putting in the words I have mentioned; then if it is necessary the matter could be dealt with in a more elaborate form at a later stage. That would ensure that where appointments of staff are being made they will have to be advertised and the medical board will have to be consulted. That would not take away, but rather it would ensure that the committee would have control of appointments.
Senator Douglas I think has raised unnecessary objections in relation to the medical staff of the hospital.
This sub-section was put in because there happens to be an Act of 1815 dealing with the Meath Hospital. In that Act there is provision made whereby the medical board of the institution are the physicians and surgeons of the hospital or infirmary, and they have full powers to make appointments in their own ranks. This sub-section is put in to prevent that from happening again. It does not concern staff nor does it take from the powers of the committee. It is simply put in to deal with the position arising under the Act of 1815. The committee has full power over the staff, and I think the matter raised in the amendment should be dealt with in another way. I am satisfied that this sub-section should be left in its present form to accomplish the things it is intended to accomplish. I think that by the Act of 1898 and this present Bill the committee has full powers over all staff going into the hospital. Senator Barniville is apparently afraid the committee will appoint members of the medical staff without consulting the board.
Without consulting the public.
We can make provision for that in a separate section.
I think what Surgeon Barniville wants to do is to put in a new section in a Bill covering the staff and I do not know whether we can go to the length of defining what staff really is. That is a matter which might be given consideration by Senator Barniville, Senator Colgan and Senator M. Hayes, and they could at a later stage put forward some suggestion on it.
I find it hard to follow the discussion on the lines it has taken. I would like to know is it considered that there is something missing in sub-section (7) of Section 3 where the medical board is defined? If there is nothing missing then I see no point in the arguments put forward.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Section 3 of the Bill agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 6:
In sub-section (1), before paragraph (c), line 26, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) two members (in this Act referred to as municipal authorities members) elected in accordance with section — of this Act."
I think this is a matter which was overlooked by the Select Committee when they were considering this Bill. They thought it well to have the joint council of county councils a nominating body to this board. I believe it was an oversight that they did not include in the nominating bodies the Association of Municipal Authorities who are a nominating body to this House just in the same way as a joint council of county councils. We think in view of that that the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland should also have the powers of a nominating body on this joint board. I think Senators should unanimously agree to this amendment. After all the county councils in this country contribute a very large sum of money to the maintenance and upkeep of hospitals in the City of Dublin including the Meath Hospital and those who pay the piper should have some means of calling a tune. Many of the members of this House come from rural Ireland and I would ask for their support of this amendment. There is no reason why it should not be accepted by the House. As I have said I think it was merely something that was overlooked by the Select Committee.
I believe when the Bill was before the Select Committee they considered this matter and decided not to put this particular association in. The committee has already 23 people on it. I do not think the matter is vital one way or the other but I think the representation already given to the Dublin Corporation, the county council and the Joint Council of County Councils seems to be sufficient without adding another body such as the Association of Municipal Authorities. I would prefer that the Bill were left as it is.
We might discuss amendments Nos. 6 and 7 together.
Yes, we could.
I would support this amendment moved by Senator Fitzsimons. On the last occasion, speaking on the Second Reading, I pointed cut the difficulties which elected representatives have in attending meetings and Senator Hayes, on that occasion, said it was not necessary for local bodies to appoint members but merely persons. It may be person in his copy of the Bill, but in the one that I have it is definitely members.
Section 5 says that the Dublin County Council shall elect five persons.
But of course they must be persons to be members of the committee.
It means members of the Meath Hospital Committee.
That is what I am talking about.
Not members of the Dublin County Council.
They must be members of the Dublin County Council.
No; members of the Meath Hospital Committee.
Are you positive?
Yes.
I bow to the Senator's superior wisdom and experience but somehow I think there is a bit of doubt there. On reading "five members", I visualise five members of the corporation with six members of the county council and five members of the General Council of County Councils.
Five persons to act as members.
It would be a very knotty point of law to decide whether outside people or local people were involved. If that is the position, however, my argument in favour of the municipal authorities is weakened.
In the Meath Hospital there is a specialist, Mr. Lane, a man of outstanding ability, and patients come to him from all over the country. I do not say that they do not come to other doctors as well, but they certainly come to him. The county councils, the City of Dublin and Dublin County Council send patients to him, and it is only proper and fair that the municipal authorities, who are also concerned and also send patients to the hospital, should have some representation.
If there is one section in the Bill which I heartily accept, it is the section providing that the county council and corporation may appoint persons to act on this joint committee other than members of the particular councils. I am afraid that a case has not been made for the acceptance of the amendment, because, while the General Council of County Councils, Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council are bodies which contribute to the upkeep of the hospital, no municipal authority is in a position to send patients or to make contributions. While we might all like to see the enlargement of the committee and a greater representation upon it, I do not think this case has been made.
There have been no representations for anybody, as far as I can see, from Cork.
The General Council of County Councils.
There is no representation from Cork Borough and, to my own knowledge, quite a number of patients from Cork come up here. It is only necessary to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is an omission there and I am sure it will be righted.
Cork Borough is one of the municipal authorities and so is Waterford and Limerick and, consequently, they contribute to the upkeep of the hospital. It seems that the City of Dublin is going to control this hospital, while the people in the country pay. They are entitled to more than two representatives. Dublin County means the city, while Dublin Corporation and the medical board means the same. Who is going to pay? Rural Ireland mainly. I ask that this amendment be supported. It should be accepted unanimously in this House, at least by the Senators who come from rural areas.
Local authorities have an interest in this matter, because their patients come from all over the country and, that being so, it is only reasonable that they should have some representation. They will pay the hospital for the patients they send in. Senator Fitzsimons's request is not unreasonable. The municipal authorities should have at least two nominees on the committee and it would be better balanced, because as it is constituted at present, you have two members nominated by the General Council of County Councils, together with representatives of Dublin Corporation and County Council.
I am rather astonished to hear about the number of Cork people coming up to Dublin for operations. I can quite understand the joke, which seems now to be rather an unfortunate joke, that the Cork people come up to Dublin with single tickets. That is a grave reflection, I think, on the people in the Meath Hospital. I am surprised to hear there is a large number, but it must be rather large when Senator O'Callaghan insists on having representation from Cork County and Borough Council. I am astonished to hear of people coming to Dublin for serious operations or additional interviews with physicians as we have two very fine county hospitals in Cork City, and some very famous physicians and surgeons there too. I do not at all agree with my fellow countyman that we require a whole lot of medical and surgical help from Dublin. There are famous specialists in Dublin I know, but there are some famous specialists in Cork, too, and I have never heard yet that the trek of patients from Cork City and County is of such a volume that it would necessitate an amendment in the Bill to provide for the councils of Cork.
Senator O'Callaghan meant rural Ireland which comprised mostly Cork.
I should like some enlightenment about the amount of money subscribed to the hospital by the municipal authorities. I am not quite clear about that. Could Senator Fitzsimons tell us?
Every patient who goes there pays four or five guineas at the present time. In former times it was about two guineas.
If it is simply a matter of each patient paying his way it is quite different from contributions to the hospital by the ratepayers. There is a distinction which should, I think, be observed.
The Senator's mind is big enough, I am sure, to see that the country does not end at the end of the old tram lines. Because of the lack of facilities the congested districts of rural Ireland have to send patients to Dublin. Otherwise there would be no need for all the hospitals and institutions there are in Dublin at the moment. It is necessary because you will have an accumulation of surgical and medical skill in a city like this which you will not have elsewhere. Many patients are sent by local authorities at the public expense of the ratepayers in those counties.
The county councils are getting representation. We want a case for the municipal authorities getting representation. It is conceded that the county authorities are getting it. I press once again that there is a distinction between an ad hoc payment for each patient and a general contribution from the rates to the hospital. The principle of election at the moment seems to be that those bodies which make a direct contribution to the hospital are represented. Why should we introduce the other class, those who perhaps have to come to the hospital but pay simply ad hoc? I may be wrong in that. I am simply asking for clarification on this point.
Local authorities contribute so much per patient. Meath County Council pays the Meath Hospital four guineas for each patient; if they send 100 patients they pay 400 guineas. Of course, one could go as a private individual.
How do municipal authorities come in?
Trim Urban Council and Kells Urban Council pay through the county council.
That is a general contribution?
They pay through Meath County Council. Dún Laoghaire, Cork, Limerick and Waterford Boroughs pay direct, not through Dublin, Cork or Waterford County Councils.
In principle I would have certain sympathy with Senator Fitzsimons's amendment. The problem we have to resolve it to determine how many public health authorities are not represented on the General Council of County Councils, who send patients and who pay for them out of public funds. How many of these authorities are there? Is Dún Laoghaire an independent health authority apart from the Dublin Corporation? Somebody should be able to tell us that. I take it that the public health authority in Cork City is definitely apart from Cork County Council.
There are four boroughs—Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.
Is Dún Laoghaire an independent health authority? The Senator refers to Navan and Trim Urban Councils. He could refer to Cavan Urban Council, but that is part of the Cavan health district. Trim, Navan and Kells Councils would be part of Meath. All Meath is one county health authority. Senator Fitzsimons knows that his county council administers the health services in the urban areas. In so far as urban authorities have their health services administered for them by the county councils, those municipal authorities are represented through the General Council of County Councils. You come then to these independent health authorities who have not such representation through their county council. How many of them are there?
At least four.
Some of the Dublin Senators may not be aware of the fact that the Dublin hospitals serve the country to an extent which is not appreciated or understood by Dublin residents. There is a particular hospital in the city in which at the moment there may be 20 patients from my county, paid for by the Cavan health authority. Senator Fitzsimons may have knowledge of many Meath patients being treated in the Meath Hospital. I am inclined to think that in so far as these municipal health authorities, independent health authorities, make a contribution from the rates to the maintenance of patients in a Dublin hospital, they ought to have some opportunity of having a voice in the control. The difficulty is to measure how much they should have, whether one or two members. It is obvious that they are not completely covered by the section giving representation to the General Council of County Councils.
I think there is a lot to be said for Senator Fitzsimons's amendment and for Senator Clarkin's amendment, but I can see considerable difficulties, too. Senator Stanford was not quite right in what he suggested was the position. Some people from the area covered by a local authority pay their own expenses. In some cases, the local authority pays all the expenses; in other cases, they pay a portion, in proportion to the financial position of the person concerned. There is a good deal to be said for giving representation to the municipal authority, but if we decide to do so, as Senator Fitzsimons said, the question might arise then about the various municipal authorities who are not already included in the Municipal Authorities Association. They may say that if town No. 1 is represented, town No. 6 should get separate representation also. There is something to be said for the amendment and it warrants examination.
There seems to be a case here of much ado about nothing. What we are really concerned with is the efficiency of the hospital, to see that patients can go there. Even if we add these two, I do not believe it will make a fundamental difference. The only reason why I am inclined to oppose the amendment is that I think Senator Quirke is right, that if you start to work it out on pure theory it will involve difficulties. This is a Private Members' Bill and was considered in Select Committee. It would be most unfortunate if it were held up now, to be readopted in the Dáil and come back again to us, on a matter which is not fundamental. Whether these two are added or not, it will mean nothing to the effectiveness of the committee. In the circumstances, I would vote against the amendment, though I have no strong feeling in the matter, nor can I see grounds for enthusiasm in respect of having two additional members.
I am satisfied that you cannot work it out on abstract theory. Even if we had all the information—and there is no one here who can give a first-hand contribution—as Senator Quirke says, this cannot be worked on abstract theory. What we have set out to do is to provide a proper committee for the hospital, to get rid of the unfortunate position it is in and have it managed again on sound lines. I think the Bill is doing that.
As Senator Douglas has pointed out, there does not seem to be a lot of difference and, that being so, on an issue like this we should find agreement to accept the amendment. The two people appointed under it, if they do no good would do no harm. As Senator Douglas said, it is a trifling matter. People resident in Dublin may have had active interest in the Meath Hospital stimulated for a while. There are people in the country who have not had an active interest, but now that the board is being reconstituted under this Bill, it is only reasonable to expect a desire amongst representatives in this House who come from the country, that reasonable representation should be given to such authorities, as is set out in this amendment. I do not agree with Senator Quirke that there will be a desire on the part of one town to try to have that representation.
I said there may be.
The General Council of County Councils is an institution of which I happen to be a member. I have no connection whatever with municipal bodies. I have never seen a desire on the part of one county to score a point off another. I would take a poor view of the municipal bodies if that were to happen, but I do not think it will happen. I do not think that you will have endless jockeying for position between Naas and Longford or between any two towns.
As regards Senator Baxter's point, I think he is quite right. I know that he, like myself, has no particular interest in the municipal bodies, but as to the amount of representation, whether it should be one or two, it would be rather undesirable to have one representative from the municipal bodies and two from the General Council of County Councils. There is bound to be a certain amount of friendly rivalry between the two bodies, and it would hardly be a good standard to set.
I would like— although the House can decide for itself—to leave the Bill in the present form. The Dublin County Council contributed a large sum of money at one time, I think £5,000. It is now contributing £1,000. The Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation are given representation. I doubt that many people come from Cork City to Dublin, although some do for one particular specialised operation which takes place in the Meath Hospital under a surgeon whose name has already been mentioned. However, the matter is not of any great importance. I would be inclined to draw a different conclusion from the last Senator's remarks. I say that if it does not make very much difference we ought to leave it out, while he says since it does not make much difference we ought to put it in.
It was Senator Douglas who suggested it would not make a lot of difference and I used his argument.
If it does not make much difference, we ought to leave it out. I would prefer that the Bill should stand in the form in which it came from the Dáil with regard to this matter of representation. I would vote for the Bill as it stands and against the amendment.
We were given to understand that the Select Committee examined this question and decided it was best as it is in the Bill. We all know that the municipal authorities would like representation. We know the General Council of County Councils need not appoint from their own members. There is divided opinion as to whether we should have one or two from each of these bodies. I would suggest that we leave the Bill as it is and that the General Council of County Councils, when nominating their two members, nominate one of them even from their own members who is a member of one of the municipal authorities. That would solve a lot of our difficulties, as both bodies would then be fully represented.
I thought Senators would be unanimous on this. There is no reason why the municipal bodies of Ireland should not get the same representation as that for the General Council of County Councils. I thought that at least all the people who came from rural Ireland would support it. The defenceless people of Ireland are entitled to more representation than two. I think there is no reason why this House should not be unanimous and give us the two I am pleading for.
Amendment No. 6. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Will Senator Hayes bring in an amendment on the Report Stage, after further consideration?
Would the Senator think of examining the matter for himself between this and the Report Stage, to see whether he could introduce an amendment?
I am the nominee here. I cannot call a special meeting. The General Council of County Councils were not called to give their opinion.
We were hoping to get the Report and Final Stages finished to-day. I do not think many people will be anxious to come up to Dublin to meetings of the Committee of the Meath Hospital. I doubt very much that people will be anxious to travel from the country for that purpose. The attendance in the main will be the Dublin City and County members, with special arrangements by the General Council of County Councils. We ought to decide the matter now rather than later on. I do not see how any amendment could be devised that would be better than this one.
We quite understand the case that can be made for representation for rural Ireland. Our job is to get an efficient committee to run this hospital, not to be considering the medical staff or staffs of any kind. Our main concern should be to run the hospital in the interests of those who will seek the benefits of the hospital. I suggest that we adjourn the Report Stage until after tea and then take it and if there is anything in the suggestion that has been made it might be considered in the meantime.
The Senator means to withdraw the amendment? Does Senator Fitzsimons agree?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4, 5, and 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
I move amendment No. 8:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The quorum of the joint committee for the transaction of all business shall be seven members."
Provision is made in this Bill for the setting up of a committee consisting of 23 members to govern this hospital. I have failed to find where there is any provision for the number that might constitute a quorum. You might argue that Section 17 gives power to the committee to make their own rules and regulations. It would be much better if we laid down the number that would constitute a quorum.
The Senator has given the answer himself. Section 17 empowers the joint committee to make by-laws, rules or regulations with regard to patients "and for the better government of the hospital or any matter relating thereto". It is presumed that they also have power to fix a quorum, and, for my own part, I feel that, when we set up any kind of body, the more freedom we leave it with regard to its own procedure and the less rules we lay down in the statute, the better. The committee will be in a better position to determine what quorum it wants. I rather think that seven is the number they would select, but I would rather leave them freedom with regard to it than to impose it upon them in the Bill. Perhaps it is a different way of looking at the same thing. Senator Hawkins merely wants to improve the Bill, but the committee will have power to elect its chairman and its vice-chairman and will have power to make its own rules and it should be left to fix its own quorum.
I quite appreciate that there are two points of view on a question of this kind. Since I put down the amendment I have discussed it with some members of the joint committee. They have given it consideration, and, in view of the fact that they favoured leaving the fixing of the quorum to the committee itself, as Senator Hayes suggests, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Sub-section (2) sets out that every person who is a governor or a governess of the hospital on the qualifying date shall be qualified to vote. What is the qualification for a governor or how does one become a governor? Is it merely those who are governors at present who will become qualified?
They become qualified to be a governor by paying a subscription of two guineas to the hospital.
Does it follow from that that a person can pay two guineas in an election year and have the right to take part in the election and then refrain from paying two guineas again until the next election year? If that were the case, it is a pity that something could not be done about it. On the other hand, I am sure that the Select Committee must have noticed the apparent weakness of this sub-section. If it did, and if it considered it, I should be prepared to let it go, but it does not seem reasonable that people should have the right to buy a right to vote, which is what seems to me to follow from the section. Whether people would do that, in view of the change in the method of management and so on, is another matter.
We must consider the practical implications of this. It was simply a way of raising funds for the hospital, only it became rather too competitive at a certain stage and that is perhaps why the changes were introduced, but it is the practice in all hospitals to induce people to subscribe by giving them a modicum of power. If the modicum of power becomes something rather more, perhaps a change has to be made, but in this case there seems to be no fear that there will be any more than a modicum of power. It is merely a decoy to extract fees of two guineas on a fairly large scale and that seems harmless enough.
It only applies to four persons out of 23. I suggest to Senator Ó Buachalla that, further down, in Section 11, provision is made for election by postal voting, so that there is no possibility of any abuse whereby people will pay subscriptions and then turn up.
I am not familiar with the old law and I am not certain what the position is, but I am inclined to think that Section 17 would empower the committee to make the subscription five guineas or ten guineas, if they thought fit. I am raising that as a point and not giving an opinion. The real crux of the matter is the likeli hood of people suddenly subscribing two guineas, five guineas or ten guineas to get four people elected and one feels that one need not worry very much about that. The Senator would be perfectly right in other conditions and I think his point is one of some interest. It is not clear in the measure how it is provided, and, if it is not clear, it must be governed by the old Act—and I do not think any of us would be able to get through it in time —and, if not, it is covered by Section 17.
The events leading up to the introduction of this Bill constitute ample proof that there was no provision to guard against such an eventuality as we have pointed out, and, while Senator Hayes is correct in his statement that, no matter how many people subscribe for the purpose of an election, only four such persons can be elected, I should like to see provision made for a reasonable lapse of time between an election and the last date for receiving subscriptions rather than have the position as it was and is up to the present that, on the very day of the election, subscriptions may be handed in on behalf of a number of persons, who then take part in the election.
There is this important distinction, that you paid your two guineas and had the right to vote, but now you can only vote for a person who will be one of a minority of four in a committee of 23. Under Section 17, it will be within the power of the joint committee to make a by-law to cover the point Senator Hawkins raises as to the time subscriptions should be handed in in order to qualify the subscriber.
I made some mild protest about this section on the Second Reading, and the more I study it, the more absurd it seems to me. It may be that the circumstances which brought about the introduction of this measure made inevitable the production of some grotesque plan like this, because that is really all it is. Let somebody else defend it as being worth while or necessary. We have a situation where these subscribers or governors are to be in a position to nominate four representatives on the joint committee or board of management. Four people, I suggest, can pay their subscriptions and these four people can be constituted an electorate and can nominate themselves to this joint committee, so far as the section goes.
I can see Senator Stanford's point, and I accept that it is a factual presentation of the whole conception of the government of the hospital in the past, but I am sure he will agree that that is with the past and that we are not very likely now to have very many people coming forward with their two guineas subscription, even in an election year. The whole constitution of the board is now altered by this legislation, and while, in the first year, you might have a little of the competitive spirit left, by degrees, the number of people presenting themselves and making a claim to be governors will decline; but the position created under this legislation is that there is no stipulation as to how many of an electorate will be entitled to elect four people to the board of management.
Senator Fitzsimons did not manage to convince the House of the necessity for municipal representation on this body, though quite conceivably the municipal authorities in whom he was interested might make a very considerable financial contribution to the funds of the hospital. There is nothing in that section to indicate what financial contribution these governors may make or how many governors there are to be. I do not withdraw what I have said about the section either on the Second Reading or now. It may be that you will have to present something like this to the Oireachtas and put something like this in the Bill, but I think there ought to be some opportunity of surveying the situation after a time. Senator Hawkins referred to some time limit with regard to subscriptions, but I think that there ought to be a limit of another kind, namely, that this section would operate only for a number of years and on condition that there were so many subscribers as governors. Otherwise I do not think there is any necessity for it at all. I suggest that you can have a thoroughly unsatisfactory and undemocratic position.
I agree with Senator Baxter that in certain eventualities you could have a minimum electorate of four subscribers nominating themselves. I hold that the only justification there could be for the retention of such a provision in the Bill would be the setting out of a minimum electorate that could select four members on this committee. In the absence of such a provision, I would be in agreement with Senator Baxter that this sub-section should be deleted.
When I was speaking, I said that I did not know whether the Act of 1815 covered the position of subscriber. I find now that it is quite clear. It reads as follows:—
"And be it further enacted, That every Donor of any Sum not less than Twenty Guineas shall from the Time of such Donation become a Member of the Body Corporate, and Governor of said Meath Hospital and County of Dublin Infirmary, for the Term of his or her natural Life; and every Person who shall subscribe and pay any Sum not less than Two Guineas annually, for the Use of said Hospital or Infirmary, ...."
I do not know what "annual" means. I think you would probably have to go to the courts about it. I presume it can be proved after the payment of two subscriptions or an undertaking to pay.
I support the remarks made by Senator Hawkins. I will instance one case in particular that will illustrate the matter. There are two county infirmaries in Cork City. The Cork County Council and the Cork Borough Council subscribe a sum of £700 each to these institutions. To become a trustee of either institution, you must be a subscriber. I have personal experience of what I am going to tell the House now. One becomes a subscriber on payment of a sum of anything from one guinea to 20 guineas to either of these institutions. At its general meeting, the hospital proceeds to elect the general management committee. The subscribers or trustees are represented in person and the election is proceeded with. Some time before the second last election in the North Cork Infirmary, because the medical officers engaged there were rather displeased with the appointment made by the elected representatives plus the trustees at a previous meeting, a number of medical officers attached to the institution decided that they would become trustees. They paid their guinea or two in order to become trustees. They subscribed just a few weeks preceding the election of the committee of management and, because of the subscription of a guinea or two, they became trustees and electors. The result was that they gained their object in getting rid of one or two persons who, by the way, had voted for a doctor whom they did not like. I think it would be very wise to support any step which will tend to get rid of a position such as that which I have instanced, whether it be in relation to the Meath Hospital or any other hospital in the country.
I take the view which Senator Professor Stanford takes, namely, that there is nothing wrong in giving the right to select these four members to people who contribute to the funds of the hospital. It is quite an ordinary method, in a great number of organisations, of giving power to people in elections. I am a member of quite a number of organisations and I have the right to vote in these organisations because I contribute a certain sum per annum. Even in respect of the society which I represent in this House, I can be licentiated without paying anything but if I wish to vote in that society I can do so if I pay an annual subscription. Similarly, in regard to a number of other societies to which I belong. I believe that people should be given something against a subscription which they make towards the funds of a society and I think it is just as well that people of that description should have the selection of the four people in question. I do not think that there will be terrific abuses if the section is left as it is.
I see a great weakness in this section, namely, that while a person becomes a subscriber and is thereby entitled to vote, he or she need pay the sum of two guineas only in the year of election. Anyone on the list will be entitled to vote on the date fixed. According to the Act, there will be another election in 1954. There is nothing to prevent anybody from paying the subscription, or having it paid, this year. Next year, they need not pay anything but it is essential to pay in 1954 in order to qualify. I suppose it is not possible to provide for every eventuality. It has been said that only four governors will be elected. Of course, there is also the consideration of whether it would be worth anyone's while to subscribe a large amount of money to elect four, when they will not get control on the board. What we are actually doing is depleting the revenue of the hospital by allowing, under the Act, people to subscribe each election year to the funds of the hospital though they need not pay any subscription towards the funds of that hospital in any other year.
We want the hospital to get as many voluntary subscriptions as possible and this does encourage people, to a certain degree, to give voluntary subscriptions. I understand that a large body of people have paid subscriptions for the current year and, in a sense, we would be disfranchising them entirely if we did not leave in a clause of this kind.
I think there are a few people who, without having any desire to control or to have complete power, would take an interest in the running of the hospital as one voter out of 25, or whatever it is, and, if they have some chance of getting on the board, to serve and not to lead. I believe there are many who want to serve on boards rather than to control them. If they are prevented from doing so by this clause, I think the morale may suffer. There is the further point that the life governors will also be disfranchised.
I would like some one to explain to me the curious phraseology on line 10, where there is a reference to persons. What is the qualification on that line?
It is in the next line.
Yes, it refers to governors, but what is the explanation of it?
It is to distinguish between persons and corporate bodies like the county council or corporation.
I would like to join with Senator Stanford in the hope that people will continue to subscribe voluntarily to this hospital as in the past and to an even greater extent. I want to say, in reference to the section, that I have no uneasiness whatever with regard to it. It is possible that people would pay subscriptions in order to buy the right to vote and in that way there is a possibility of abuse, but the probability of abuse is very, very remote. I think that since membership —governors and governesses—is defined in the Bill, there is still less reason for uneasiness. I was aware that, under an old Act, there was a difficulty that it did not provide for the payment of subscriptions each year. There was no prescribed number of subscriptions to be paid in order to secure the right to vote. I think people who give voluntary subscriptions to hospitals should have some representation on the board of the hospital, because people who so subscribe will have an interest in the management and it is only right that they should have some opportunity of expressing their views on the management and matters generally relating to the hospital.
What I really want to explain is that I do not think there is any possibility of abuse and I would like to see these people who subscribe having the right of representation on the board.
I said on the Second Stage that we should endeavour, in bringing things up to date and in making them efficient, not to be neglectful of their history. The truth is that this Bill had to take account of an Act of Grattan's Parliament and an Act of 1815. This particular section has to be taken with the Act of 1815, which provides that a person paying 20 guineas towards the hospital would be a life governor and a person paying £2 2s. 0d. per year had also rights.
The Dáil Select Committee dealing with this matter felt that they ought to leave that there, and as far as I am concerned I agree with them. This section is continuing the old practice. That, in itself, is one thing in its favour. Senators Stanford and Ó Buachalla have made appeal that we should encourage people to take an interest in the hospital, and if people are prepared to pay a couple of guineas a year towards it then they should have some share in the government of the hospital. There are people who have the time on their hands and can help in matters of that sort. We have them for instance on a great many committees like the vocational education committee. They have done a lot of good work on such committees proving themselves quite useful, and have got on very successfully and on excellent terms with the elected representatives of public bodies with whom they are working. For that reason this provision is desirable. There is no suggestion that a number of subscribers could get control of a hospital, because even if united they could not secure more than four people out of a total representation of 23. It would not be worth anybody's while to buy votes and become one of a committee of 23 persons. There is no danger of people paying subscriptions only in the year in which there is an election as has been suggested, and I do not think that that is worth providing for. Here you are taking an old institution governed by old Acts of Parliament and bringing it up-to-date, reserving some part of the old machinery which may be useful and using it democratically in the circumstances of the present day. I would suggest, therefore, that we should leave Section 10 as it is.
I agree with what Senator Hayes has stated concerning the Act of 1815 regarding the position of governors, but the Act of 1898 changed that and there was only an election every three years, and that is being continued in the present Act. I am still satisfied that you will have people paying the £2 2s. 0d. only in an election year, while I would not say that they are doing it merely for getting their friends on the committee or voting for some particular person.
I should like to know whether, under Section 17, the new committee would not have the power to alter the regulations for the subscriptions of governors. The section refers to rules for the better government of the hospital and it does seem possible that they could look into the question of annual subscriptions.
You would have to repeal the section of the 1815 Act, and it would be better, as Senator Hayes says, to leave it as it is.
I would not like to assure Senator Stanford. I do not know whether he is right or not, but I rather think he is not. Section 17 would not include the amendment of a section in the Act. What Senator Hawkins says shows a genuine flaw, but I do not think we need bother about it.
The thing that strikes me is the great desire on the part of Senator Hayes to prevent the changes of even a comma in the Bill. Because there is a vacant chair beside him he is adopting the rôle of the Minister's ghost. Usually that chair is occupied during a debate. I am quite convinced because of his approach to the amendment that no change is to be made.
You have already made some on his proposal.
They were privileged from the chair beside him.
There is no amendment on this section.
I know. I am referring to his approach to the debate. Although he cannot make a good case for the section, still it must not be changed. If people desire to pay a subscription in order to control and manage this institution it would be a pity to stop them. If people only paid in the election year, however, their desire would not, I think, be the better running of the hospital but rather representation without taxation. Because Senator O'Callaghan made a case for the representation of Cork, I can see a number of people from Cork paying a subscription to ensure that Cork will be represented.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (5), line, 38, to delete the words "In the first election year"; in lines 40 and 41 to delete the words "in the first election year," and in lines 43 and 44 to delete the words "in any election year (other than the first election year)."
The reason I introduced this amendment is that no provision has been made for subsequent elections and if it is a good idea to have the first election by this method of proportional representation and postal voting I see every reason why that system should be continued. I hope that the amendment will be accepted because it will improve the Bill considerably.
I would like to indicate that there were two amendments in my name and another in the name of Senator Quirke leading to a considerable improvement in the Bill which I accepted. I am not obliged to put down an amendment. If this amendment were put in sub-section (5) would read:—
(5) The Hospital Corporation members shall be elected on the proportional representation system by postal vote of the persons qualified to vote at the election; the election shall be conducted and carried out by a person appointed for the purpose by the Dublin City Manager in accordance with rules made by the Dublin City Manager; the Hospital Corporation members shall be elected by vote of the persons qualified to vote at the election and the election shall be conducted and carried out by a person appointed for the purpose by the joint committee in accordance with rules made by the joint committee.
I think that the words "in the first election year" should be deleted in line 38 but left in line 41 because that is plainly the intention.
Except that you might cover all the years by leaving it out.
It can be rectified on the Report Stage.
That would be better.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In sub-section (7), line 58, to delete the words "joint committee" and substitute the word "Hospital."
The reason for that is that the joint committee has no funds and the hospital has.
The hospital is a body corporate.
Amendment put and agreed to.
On the section, I do not see the necessity for all this hedging around with rules and regulations the election of four members of the committee of the hospital. While proportional representation can be considered democratic I am not satisfied that postal voting is democratic as it is open to too much abuse. In this hospital there are life voters who have been such for many years. Many of them do not reside in the State at all. These people who have no longer any interest in the Meath Hospital will be expected to vote by post and these are the people who will elect four governors. The section is a big improvement on the elaborate machinery of the original Bill but I still think that the postal voting system is not necessary, to say the least of it. There may be an argument in its favour in the first year in view of the history of the past couple of years but I see no reason for enforcing it for all subsequent elections. The method is wrong, it cannot be considered democratic and should not be in the Bill at all.
Section as amended put and agreed to.
Section No. 12 put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
We have dealt with the subject of my amendment (No. 11) already.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Captain Orpen
I move amendment No. 12:—
In sub-section (2), to delete all words after the word "which" in line 25 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following words: "the appointment was made, the joint committee may review such appointment and without assigning any reason therefor, may declare the appointment null and void."
As a layman reading this Bill I felt that the wording of this section might lead other laymen like myself to a wrong conclusion. The wording of the section might lead one to expect that in the Select Committee which considered this Bill there was a personal animus against certain individuals. I am ready to accept that the sole purpose of this section is to give as complete freedom as possible to the new committee in the management of the hospital. The sole purpose of my amendment is to prevent any misconception on the part of the general public that there was any sinister purpose in this section, to make it quite clear that its purpose is to leave the committee, democratically elected under this Bill when it becomes an Act, free to do as they think fit within the ambit of this Bill.
I am not enamoured of my amendment. Looking at the marginal note, it was a shock to me to see the words "removal from office of certain persons." Surely that might be casting a reflection on individuals, whereas the purpose of the section is to nullify an appointment. That was the sole purpose I had in moving this amendment.
I am more in favour of Senator Orpen's amendment than I am of the section, but I think both the section and the amendment should be dropped. This is a good Bill, but Section 14 is a blot on it, as it seeks to dismiss four brilliant medical men, who are orphans in this city, with no background here except what their brilliance and their ability entitles them to. It is wrong to legislate in that way. It is undemocratic and objectionable from every point of view. I do not wish to say anything further on the matter, but if I have to choose between the section and the amendment, I will choose the amendment, though I prefer the deletion of the section altogether.
If one has to choose between the amendment and the section, I would choose the section. The amendment suggests that the committee may review the appointments and without assigning any reason may declare an appointment null and void. The section, on the other hand, gives authority to the new committee, in their discretion, to dispense with the services of anyone appointed since a particular date. The members of the Select Committee which agreed on this section did not so agree in order to have incorporated in an Act of Parliament an injustice to any body of persons or to any individual. The members of the Committee have the highest appreciation for the persons who have been referred to here and in the other House, but we should have regard to the circumstances under which this Bill has come before us and under which the appointments were made. We must have regard to the circumstances which first brought about the introduction of the Bill. Then the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of all Parties in the House, men long associated with the life of the city and with hospitals and many of them with this particular hospital.
The joint committee at present running this particular hospital were quite well aware that a Bill was going through this Parliament and they set about doing certain things. One must always take precautions that when persons are about to leave office they should not be encouraged to place what might be termed a burden on the persons who are coming in to take over the functions of which they will be relieved. It is not because of particular individuals having been appointed; it is because of the manner in which appointments were made and the period in which they were made, that the Select Committee recommended the incorporation of this section in the Bill. We in this House should have a particular regard for the functions of this House and no group of people outside, no matter how good their intentions may be, may by any act cut across or place obstacles in the way of legislation that may be passed here. We should take a strong stand against any such attempt and for that reason I am prepared to support the section rather than the amendment.
I oppose the section and think it should not be left in the Bill. As you know, I fell out with the joint committee over the appointment of these doctors. I worked well with them for two years, but on these appointments I resigned membership of the committee, as I felt, at the time at any rate, that these appointments would mean an injustice to the men already in positions there. I do not see that we can remedy one possible injustice by doing another one. It may be correct that the old committee did something they should not have done, and when they saw this legislation coming they should not have done anything which would result, as it has resulted, in this clause being put into the Bill. Despite what speakers have said here and in the other House, in this clause nothing is being done against the old committee—they have been dealt with in another section and have been put out of power—but we are penalising people who had nothing to do with the committee that existed in the hospital. I believe it is correct to say that no members of the joint committee knew any of these doctors individually. They were appointed on their merits. We are attempting now to deprive them of those positions and I doubt very much if we will be able to do it. It is all very well to shake one's head, but that is in the Bill. The committee that will attempt to remove them will be a courageous committee, in view of the feeling engendered not only in the Oireachtas but all over the country.
The Irish people are opposed to injustice, whether it comes from the right or left, and if they feel there is an injustice being done to these men, they will resent it. I certainly oppose this section because it is an attempt to put these men "on the spot" and a suggestion to the committee if they are so disposed when they come into office to sack them. The law protects a boy-messenger from summary dismissal without reason. We are dealing here with one of the noblest professions in the country, and we are indicating in the section that these men can be dismissed without any reason being assigned. I think it is outrageous.
I, like Senator Hawkins, prefer the wording of the section to the wording of Senator Orpen's amendment. I see no injustice in the section. In order that the section should be understood, we should consider some of the dates which are relevant, because the section itself contains a date. The section provides, where a person was appointed after 6th December to any office, then the new joint committee may, without assigning any reason, dismiss or remove him.
The date 6th December was chosen unanimously by the Dáil Select Committee, because on that day the Meath Hospital Bill got its Second Reading in the Dáil. It got that Second Reading unanimously. The meaning of the Second Reading was that the Dáil was unanimously of opinion that a new committee ought to be appointed to govern the Meath Hospital. Details of the Bill might be changed and, in fact, were changed, but, beyond all doubt, the meaning of the decision of the other House, come to unanimously, was that the committee that was governing the hospital on 6th December of last year was going to be replaced by another committee under the provisions of an Act passed by the Oireachtas.
On 7th December, a Select Committee, consisting of 15 members drawn from all sides of the House, was appointed. On 14th December, that committee began its deliberations. Eight days later, the outgoing committee of the Meath Hospital, a committee which knew it was outgoing, advertised four medical posts. That decision to advertise four medical posts was not unanimous on the part of the Meath Hospital Committee. It was alluded to in the other House as a hair-line decision.
No, no. That is wrong. It was the appointments, not the advertisement.
The decision to advertise.
The decision to appoint.
At any rate, the committee was not united on the question as to whether there were actual vacancies or whether they ought to be filled. When the advertisement was issued, the medical board of the hospital followed it by an advertisement stating that they had not been consulted about the appointments. Their advertisement appeared in the medical journals with the advertisement from the Meath Hospital Committee. All the people who were candidates were aware of the facts that I have outlined. There can be no doubt whatever that, when an outgoing or expiring committee takes that kind of action, there is power in the Oireachtas to see that the decision of the Oireachtas will not be thwarted. That is what is being done in this section and that is not an injustice to anybody.
First and foremost, there is the point that more candidates might have applied but for the fact that they knew that there was discord in the Meath Hospital as between the medical staffs and the management committee. More people might have applied and there might have been better competition. In fact, certain people applied, and these people were told on the day of the interview, every single one of them, that this particular section was in the Bill, because, in the interval between the issuing of the advertisement and the summoning of candidates for interview, the Select Committee of the Dáil, 15 people representing the whole Dáil, unanimously passed this particular section— it was then Section 12 but it is this section—not because they wanted to do an injustice to anybody but because they considered—and I submit they were right—that since they had begun to appoint a new committee to govern the Meath Hospital, the existing committee should not, apart from its legal rights, proceed to do this particular thing. There were members of the hospital committee who thought the same as the Dáil Committee.
Every candidate for these posts was shown, on the day of the interview, the terms of this particular section. Nobody is being treated unjustly or subjected to any sudden changes. They were aware of all this. That being so, I should explain what the section means. The section does not propose to dismiss anybody. The section gives power to the new committee to reconsider this whole matter and, if you like, if places the four people concerned completely within the power of the new committee.
I agree entirely with those who have stated that there is no reflection intended upon the qualifications of the people appointed. We are not concerned with that, but we are concerned with the method of their appointment and with vindicating the right of the two Houses of the Oireachtas to pass legislation and to see that, in passing that legislation, they shall not be thwarted by anybody. The proposal is that the new committee shall have power, undoubted power, to reconsider this whole question. There are several things they may do, but before I suggest what they might do, I ought to tell the House who they are. They are five people from the Dublin Corporation, six from the Dublin Country Council, two from the General Council of County Councils, four members of the medical board, four people elected by subscribers and two co-opted. It is extremely unlikely that any such committee will perpetrate an injustice against anybody, and least of all against four doctors who, I accept, are competent and some of whom are very well known. All we are asking the House to do is to allow the new committee to manage its own affairs and not to put it in the position that it will have been forestalled by the old committee in the last moments of its existence. I think that is a reasonable thing to ask; I do not think it will cause any injustice to anybody; and I suggest that we should pass the section in its present form.
We are not reflecting upon anybody, except upon the wisdom of a committee which, in its last days, proceeded to fill vacancies in a hospital without consultation with the medical board. There must be harmony in any institution of that kind. What was in the minds of the Committee of the Dáil was the interest of the patients. It is in the interests of the patients that there should be harmony and that appointments should be made in a particular way by the committee, if any appointments are to be made. If the new committee decides there is not need for any extra surgeons to the hospital, then, presumably, the newly appointed men will go out of office.
If, on the other hand, they decide that there are vacancies, then presumably they will advertise these vacancies and these people can be candidates and they will get, I am sure, as everybody else will get, a fair field and no favour. That is the complete meaning of Section 14 and we should pass it. If we did not pass it, we would be doing something which, as a House of Parliament, we ought not to do. The section does not dismiss anybody and does not perpetrate any injustice against anybody. It merely leaves the new committee, when it meets, in the position of being able to decided about these appointments completely untrammelled by any previous proceedings.
For me, there are three reasons why the section should be left as it is. First, I think the case made mainly by Senator Hayes and also by Senator Hawkins is unanswerable. There is no need to go into the details as they have put them before the House. It seems to me that, on a constitutional issue, there is nothing we can do about it other than accept the section as it stands. A second reason is the case made by Senator Colgan against the section. He has indicated that he broke with the board because of the board's decision to proceed with these appointments in view of the circumstances. I think the Senator has made a case for the retention of this section.
The third reason for maintaining the section seems to me to lie in the amendment proposed by Senator Orpen. The difference between the section and the amendment is that Senator Orpen would like the word "review" inserted; in other words, that the joint committee may review the appointments, and, without assigning any reason, dismiss and remove the appointed person from his office. What exactly does the word "review" mean? Surely this new committee will not act in an irresponsible manner and will not act as a body of lunatics? This matter will come before it and it will investigate it. How long that investigation will go on, we do not know. Exactly what ground it will cover, we do not know, but the joint committee can fix anything it likes by way of review and that settles the matter.
If Senator Orpen could be a little more precise and tell us what he means by the word "review" and how he would indicate to the board its procedure on the matter, we might get somewhere with it, but merely to insert the word "review" and say that that is a good enough reason for amending the section, to me does not make sense. Consider the section and consider the amendment—on balance, it is better to leave the section as it is. As Senator Hayes and Senator Hawkins pointed out, it does not follow from the section that these people will be dismissed, but I think it is essential that the board should have the right to dismiss them, if it thinks fit, and especially in view of the circumstances outlined by Senator Hayes. I hope the section will be left in the Bill as it is.
I do not propose to raise any questions about the past administration of the Meath Hospital, except to say that it appears to have been run on most undemocratic lines and reform was absolutely essential. With regard to the references made by Senator Hayes to these appointments, I want to say that they would not convince anybody. Everybody will realise that this Bill is the work of vicious and panic-stricken people and that were it not for the fact that they were possibly taken on the wrong foot by a committee, which, in the courts of law, was adjudged to be a right and proper committee and correct in the action it took, this Bill would never have been thought of or introduced. From what has transpired during the week in the daily papers, we know that the running of this institution represented a very serious state of affairs, that it was run on purely class lines. As Professor O'Rahilly pointed out during the week, we have University College which everybody connected with it claims to be one of the most democratic medical institutions in the country. It has been in existence for 33 years, but no graduate of that university has ever got the opportunity of being selected or elected as a member of the board of that hospital.
Several matters have been brought in to prejudice the case in respect of the appointment recently of four doctors, and it has been suggested that, because they are four Corkmen, the appointments were all wrong. Everybody realises that Cork is about one-eight of the whole country, and that it is as big as six Leinster counties put together. It is only reasonable to expect that, in the matter of appointments of this type, Cork people, being brainy, intelligent and keen, will come to the top as they have done on various other occasions, so far as public appointments are concerned. Everybody will realise also that the Minister for Health was very much lacking in his approach to this whole problem and that his neglect is a very serious matter for the institution and for the country generally. Any thinking person must admit that a public inquiry should have been held into the running of this institution and into the appointments of the old board.
I want to say again that this measure is a vicious measure which should not be enacted. Senator Hayes said that, when they saw this Bill coming forward, the committee made these appointments urgently, and he pointed the finger of scorn at them and suggested that they should not have been made. One might as well suggest, in relation to the Local Government Bill at present before the Dáil, that the county managers should not have done anything as county managers in the past six months. You can do anything by legislation, but why stop at a particular point if you propose to legislate for a particular privileged class in this manner and deprive other people of their vested rights? It is a very serious thing. You might as well adopt the same principle as the United States—get rid of all public appointments and all staffs. The next thing is that legislation of this very particular type may be extended to district justices and properly established civil servants.
In referring to what has been done in America I must say that some of the precedents established by America and Britain in their holy horror of those who do not adopt the principle of civilised war make one want to point out that the expression "civilised war" is contradictory in terms. I protest against this measure. It is most undemocratic. It endangers the roots of all authority and democracy in the country. If hospitals down the country were conducted in this way, inquiries would have been instituted by the Minister long ago. I cannot for a moment visualise why he is lacking in his duty in this connection because that inquiry should have taken place. This section should be withdrawn.
A Senator has said that this section has been supported by unanswerable arguments by Senator Hayes and Senator Hawkins. My difficulty is that neither of them gives any answer to the question which must be agitating the minds of a great many of us. We are being asked to pass legislation which will reflect on people who were legally appointed by a legally constituted body. We are now being asked to give power for the removal, without the reason stated, of the persons who were legally appointed. To my mind, the amendment is even worse because it says:
"...declare the appointment null and void."
That seems to me to be a great offence against justice.
During the course of this discussion it emerged that the four persons appointed—and, mind you, the section deals only with the removal from office of certain persons—were very highly competent. This matter is most unfortunate. It has been suggested both in the Dáil and in this House that these people will probably be continued in their office. Why, then, should we put a stigma on them? Why should we inflict the stigma on professional men? Why, if they were elected by a legally constituted committee, should subsequent legislation seek to undo their appointment. I suppose that legislation is progressive but it can do a grave injustice in fixing a stigma on these four persons who have been appointed. I should like an answer to that question before I vote for this section.
When I first read the amendment I felt that I should like to support it. I did so in the belief that it more or less took the rough edge off Section 14. On thinking over the matter again, and having heard some of the speeches, I shall now certainly support the section as it stands.
I do not like to find people defending either Catholics or Corkmen in any company in which I happen to be present. Neither do I like to find people defending either Masons or members of a municipal authority in any company in which I happen to be present. In the discussion of this Bill we are, more than ordinarily, a bunch of Irishmen trying to do the best we can for an Irish hospital. Unquesetionably, some extraordinary statements have been made. I have been taken to task in the papers for a speech I made last week in which I said that the four men who were appointed were Corkmen. I said that I believed it was an extraordinary coincidence and that, were it not for that coincedence, many of the speeches which have been made would not have been made at all. What I said was changed about here and there and was finally produced as an attempt by me to suggest that there was Cork influence in the appointment of the doctors. I did not say any such thing. If there is anybody in this House who is not a Corkman and who is a better friend of Corkmen than I am, I should like to meet him. I have the greatest respect in the world for Corkmen and I agree 100 per cent. with Senator Sean Hayes when he says that because of their ability, energy and other good qualities they have succeeded in getting to the top in many professions and many walks of life.
To suggest that an attempt has been made in this section to cast a reflecttion on the four men who have been appointed is a gross exaggeration of the position. It is very regrettable that the names of the four men in question became known. I am not in any position to judge whether a man is a good doctor or a bad doctor. I have had discussions, however with men who, in my opinion, would be in a position to judge and they tell me that the four persons in question could not be stopped from getting the positions they have got in any ordinary examination in which they would be judged along ordinary standards. I believe that they are four first class men. Far from attaching any stigma, I believe that, as a result of the speeches which have been made in this House and in the Dáil, they will have a terrible job in living up to the reputation which they have got. I believe they will live up to the good reputation which they have got. I happen to know one of the men in question very slightly. Though I do not know the others I believe that they are as good and as nice as the man I know. I believe they are excellent members of the profession.
Senator S. Hayes says that the Bill was introduced on the proposition of vicious, panic-stricken people. The people who considered this Bill were three ex-Lords Mayor of Dublin Corporation and a man who, according to some people in the Dáil, will also be a Lord Mayor—personally I hope he will not be—and I do not think that these men would do anything that was not right while they were engaged on their discussions. Throughout the whole time they had been in constant touch with their own Parties in connection with this Bill. Therefore, we must assume that these four men were in agreement, and the Dáil, as far as the principle of the Bill was concerned, was in 100 per cent. agreement with it. There must, therefore, be something wrong about which we know nothing. I have gone to a lot of trouble to find out what all the talk that is going on is about, but I cannot find anything. The suggestion that something desperate is going to happen when this Bill becomes law is absolute nonsense. In fact, what the actual position will be is that 23 men will be in control of the hospital. These 23 men under this section are being given power, if they so desire, to despense with the services of the four doctors concerned.
The suggestion which has been made in actual plain fact is that amongst these 23 men there are four particularly dangerous characters. These four men must be a lot better men than I think they are and more powerful than I believe they are if it is to be suggested that they can sway the other 19, all of whom are members of local authorities, to do anything which in the opinion of the 19 men would be unjust. I do not think there is any danger whatever of such a thing happening. I believe that if and when this Bill becomes law, we will have a measure as democratically constructed as anything could possibly be in so far as the Oireachtas is concerned. I am amazed at some of the statements which have been made and I am very sorry that personalities have been brought into the discussion. I would appeal to those who are in opposition to the section to withdraw their opposition. I believe that we are doing a good piece of work according to our own rights. If some people think otherwise, then they have not convinced me that we are doing anything wrong and until they do so, I am standing by this Bill as we have so far amended it.
I want to say that I am in complete agreement with what Senators Hayes, Clarkin and Hawkins have said on the main principles of this Bill. I also agree with Senator Barniville in regard to the amendment of Senator Orpen, which might be desirable in other circumstances but in its phraseology is not as desirable in this Bill and which might, istead of making the position better, make it worse.
I only want to say that I do not believe any of the staff are going to lose their appointments but I believe that as a result of this section being passed, as I believe it will be, the position of these people will be all the better because they will have been appointed by a board democratically appointed and with full powers. It would be unfortunate if any persons appointed in the atmosphere of controversy and in the circumstances so clearly stated by Senator Hayes, were to be left in their positions with the suggestion that they had not been properly appointed. I think this is essentially a matter of principle and its effects will be for greater harmony in the future.
I am impressed by what Senator Orpen has stated in regard to the marginal note. The circumstances as regards the hospital and the Bill are very delicate and I entirely agree with Senator Hayes when he says that the first interests should be those of the patients. Those interests are best served by complete harmony amongst the staff. I do not think there has been anything said here this afternoon to which there could have been any great objection. I am very anxious not to hurt the feelings of anybody concerned. I know a great many of the people and the circumstances of the controversy and I speak purely personally on these matters.
As one of the representatives of the National University, I feel bound to say something when the interests of graduates of my own university are affected. I do not wish to enter into the controversy of the rights and wrongs of this matter. I think that when the interests of graduates of the university are affected, adversely or otherwise, and particularly in a Bill, it is perfectly fair and right that the representatives of that university should look after their interests and try to ensure that any threatened injury that the graduates are going to suffer should be looked after in a proper manner. It is purely with that intention I am intervening in this debate.
I do not wish to go into the history of this unfortunate affair. It has been sufficiently rehearsed in the Dáil and this House. We are all aware of the recent history of the Meath Hospital and of the sequence of the events that has led to these appointments and to the Bill. There is no doubt at all about the facts of the situation, but equally there is not doubt at all that the situation which has arisen is one that calls for a remedy. The remedy which is being applied is indeed drastic because it amounts, in fact, to power to rescind contracts with this graduates of ours which, at the time, were legally made.
There is no doubt about legal appointments being made and now these gentlemen, rightly or wrongly, for reasons which may or may not appeal to the majority of us, are having their appointments reviewed, cancelled or reconsidered ex post facto. Everybody will agree that ex post facto legislation must always be regarded with the greatest suspicion, and that a change in people's legal position made ex post facto must always be done with the greatest care to safeguard their interests. As said by previous speakers, it is a dangerous principle, a desperate remedy. Desperate remedies may be necessary occasionally, but that does not get away from the fact that they are remedies which should be reduced to a minimum and should be applied with all due caution. Therefore I would suggest that if we pass the section or the amendment—because really I do not see very much difference between the two—some words might be inserted to safeguard in some way or another the people whose positions are being reviewed so that they would have the benefit of some inquiry, some protection. Some words should be inserted taking away the purely capricious irresponsible power contained in the Bill. I mean no reflection on the present gentlemen appointed, but in the interests of the people who are legally in the position and who are exposed to dismissal, this decision should be taken with a certain amount of determination.
This in an extraordinary measure. It may be necessary in an unusual situation, but extraordinary measures should be hedged around with all precaution. I further hope that the treatment of these gentlemen will be characterised by fairness and equity, and over and above all that there will not be any hangover from the unfortunate controversy which we hope this Bill will bring to an end.
The last thing I would like to say is that, in so far as it has been frequently alleged that injustices have been perpetrated in the conduct of the hospital in recent months and in so far as that may have a foundation in fact and in so far as it may be true—I do not pretend to say what I think in this very controversial matter as we have had contradictions by the people immediately concerned of each other's statements—that certain people were victimised when they were not reappointed but dismissed, I prefer to see justice done by the restoration of the people who were deprived of their appointments than by a continued deprivation of them.
Some approach along those lines might at least be suggested to the committee. The very fact of this discussion may in itself lead the committee to adopt this line. It is in the hope of doing that, in the hope of creating better feeling and not worse feeling and of undoing an injustice by positive rather than negative measures, that I am making this contribution.
Knowing none of the people concerned, no member of the committee, none of the people appointed, my approach is some what more detached than that of the people who were in the midst of this controversy here in Dublin. My view is that a great a deal of prejudice surrounds the whole case. Although I have listened to Senator Hayes and other speakers, it seems to me that the Dáil Committee, approached the problem with a considerable amount of prejudice and that that is why the section is in the Bill, An interrupter suggests "flouting" but that is not a true presentation of facts. This committee represented the whole Dáil and different parties in the City of Dublin. I am a member of a political Party and I have no recollection of any Party discussions when these consultations were going on. The whole matter was discussed with freedom in the other House and, indeed, here too. While it is true that there was general agreement on the principle that a new plan of government for the hospital was necessary, there was not agreement on this section, in the other House; there was a division. I have forgotten what the majority was but the number separating the "Tá's" from the "Níl's" was not so very great at all.
It was very small.
Although the committee was drawn from all Parties there was vigorous opposition on this essential point to the opinion of the committee as contained in this section. This is something I do not understand. Senator Mrs. Concannon queried whether the committee was properly elected or not. If their existence was legal is seems to me a strange attitude on the part of the Oireachtas to challenge one decision of theirs. If by power vesste in them by the Oireachtas the new committee can challenge one decision why not give them authority to challenge every decision? I do not know anything about any decision but if they can challenge the appointments they should have an apportunity of challenging every decision of that committee from the beginning to the end of their term of office. Why is authority given to the committee in this partial manner? Why is it not complete and absolute?
If it is not intended that the power which the committee is given to eject these graduates of the National University should be excercised by them, what are we to do at all? I do not think there is anything more absured than making a pretence of giving power to a committee and saying at the same time that you do not think they will use it. That is how it seems to me. I may be rather difficult to enlighten but that is what I take from the speeches of Senators Douglas and O'Brien. Their case was that although this power has been vested in the new committee it is not a power that is likely to be exercised unjustily. I do not know what that means. If it is the idea of Senator Douglas and others, very just and charitable men, that this power is not to be exercised by the committee, there is no sense in giving it to them at all. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact with regard to the committee which is going out of existence that its legality has not been actually challenged. I do not think that anybody here said that they had done something illegal. If they did something during the last days of their existeance, I would point out that Governments have gone out of power and on the eve of going out they have made important appointments—not one Government but different Governments—yet it was never proposed that the new Government coming into office should reverse those appointments, whether it was that of a judge or promotion in some branch of the Government service. I do not know what line will be pursued by the new committee in regard to these people. All this controversy is very unfortunate. If they take the decision which some people imagine will be taken and these doctors are turned out of the hospital, it may start a controversy of which we may not see the end and I do not think the Oireachtas would come out unscathed. if the power vested in these people to do something like this is exercised.
Are we doing the wise thing? Someone argued in the other House that the whole constitutional position might be challenged on this section, in so far as it would deprive individuals of rights which they enjoy under agreements. We have heard a great deal about analogous positions in the past. In being asked to support this section, I am asked to do something that is against my better instincts. Another section I have discussed arises out of the history of the whole situation. To a considerable extent it is not even defensible. That may be argued on this, but I do not think that its inclusion makes this Bill better or makes the atmosphere surrounding the whole hospital and its government in the future any happier than it is at present. I do not know whether the new committee is to excercise these powers or not, but I would prefer that they would not have them to exercise.
I did not quite understand the Bill, but from listening carefully to the remarks made I cannot understand why those four men should come under the supervision of the instigators of the Bill, or why they should be singled out. They have been appointed regularly, as far as my knowledge goes, and I would like to support them.
I have no bother in making up my mind to support the section. All the knowledge I have of this measure and of what led up to its introduction has been gathered from people not connected with this hospital. I do not know any of the four people appointed or anything about them. From my examination of the position, I believe the old committee tried to do something which they knew might be regarded as wrong by the incoming committee, and they were having a last kick before they were ousted from office. Unless a case were made that these men were urgently needed, I think the making of these appointments was very wrong. I have an idea from the wording of the section that other appointments might have been made but for the section. It says: "appointed to any office". There is no particular mention of these four. If these four appointments were allowed to go through without question, there was every possibility that other appointments might be made or other commitments entered into by the outgoing committee. In view of the fact that the Bill was introduced before the committee made these appointments, in my opinion it is the new committee which should be entitled to decide the selections. I think it was said that if it were not for the fact that a number of other medical men knew that this clause might be inserted, there would have been other applications, and that on account of that knowledge certain men did not make application and so were not considered. That is one reason why we should give the new committee power to review these appointments. I have no hesitation in supporting the section as it stands.
I am quite satisfied, after the concise and convincing outline given by Senator Hayes of the background to this Bill, that it would be inadvisable to interfere in any way with Section 14. Senator Baxter is worried as to what the committee may do or may not do. They are given power—and, I hold, justly given power —to do certain things. Such a committee will be able to exercise discretionary power and I am satisfied that anything they do will be done in the best interests of the patients of the hospital. A committee representative of every section of the community, called together at the outset to discuss the terms of a Bill that would meet this situation, must have studied all the circumstances and conditions in the administration of the Meath Hospital and any recommendation coming from such a committee should be seriously entertained and altered only after very mature consideration. People in the know have informed me that this Bill is a good one, that any interference with it, any drastic alteration of its terms, would not be in the interests of the patients who have to be looked after there. On that account, it would be inadvisable even to modify in the slightest manner the power given in Section 14. Personally, I will not support any motion calculated to alter the powers set out in that particular section.
As a representative of one of the universities I was a little perturbed by what Senator O'Brien said, he cause I hold very strongly that the universities should stand together on these points, as far as possible. I turn to what the Chancellor of the National University said in the Dáil on 22nd February, 1951. He was quite firm in saying this clause should stand. He said that since it was announced that this Bill was before the House, the committee of the Meathe Hospital should have regarded themselves as a caretaking committee. Those are his own words. He went on to say that, very likely, when these posts were advertised, many other medical candidates who would have been very suitable may have held back from applying because of the existing situation. So when the Chancellor of the National University speaks in these terms and says that the only logical and proper course is to accept the unanimous recommendation of the committee, I think, as a representative of the other university, that the intersets of graduates are not being seriously impaired.
I should like to direct the attention of the House to a particularly odious and offensive matter.
The marginal note. It can be altered.
The note to which I refer is on the margin opposite Section 14 and it says: "Removal from office of certain persons." I think that should be modified. I suggest that we insert: "Power of committee to remove." The marginal note should not be quite so offensive. It is really barbarous.
I will deal first with the point raised by Seanator Mrs. Concannon. The marginal note is, of course, not part of the law. It can be altered, I had written down the exact alteration suggested by Senator Mrs. Concannon to make the marginal note on Section 14 the same as that on Section 17: "Power of joint committee to remove persons from office." I agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon. We can alter the marginal note.
On the whole question, there is the point made by Senator Baxter that, some how or other, people have a peculiar bias in this matter because they are living in the midst of the trouble. I am living in Dublin, but I am very far from being in the midst of the trouble. I kept well away from it. I look at this matter with just as calm and objective a mind as Senator Baxter or any other Senator. I was very impressed that such an extraordinary combination of Deputies interested in Dublin and its hospital should have taken these steps to bring a Bill into the Dáil. I agree with Senator Quirke that the combination of people which included Deputy Peadar Doyle, Deputy Martin O'Sullivan of the Labour Party and Deputy John McCann of the Fianna Fáil Party were certainly not vicious nor panic-strciken nor baiased.
With regard to graduates of the National University of Ireland, I do not yield either to Senator George O'Brien or anybody else in my interests in, and anxiety for, graduates of my university. But graduates of my university are able to stand on thier own feet. The graduates of the medical schools in particular have proved that that is so, not only at home but abroad. There is no attack in this section upon the graduates of the National University and there is no necessity for these graduates to be defended. There is no relevancy in the fact that the four persons appointed happen to be graduates of National University. What is suggested here is that they should be placed in the power of the new committee and I cannot conceive of any committee of the Meath Hospital under this Bill having any bias against graduates of the National University, or doing anything but treating them, wherever they find them, with the greatest possible eveness, fairness and justice.
The previous history of that hospital would not go to show that.
We are discussing graduates of the National University. I do know something about them. There is no such thing as coming upon anybody unawares, because everybody who was a candidate for a post since 6th December was aware that a new committee was being appointed and they were also made aware of the existence of this particular section. They were made aware individually. It was brought to their notice, so nobody can say they were taken unawares.
With regard to legal appointments, it is quite possible that people would be legally appointed in circumstances. which would necessitate a review of the appointments. There can be no doubt about that, but no injustice and no stigma rests upon anybody, who, in the excersie of his judgement and freedom, went up for one of these appointments. There were other people who exercised their freedom and judgement and did not go for the appointments. It is quite conceivable that a doctor would say:"I am not going to intervene in a dispute between the medical board of the hospital and the lay committee and I am not going to submit my qualifications to a lay committee for appointment." That is quite conceivable. There are two points of view. There can be no doubt that there might have been better competition if the situation had been one of harmony between the medical staffs and the governing committee. Whether the results would have been different or not I do not know. I have no qualification whatever to judge of the capacity or capabilities of doctors. I am casting no reflections on these people. I am assured by colleagues of mine that they are persons of high qualifications but it is a very interesting thing that, living as I do in the midst of medical graduates and medical professors, nobody spoke to me to ask me to have this section deleted. We should realise precisely what we are doing. We are handing over to the new committee appointed under this Bill, a committee consisting mainly of representatives of local bodies, power to review appointments. I think that is fair and, in all the circumstances, reasonable and I am personally confident that it will not work in any way as an injustice on anybody.
Captain Orpen
I would like to say that, in putting down this amendment, my purpose was to make it quite clear that what appeared to me might be classified as aspersions on these four appointments made recently are now brought under review in this section. I was also hoping that we could get a form of words that would be less open to misinterpretation. However, as I had little support for the amendment in this House, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To delete sub-section (2).
Apparently certain amendments were carried at the meeting of the Selected Committee and this escaped notice. The sub-section amends Section 5 of the Act of 1815, but sub-section (4) deletes Section 5 of that Act, and therefore there is no necessity to amend something which has been deleted. Sub-section (4) deletes Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 1815 Act, and therefore this sub-section is not necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
This section repeals an old Act of the Irish Parliament, Clause 2 of which defined ex officio governments including His Grace, the Archbishop of Armagh. It is thought that that is unsuitable at the moment.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In line 45, to delete the words "of the hospital"
The words "of the hospital" are not necessary. It is set out in the definition section that the expression "the joint committee" means the joint committee of the hospital, so that these words are unnecessary. It is just a matter of slacht, as we say:
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Are the inverted commas which appeared in my copy of the Bill in your copy, Sir? If so, should they not be deleted? After the word "thereto" at the end of the section, there are inverted commas which do not seem to be justified.
That is a misprint.
May I move their deletion?
They are not necessary there.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We must go back now to Section 1.
Section 1 agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments: Report Stage to be taken later.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.