I move amendment No. 1:—
In line 30, page 2, to insert before the word "in" the words "(other than a public right)".
This is a drafting amendment.
Committee on Finance. - Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill, 1945—Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In line 1, page 3, to delete the word "sanatorium", where that word occurs secondly, and substitute the word "hospital".
The word "sanatorium" has not so far been used in the Tuberculosis Acts, which referred to "hospitals". It seems better draftsmanship to use the definition so as to emphasise the connection between this Bill and the existing Acts, which is also made by Section 6 (2) of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In line 22, after the word "payments" to insert the words "not exceeding £1,500,000".
I move this amendment entirely in a non-Party manner, because of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary, in his concluding speech on Second Reading, mentioned that he proposed to spend £1,500,000 on the erection of three sanatoria. I do not want in any way to cramp any of the Parliamentary Secretary's schemes but I think it is desirable that some limit should be put on the amount which may be expended, particularly in view of the fact that the House has no control over the expenditure and that this Bill is a radical departure from previous Acts dealing with the erection of hospitals and sanatoria for the treatment of tuberculosis. Hitherto the local authority initiated the scheme and after inquiry and various other procedures, finally the scheme was adopted. I think it is wise to get away from that procedure, which entailed a lot of unnecessary delay but, under the section as it stands, the Minister can take the whole of the Hospitals Trust fund and spend it without being accountable to the Oireachtas for that expenditure. While the public Hospitals Act, 1933, removed the section in the original Public Charitable Hospitals Act which specifically designated that two-thirds of the money would be spent on voluntary hospitals and that one-third would be paid to the Minister for Local Government to assist rate-aided hospitals, nevertheless, the Hospitals Commission, in their various reports, acted on the assumption that two-thirds of the money would be allocated to voluntary hospitals for the payment of deficits and for constructional and extension works and that one-third would be paid to the Minister for Local Government. It appears now that that was a fallacious basis on which to allot the money.
It is ture, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the entire fund is not designated for different purposes—the fund is for the establishment of hospitals, both in Dublin and throughout the country—but it is equally true that the original plan of a two-third and one-third basis for voluntary and local authority hospitals was adhered to and that a certain proportion which had not been exceeded was paid out on the recommendations of the Hospitals Commission, as required. Under this Bill the money in the Hospitals Trust Fund is specifically designated for a particular purpose and no limit is put on the amount that can be spent.
This House is extremely anxious to assist the Parliamentary Secretary in every way to eradicate the disease as quickly as possible, so far as legislation or propaganda can do so, but, as public representatives, we cannot condone unlimited expenditure on a scheme, however worthy. It may be said by the Parliamentary Secretary that I want to limit the scheme. A simple amending Act, such as is brought in occasionally for the telephone and the Electricity Supply Board extensions, to enable additional capital to be advanced, would also enable the Parliamentary Secretary to carry out his schemes and the House would be very glad to agree to it. I think the amendment is reasonable. It allows the Parliamentary Secretary to work within the limits within which he himself said he proposes to work.
I must ask the House to support me in rejecting this amendment. The House displayed almost enthusiasm last week, when the Second Reading of this Bill was passed. Every Party in the House strongly supported it. In fact I do not think a Bill has ever come before the House that received so large a measure of support from different Parties. Having got thus far, now, when the principle of the Bill has been accepted by the House, with unanimity, Deputy Cosgrave proposes, in effect, that it will be impossible to give effect to the terms of the Bill. We undertake, as part of our policy—I stated very clearly to the House—to provide, if it is humanly possible, about 2,100 beds, specially earmarked for the treatment of tuberculosis. We hope to provide these 2,100 beds at a cost of approximately £1,500,000. It is exceedingly doubtful if we can do that. While the figure of £1,500,000 has been mentioned, I want to make it clear to the House that, so far as I am concerned, if it is necessary to spend substantially more in order to provide these beds, I intend to spend it. We ought to be reasonable in a matter such as this. The pre-war cost of the provision of a bed in a general hospital was approximately £1,500. The corresponding figure to-day would probably be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £2,200 per bed. If we were to estimate on that basis for the 2,100 beds that are so urgently required for the treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis, we would have to encroach on that fund to the extent of £4,620,000.
As I have already stated to the House, it is not intended to provide institutions quite as costly, or nearly as costly, as the institutions that have been provided out of the Hospitals Trust Fund in the past. But, while I say that, it is intended to provide properly constructed and properly equipped institutions, so that the best services that we can provide will be made available to this particular class of sufferers.
When Deputy Cosgrave talks about proportions of one-third and two-thirds as a basis of allocation of the Hospitals Trust Fund, when he talks in terms of the sub-division of that fund into two-thirds for voluntary hospitals and one-third for local authority hospitals, he speaks in terms of a far distant past. As the House is aware—I do not suggest that Deputy Cosgrave laboured the point or that he tried to deceive the House——
The Hospitals Commission are labouring under the same delusion.
That is not the point I am trying to make. Under the Act of 1931 provision was made for the sub-division of the Hospitals Trust Fund into two-thirds for the voluntary hospitals and one-third for the local authority hospitals. Under the 1933 Act that sub-division entirely disappeared and a common fund was created. Almost 12 years ago this whole principle was fully debated in the Dáil, before the 1933 Act was passed, and the House agreed, after very detailed debate, that the principle of allowing the Minister for Local Government and Public Health full discretion in the matter as to the best use to which the moneys could be applied was a sound principle, and that principle was incorporated in the Act of 1933. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.