The Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill has been recommitted to this Committee for its further consideration. A list of amendments, which have been put into proper form by the draftsman, has been circulated to members of the Committee and will now be considered.
PUBLIC CHARITABLE HOSPITALS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1929
Are we to consider only those amendments, or can we consider the Bill as a whole?
By accepting these amendments you will be making certain alterations in the Bill as you go on.
We will really substitute the amendments for the original Bill.
What I want to know is: shall we go through the Bill clause by clause?
Yes, because you will be deleting sections in the Bill and substituting others.
Do we go through the Bill from the title to the final clause?
It will be open to the Committee on these amendments to consider the Bill.
Only on those amendments? Shall it be in our power to alter the Bill?
The amendments will alter the Bill.
I move amendment 1 standing in my name.
There are a few changes in this section. It was agreed in the Dáil that paragraphs (c) and (e) should be eliminated. The Minister for Finance objected to (d) and sent forward paragraph (d) in the section as it now stands to take the place of the former paragraph. The question there was as to the average number of beds to be occupied. Deputy Dr. O'Dowd had an amendment made on that matter and the Minister altered the provision in accordance with his own view.
That interferes with the provision as to twenty-five beds.
No. The provision now is simply the amendment moved by Deputy Dr. O'Dowd altered so as to make it workable by the Minister.
Arising out of paragraph (d), if a hospital, such as a dental hospital, has no beds will special provision have to be made to bring it within the Bill? The Dental Hospital is badly in need of funds and it will be excluded if it is provided that twenty five per cent. of the beds must be occupied by indoor patients. The authorities of the dental hospital have written to me as follows:—
Of course we have no beds but we reserve more than twenty-five per cent. of our accommodation for free patients, as we have a daily dispensary which is entirely free. In addition I might mention that the Vice-Chancellor ruled in the case of Lord Iveagh's gift, in 1911, that this hospital fully fulfilled the requirements of the bequest and ranked equally with the other hospitals of the city of Dublin, the equivalent of a bed being the operating chair in the hospital.
There is no mention of the word " bed " in paragraph (d).
But it refers to indoor patients.
We may have to harp on the word " indoor."
If you go into details, you may find yourself unable to deal with the problem at all. There are a number of hospitals which are anxious to participate in the sweepstake scheme and who will be cut off if you make very strict regulations. We are anxious to leave it to the Minister to determine, when application is made, whether the hospitals applying are entitled to avail of the provisions of the Bill or not.
We have, of course, the Vice-Chancellors ruling that a dental hospital is in the same category as a clinical hospital. A dental hospital, or some similar institution in Cork, or elsewhere, may desire to take advantage of the provisions of the Bill but I fear that the wording as to indoor patients would exclude them if some amendment were not made.
If we were to amend the Bill on the lines suggested, we might bring dispensaries within its ambit.
I supplied to the Minister figures from Holles Street Lying-in Hospital showing that they had thirty-one per cent. of indoor cases. The Minister, however, pointed out that they were treating many hundreds of patients free in their own homes and he seemed to think that that brought them within the terms of the Bill. I do not see how we can go back upon this amendment.
The legal doctrine that I referred to may, of course, alter the position. The Minister could be asked whether a dental hospital would come under the Bill.
The Minister will only tell you when a scheme comes before him. If you want to remedy the matter, you will have to put in an amendment that this provision do not apply to dental hospitals.
That can be done on Report.
This Bill refers to public charitable hospitals and I do not see how, as Deputy Bennett suggested, it could be considered to apply to dispensaries.
It only occurred to me that places such as dispensaries might be brought within the Bill if we amended it as suggested.
Does Deputy Sir James Craig admit that the provisions as to indoor patients would preclude dental hospitals from receiving benefit under the Bill?
I do not know whether it would or not.
If Deputy Dr. Keogh will draw attention to the point on Report Stage, I am sure we will be able to get a ruling on it.
Paragraph (b) would seem to debar all hospitals run by local authorities from coming under the scheme. In some cases, the authorities of these hospitals might desire to raise money in this way for the purpose of improving their equipment.
This is a Public Charitable Hospitals Bill.
To come within the scope of the Bill, the hospital must be a public charitable institution.
I have moved the amendment with the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (e). The Minister for Education objected to these paragraphs and asked if I felt strongly about them. I said no, and it was agreed that the paragraphs be omitted. On paragraph (d) the Bill was referred back and the Minister has produced a new (d) to meet his points.
I would prefer that paragraph (c) and (e) remain in.
The Dáil has already agreed that they be left out.
It is within the power of this Committee to insert them in the Bill, if it thinks right.
What is the explanation of their appearance on the amendment paper if the Dáil agreed to cut them out?
The Minister for Education objected to these two paragraphs. He mentioned, as far as I remember, the Hospice for the Dying. He said that the Hospice for the Dying might not receive Protestant patients, or something like that, and that this provision would exclude it. He said he did not like these two paragraphs, and it was agreed that they should be deleted.
I object to that I would prefer that they remain.
If we reinstate them after the House has agreed that they should be deleted we will be in an awkward position.
The whole Bill has been recommitted and we can reinsert these paragraphs.
These two paragraphs were, by some sort of agreement in the House, deleted. Another amendment was taken up, and on that amendment it was decided to recommit the Bill.
That is so, but we are now considering the whole Bill.
In conjunction with these amendments.
We are entitled to insert these amendments if we wish.
Certainly. I merely desire that the Committee should decide which of the two things it will do.
I think we should be guided mainly by the men responsible for promoting this Bill, and I understand that Deputy Sir James Craig and Deputy Dr. O'Dowd agreed to have these paragraphs deleted.
I do not think that Deputy Dr. O'Dowd was responsible for promoting the Bill.
He is one of the principal supporters of the Bill.
These two amendments were put down by Deputy Dr. O'Dowd, and when the Minister took exception to them he said he was quite prepared to have them deleted.
We could allow the amendment to go as it stands and have the paragraphs deleted on Report.
I should not like to do that, since we agreed to their deletion.
I will put the question proposed by Deputy Sir James Craig, that the amendment be made, with the deletion of the two paragraphs mentioned.
That is a very awkward way to take the vote. We are in favour of the amendment with the exception of the proposal to delete paragraphs (c) and (e).
I will move then that paragraph (c) and (e) be deleted from the amendment as it stands on the paper.
Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided. Tá, 8; Níl, 2.
Tá
- Deputy Beckett.
- Deputy Bennett.
- ,, Sir James Craig.
- ,, Davin.
- ,, Keogh.
- ,, O’Connell.
- ,, O’Dowd.
- ,, Chairman.
Níl.
- Deputy Moore.
- Deputy O’Kelly.
Question declared carried.
Amendment, as amended, put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2 on the Paper.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3.
Question put and agreed to.
These amendments affect Section 1. The question now is: That Section 1 stand part of the Bill.
Would I be in order in proposing that the old section be deleted and the amendments substituted for it?
The proper course is what I have suggested.
The amendments read: " Before Section 1 to insert a new section as follows." The plain English of that is that we are to allow Section 1 to remain.
According to Standing Orders, " When the amendments (if any) offered to a section have been disposed of, the Chairman shall put the question: ‘That such section (or such section as amended) stand part of the Bill.'"
I am objecting to this amendment appearing as a prefix to the original section.
There is no alternative to what we are doing.
There is under the Standing Order you have read. What becomes of Section 1?
The section will go out if the Committee decides so.
I submit that as this Bill has been re-committed the Section 1 before us is Section 1 as amended.
Amendments 2 and 3 in each case begin " In page 2, before Section 1, to insert a new section as follows." You have three new sections coming before Section 1.
But is Section 1 going to stand?
You are going to decide that immediately. I will put the question.
Question put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Is it seriously suggested that Section 1 is replaced by the new sections?
There are three amendments. Section 1 is defeated now.
Not if you put it to the Committee that it stands.
Have not the Committee decided that Section I do not stand part of the Bill?
I understood that it stands.
I put the question that it stand and the Committee defeated it.
What is Section 1 of the Bill now?
Amendments 1, 2 and 3—three new sections replace it.
So that Section 2 of the original Bill now becomes Section 4.
I move: Amendment No. 4.
Agreed.
Question—" That Section 2 stand part of the Bill "—put, and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
AMENDMENT 5.
With regard to amendment No. 5, we will first take the amendments by Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Dr. O'Dowd to this amendment.
: I move:—
In sub-section (2) (b) of the proposed new section, to delete the word " eight " and substitute therefor the word " five."
Question put and declared lost.
I move:—
In sub-section (2) (b) of the proposed new section, to delete the word " eight " and substitute therefor the word " seven."
Question put and agreed to.
I move Amendment No. 5 as amended.
Question put and agreed to.
I move Amendment No. 6 on the Paper.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: " That section 3 stand part of the Bill "—put, and declared lost.
I move Amendment No. 7 standing in my name.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: " That section 4 stand part of the Bill "—put, and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
I move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Question: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill "—put, and declared lost.
I move Amendment No. 9.
Question put and agreed to.
I move Amendment No. 10.
Question put and agreed to.
Question: " That section 6 stand part of the Bill "—put, and declared lost.
Question: " That section 7 stand part of the Bill "—put, and declared lost.
Question: " That section 8 stand part of the Bill "—put, and agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Our report will be as follows: The Committee has gone through the Bill and has made the amendments thereunto. The Bill as amended is reported to the Dáil.
Agreed. Ordered to report accordingly.
The Committee concluded its business at 5.55 p.m.