I wish to draw attention to a remark made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health during Questions.
Order of Business.
The Deputy should have done so when the Minister made the alleged remark.
I should like to know if the Chair heard the remark to which I refer? It was a remark made by the Minister for Local Government when the Minister for Agriculture was replying to question 36. It was by way of supplementing the Minister's reply, and the Minister for Local Government said that I was more interested in book-making than in my Parliamentary duties.
I did not say anything of the sort.
I say that that remark comes very badly from a man like the Minister, who is the son of a Belfast S.P. bookmaker.
The Chair did not hear the interjection.
The Minister for Local Government said that the Deputy was more interested in book-making than in the subject under discussion.
He did make that statement. Does the Minister deny having made that uncalled-for observation?
I said that the Deputy was more interested in book-making than in the cattle trade.
Is that a proper remark?
It is at least, unhappy.
Is the Minister entitled to start a slandering campaign as regards his opponents? He should be kept in his corner.
It is in a muzzle the Minister should be kept.
Deputy Norton is familiar with muzzles.
It is proposed to take the business as on the Order Paper, Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive, No. 5 to be taken at 6 o'clock and private Deputies' business at 8 o'clock.
I understood that as No. 6—St. Laurence O'Toole Hospital Bill—was regarded as controversial, it was not being taken during the session. I understand representations have been made to the Government that that was so. Very strong views were held here that it was a highly controversial measure. Why is it included now, having regard to the facilities afforded the Government since the emergency began?
I do not know what the Deputy calls controversial business. With all respect, I think that a Bill dealing with an urgent matter like the building of a hospital in Dublin cannot be regarded as controversial business. We have had business discussed here during the past year that might, I think, be regarded as much more controversial than a Bill of this kind. The Deputy has said more than once that he thought this was controversial, but that was never accepted here.
I have drawn attention to the fact on more than one occasion that this was controversial. On the last occasion I instanced reasons for objecting to this measure. The Minister has referred to the need for building a hospital, as if anybody has any illusions regarding the possibility of building during the existence of the emergency. I have pointed out that the hospital board which had run the hospital for something like 20 years was opposed to this measure. I understand the case that is being made now is that the board has agreed—and for a very good reason. The Parliamentary Secretary has discovered that the Minister has as much power over this hospital as he has over the Dublin Board of Assistance. He has vacated certain seats and put on his own nominees, including a member of the House and a paid official of his Department. If that be regarded as a reason for urgent building and for the proposed transfer of a hospital that is in the city to a district that, until a few years ago, was outside the city, a district that is in the county, I can understand perfectly the desire that nothing should arise in the emergency to disturb what is euphemistically called national unity.
I do not think that anything the Deputy has said would convince anybody that the Bill was a controversial one in the sense that we generally accept controversial matters here. For that matter, every Bill is controversial. The last one I had to deal with was the Central Bank Bill, and I do not think you could get a more controversial measure. There was no objection to that Bill on controversial grounds. The Trade Union Bill was controversial, and the County Management Bill was controversial, much more so than a purely local Bill to deal with what I think is a very urgent matter. There is nothing more urgent in the City of Dublin than the planning of a new hospital, and, even if this Bill were passed within the next three or four months, nothing can be done for a long time to implement it, because planning will be required. It will take a year or two years to plan, and we cannot start the plans until the Bill is passed. There is no legal power at present to spend a penny on putting the buildings, which are in a dangerous condition in that hospital, in order. That makes the matter very urgent.
If the Minister is insensible to the controversial nature of this measure, and if he stands on the point of its being very urgent, can we have any explanation of why we stopped consideration of this measure more than 12 months ago and why the House was asked to pay no attention to it during the period since? I understand that the order is that we resume consideration of the Bill on amendment No. 16. It is more than 12 months since we dealt with that amendment, which does not fit in with the Minister's statement that it is urgent.
It is, unfortunately, quite true that more than 12 months have elapsed, but the Bill is urgent indeed, and more urgent now because the corporation have notified the hospital authorities that portion of these buildings is in a dangerous condition and must be taken down. There is no legal power to spend a penny on taking them down.
Mr. Byrne
There are 1,000 tenements condemned also and they cannot come down.
We will repeal this Bill after the general election. That is as sure as the Minister is sitting there.
You will not have the power.