Meath Hospital Bill, 1950— Recommittal and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on Section 12, as amended.

Mr. Lynch

When I moved to report progress last night I was dealing with the provisions of Section 12 (2) of this Bill. Under this sub-section, the new board to be appointed to the Meath Hospital will have power to dispense with the services of any appointee to the hospital who received his or her appointment on or after the 6th December, 1950. Without attempting to restate what I have already stated, I had established that the board who made the appointments which are sought to be brought within the purview of this section was a properly constituted board and was found to be properly and legally constituted by a decision of the High Court of Justice in this country. It was also clear that there was need for extra appointments to the staff of this hospital. The posts having been properly advertised, certain applicants sat for interview before a board on which the medical profession was represented. The qualifications required were very high—the applicants were required to possess two senior degrees in medicine or surgery. Out of the 20 applicants, four men were appointed. It must be presumed that the four men who were appointed held the highest possible qualifications. I might mention that these posts are honorary and that the appointment of the men who have obtained them would have no effect on the positions of the existing medical or surgical staff in that hospital. There is no attempt, by these appointments, to displace any of the existing staff.

My next main objection to this sub-section is that it is retrospective legislation. I have an objection in principle to retrospective legislation. Nevertheless, I realise that in some instances retrospective legislation is necessary and even desirable. It is generally employed when a certain situation exists which, on examination, has proved to be not quite legal and provision is often made by this House to legalise a desirable state of affairs. In this sub-section there is an attempt to nullify what was otherwise a legal act. As far as I remember, it is the first time this device was employed to render null and void an act which was otherwise legal and which had no taint whatever of illegality. There is the further point that these appointments have created between the hospital and the new appointees a contractual situation. The position is that when these men accepted a post they entered into a contract of employment. I have not found in any branch of the law any provision which would enable an employer to dismiss an employee without giving cause or excuse. If any member of this house or any employer outside it acted towards his employee in the manner envisaged in and permitted by this sub-section, he would be faced with an action for damages by his employee for dismissal. Nevertheless, we are going to condone such a position by allowing a sub-section into a Bill which would permit the new board appointed under the Act to dismiss these men, who were properly appointed, without giving any reason whatever for doing so. I think that this is a position that might not stand if legal action were taken. I have not examined the position in that light but I have very grave doubts as to the effect of the sub-section with regard to the present position of the law. For the benefit of the new board, should this section be carried, I should like to observe that it is entirely permissive—

Captain Cowan

Of course it is clear. That is what you are arguing.

Mr. Lynch

By that interjection it is obvious that it is equally clear to at least one of these men that as soon as this Bill is passed he will be thrown out on his ear.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Lynch must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Captain Cowan

But the Deputy is starting to make up two cases on his submission.

Mr. Lynch

In the first instance, I have not made two cases. I challenge anybody to deny the accuracy of what I have stated. This sub-section tries to condone an action which, if taken by the new board, would not be considered legal in the case of any other contractual situation as between employer and employee. I may say that I have no interest whatever in any of the appointees, personal or otherwise, or in any of the organisations alleged to have any interest in the matter. As the sub-section is permissive, I hope the new board will not take any hasty action and will not be motivated by the same spirit that prompted the threat that one or all of these men would be kicked out on their ears as soon as the Bill became law. I would ask them to consider the position of these men who acted in good faith in responding to an advertisement and presenting themselves for interview, to consider the position of eminent surgeons who, if they lose these appointments, cannot completely efface from their record the fact that at one time they were dismissed from appointments within a few weeks, or even months, of getting them. If the sub-section is carried, I sincerely hope that these men, having been appointed, will be judged on their merits and that no precipitate action will be taken against them merely because they accepted appointments under a board with whom the new board could not see eye to eye.

Mr. Larkin

It is regrettable that the Deputies who are opposed to Section 12 seem to be so, not merely from a lack of full information as to the background to this section, but from a misconception of its purpose. I am sorry that when Deputy McCann, chairman of the Select Committee, was speaking last night, he did not take more time to explain, particularly to fellow Deputies of his own Party, the background to this section and the approach which brought the Bill in its present form before the House.

We are dealing here, not with the problems of members of the medical profession or of members of the joint committee. When this Bill came before the House on Second Reading, the House, as part of the law-making machinery of this country, saw fit to adopt the principle embodied in the long title to the Bill, namely, that it was necessary and desirable to provide suitable machinery for the constitution of the governing committee of this hospital.

The manner in which the House received the Bill on Second Reading was a compliment to the House and to the Deputies. The Bill was approached solely on the basis that we were dealing here with an institution which exists primarily, not for the benefit of the medical profession, or the members of any joint committee, or administrators of a hospital, but for the purpose of the treatment and care of sick people and that, therefore, the sole concern of the House was to ensure that that hospital, that centre of medical treatment for sick people, would be provided not with the personnel of a joint committee, but with the machinery whereby a committee could be provided which would be suitable to the high purpose of the institution. No member of the House, on Second Reading, had any regard to the background of this whole matter; but solely concerned himself with the question that we are dealing here, not merely with a hospital, but with a public hospital whose area of responsibility extends over the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties, whose existence and future is dependent on public moneys and whose sole purpose is the treatment and care of the sick.

The House referred the Bill to a Select Committee representative not merely of all Parties in the House but of all non-Party groups as well. Those of us who served on that Select Committee found that the atmosphere was a happy one and an unusual one in the sense that all of the matters that came before the Select Committee were decided, almost without exception, by a unanimous decision. From the first meeting of that committee, it was unanimously decided that the responsibility handed to us by this House was to confine ourselves exclusively to the problem of providing by way of the Bill the most suitable and the most acceptable type of machinery for the carrying on of the government of the hospital.

When, on the completion of the Second Reading of the Bill by this House, that became publicly known, especially to all parties interested in and concerned with the Meath Hospital, and the progress of the Bill through the House, it must have become equally apparent to those parties that this House, as part of the law-making machinery of the community and also as one of the highest representative public bodies in the community, had passed judgment, not on the personnel of the existing joint committee or on its legality, but on the desirability of providing a more suitable and more acceptable type of machinery for the provision of the governing committee of the hospital.

The members who submitted the amendment which is now embodied in Section 12—and again it is well to stress that the supporters of that amendment were drawn from all Parties and all shades of opinion—had in mind that, the Dáil having indicated its opinion upon the principle, if, as had been indicated by the decision on Second Reading, there was going to be provided machinery which, in the mind of the members of the corporate body of the Oireachtas, was a suitable and a preferable type of machinery for the provision of the governing body of the hospital, it was not merely a question of public interest, but a matter of courtesy to this House, that nothing should be done which would create a new and drastically changed situation from the time when that decision upon principle was taken until such time as the new governing body would be elected in accordance with the machinery finally decided upon by the Oireachtas.

In that they were actuated by their concern, not merely to avoid becoming embroiled in the general atmosphere that had surrounded the hospital for some time, but to confine themselves to the terms of reference given to them by the House and to discharge the responsibility that had been placed upon them. It was, therefore, from that point of view that the amendment was submitted. Not merely was the amendment submitted by a group of members of the Select Committee which was representative of all shades of opinion in the House, but the amendment was adopted by a unanimous decision of the Select Committee. Therefore, when the amendment is examined, it should be examined not in the light of special pleading for any group or any individual who may be affected in any way by its operation, but it should be examined in relation to the principle underlying it and the purpose for which it was put forward and adopted by the Select Committee.

That is the background in so far as the section is concerned. When we examine the amendment itself, we will recollect that it has already been pointed out that what in effect is proposed by the section is that a joint committee will be elected by the machinery finally decided upon by the Oireachtas and embodied in legislation. More important still is the fact that the machinery now set out represents a fundamental, a basic change from the machinery already provided in the Bill on the occasion of its First Reading.

It has been emphasised that this is not merely a hospital, that it is a public hospital dependent on public funds and able to continue only to the extent that it is provided for by public funds. The viewpoint of members who are interested in the Bill and the viewpoint now before the House in the form of the report of the Select Committee is that the decisive authority should repose in the representatives of public authorities who, by their representative character, have been charged with speaking—and they are entitled to speak on behalf of the public—not merely as individual representatives, but as the representatives of large and most important corporate bodies. These are the representative type—whoever the individuals may be is another matter—who, when the Bill becomes law, will be charged with the major authority under the new joint committee.

To suggest that men and women of such a representative character will concern themselves with anything but the primary purpose of the hospital— that is, the welfare of the patients—is unfair and is contrary to the whole experience of the manner in which members of public authorities discharge their particular functions.

In so far as the powers proposed to be given to them under Section 12 are concerned, it has been indicated that they are permissive. Does any Deputy suggest that in respect of appointments—and I have in mind the particular appointments that have already been made—the power given under Section 12 is to be used by representative public men and women, sitting on the joint committee, not merely in their individual capacity, but as representing corporate bodies from whom they have been selected, is going to be used in an arbitrary fashion, in an unfair fashion or in a manner that will be harmful to the main purpose of the hospital, which is the welfare of the patients?

It must be remembered that appointments do not consist merely of the appointment of individuals to particular posts. A hospital is a machine; it may be an efficient or an inefficient machine—that is a matter to be determined by those charged with the government of the hospital. The government of the hospital, in so far as this Bill is concerned, is intended to be vested primarily in the hands of those public representatives who will sit on the committee, duly advised and guided by experts who are members of the medical profession. But the final authority will lie with the members of the joint committee, and from that point of view they must have regard, not merely to existing or future appointments, but to the administrative side and the medical system which is represented by those appointed. Changes in appointments, or additions to appointments, may not merely raise the question of the professional qualifications of the appointees, but may, in fact, raise the question of drastic and fundamental changes in the administration and in the medical practice.

It is sufficient for those who support the section that the Dáil has decided on the principle that it is desirable to provide better and more acceptable machinery in respect of the government of this hospital, and it is only fair that those who will be charged as public representatives, under the machinery devised by the Oireachtas, with the responsibility of carrying on the hospital, should not be hampered or interfered with, but should be given a completely unqualified opportunity of making their decisions in regard to maintenance or the changes they desire in the existing administration or the medical practice of the hospital; in other words, that it is desirable that the Dáil, having given attention to this matter, should see to it that the status quo is maintained until a new joint committee arising out of the machinery provided in this measure has taken up office. Whether that is a reasonable point of view or not is a matter that can be discussed. It is not an unfair point of view; it has no ulterior purpose and it is in keeping with, and fully justified by, the decision of the Dáil on the Second Reading. It is represented by the section as it now stands.

It has been indicated that the section is permissive. I have no doubt that, in so far as the gentlemen who have been appointed are concerned, no question, so far as I can see as a layman, can arise in regard to their medical qualifications. Why there should be this special pleading, I fail to understand. The only question that could conceivably arise, and it is a matter for the new joint committee, is the final overriding question as to what extent the changes that have taken place, the appointments, are for the ultimate benefit of the sick people who will have to be treated in the hospital.

On that aspect, I feel that if we, as the Dáil, are of the opinion that the changes are desirable—the machinery to constitute the joint committee—we should equally have faith in this, that the machinery we are providing is going to produce a joint committee of men and women who will accept their fundamental responsibility to the patients and place that above all other considerations. If they do that, there can be no doubt and no nervousness on the part of any individual, whether he be a lay administrator or a member of the medical profession, that if he has the qualifications and competency to discharge his responsibility to the patients, he will not be in any jeopardy.

That, I think, is the most important aspect of this section. Listening to the viewpoints expressed in opposition to the section, I was somewhat concerned with the high level on which the House dealt with the Bill on Second Reading, and the high level at which the Select Committee considered it and were able to arrive at a unanimous expression of opinion. They brought back to the House a Bill which clearly sets out the purpose and the principle which this House approved and had in mind on the Second Reading, and it would be regrettable if we were to step down a little from that high level. I think it is important to note that the Deputies from all sides of the House who so far have spoken in opposition to the Bill——

Mr. Lynch

Not to the Bill.

Mr. Larkin

——in opposition to Section 12, have not, quite frankly, had the advantage of membership of the Select Committee. I am one of those who believe that committee machinery can assist the progress of business in this House. It is clear in this instance that those who have been most closely associated with the work of the Select Committee have had a certain advantage but I do think that other members who have not been members of the Select Committee, should read very carefully the report of the committee and pay particular attention to the manner in which the decisions were arrived at and the atmosphere in which the report has been produced. I personally feel that Section 12 is not merely necessary but is almost a corollary to Section 4, which deals with the proposed constitution of the joint committee. It is to me quite clear, if we take the view that the main body of authority and responsibility in the future joint committee should devolve on those members who have a public representative character, that then we should take the stand that they should have a free and unfettered opportunity, from the first of their meetings, to deal with the problem which will be handed on to them by the passing of this Bill. So far as medical appointments are concerned, reference has been made to certain sections of the Act of 1815, to which everybody rightfully takes exception. These limiting sections, so far as appointments are concerned, no longer exist but more important still, not merely will the joint committee as proposed in the Bill be constituted with a majority of public representatives, but clearly and unmistakably for the first time, the joint committee will have the final and the sole power of making appointments. Therefore, any fears that conceivably might lie in the minds of members of this House or persons outside as to the manner in which the Meath Hospital will be conducted in future, can quite readily be set at rest. On the basis of the machinery set out in the Bill, the proposed constitution of the committee and the new powers of the committee, I feel that in so far as we are asking a body of men and women to take upon their shoulders a somewhat difficult and onerous task, we should express our confidence in them to the extent of allowing Section 12 to stand, being assured that it will not be abused and that it will be operated in the interests of the patients who will be the future inmates of this hospital. These are the important aspects we should have in mind in dealing with the section.

Deputy Lynch referred to other matters with which I am not competent to deal in regard to the practical application of the Bill, but these are purely matters for other spheres of activity. As to the question of retrospective legislation, that does not arise. Section 12 is not retrospective. Section 12 comes into force only on the appointed day after the Act is passed. The only effect of Section 12 is to free the hands of the joint committee which will take up office by virtue of the decision of the Oireachtas, and to put them into the position of dealing with this problem, a problem which this House has already decided existed and required attention, a problem which should be decided on the lines set out in the Bill before the House.

Deputies S. Collins and Dockrell rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dockrell.

Mr. Dockrell

I shall give way to Deputy Collins.

Mr. S. Collins

I hope to be able to preserve the level of the debate——

Mr. McGrath

Is it a private Deputy who decides who is to be called next? I was up before either of these Deputies and Deputy Dockrell now nominates a Deputy to speak for him.

Mr. Dockrell

Oh, no.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am endeavouring as far as possible to call speakers in turn from each side of the House. I called on Deputy Dockrell and I need not call on Deputy Collins if I do not wish.

Mr. S. Collins

I think Deputy Larkin has approached the problem of the Bill in a spirit that is highly worthy of the House. I oppose the section in the very same spirit. My friend, Deputy Cowan, interjected to describe this section as permissive. I fundamentally doubt the necessity for this section at all because I am perfectly satisfied, and I think the House on my reasoning will be perfectly satisfied, that in this joint hospital committee, this ultimate authority, will repose authority to deal with its own staff whether or not the section is passed.

In public institutions, public hospitals, of the boards of which many Deputies are members, either as trustees or by way of being members of the joint committee, Deputies are perfectly well aware that the complete control of staff is vested in the governing authority. The sinister application I see in this section has, I think unwittingly, crept into it not with any bad intention, but I would say from a misconceived good intention, because it is odious to me in the normal way, looking at the section, to feel that certain individuals or people appointed after a certain day should be the only people subject to a particular application. It is true that the case will be made that these people did make application for and received confirmation in a post in the teeth of a principle that had been established by the Bill. Taking Deputy Larkin's own argument, a principle has been established and has been unanimously accepted, as to the manner of selecting the people to control the hospital, but the fact that a medical appointment or any type of appointment, has already been made does not in the least detract from the authority of any body appointed to control the hospital under this Bill. I say to the House, in all earnestness, as one who has no personal interest in these appointments, even though it will be suggested facetiously I know, by my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, that the Cork Deputies are all interested because the appointees are Corkmen——

Mr. Briscoe

Is not that the reason?

Mr. S. Collins

I want here and now to denounce any association with that specific reason.

I think any reasonable people, charged with the responsibility, as Deputy Larkin has so ably suggested, of the care and welfare of the sick, are not going to act in any arbitrary fashion. I would hate to think so little of the members selected by the corporate bodies who are going to send representatives to be the majority on the new committee in control were of so little consequence as to leave themselves open to the charge of exercising arbitrary authority. I do not believe that is so. My objection to this section is based purely and sincerely on the belief that, I think, the central authority will have the power, irrespective of this section, to deal with their own problems of staffing. I feel that if the section were not in the Bill their powers would not be impaired. There is nobody, then, in a position to try and suggest that any section of an Act of the Oireachtas was, either by way of retrospective legislation or by way of inference, capable of being interpreted as victimising anybody.

Mr. McGrath

I was very glad to hear Deputy Larkin say that this was a hospital catering for the Twenty-Six Counties and not merely a Dublin hospital, as some people in this House seem to think. We have been told that patients come from all over the country to it. Therefore, Deputies from all parts of the country are entitled to be as much interested in it as Dublin Deputies. The position, as I see it, is that for a couple of hundred years there were appointments made in this hospital without even an advertisement being issued. We have no evidence as to whether those appointments were made on merit or not. They certainly were not open to all our medical men to apply for them. A new board was appointed, and it decided that certain appointments were necessary. That board, as it stands at present, is a legally constituted board. That was proved in our High Court recently. For the first time in the history of this hospital advertisements for these appointments appeared in the Medical Journal. The board received applications from 20 people, some of whom were Irishmen practising in England, while some were unaware of any of the things that we are talking about now. I think Deputy Lynch made it very clear last night, and there should be no doubt about it, that the people who are opposing this section are not opposed to the Bill in general. We think it is a good Bill and, perhaps, a necessary Bill, but we think there should be no legislation introduced in this House to deprive an official of any position which he holds.

It was mentioned here that this board took advantage of the breathing space there was between the introduction and the passing of this Bill to fill those appointments. When the Harbours Act was passing through this House, every harbour board in the country made appointments before the Bill became law, and all those appointments were sanctioned afterwards by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He did so, I expect, because he recognised that these bodies had a legal existence at the time, and had a perfect right to make the appointments. I think the same position exists here. This body, which was proved to be a legal body in the High Court, decided to make appointments, and, when they advertised these appointments, it was decided by Deputies to put in this amendment. What surprises me is this: if the Deputies were so anxious that we should have the most efficient doctors in charge of this hospital, why did they not bring in a section which would allow them to deal with all the doctors in this institution? Apparently, they are quite satisfied that the people who are elected without any competition, without any advertisement or without any examination, are quite competent. We have here medical men who come not alone from poor stock in this country but men who are highly qualified, who went across to England to gain experience and applied for these posts. In order to qualify for these posts they had to have two major degrees. I think that was a sufficient precaution which was taken by the existing board to see that they got properly qualified men. I cannot see why, if those people are so anxious to see that the most efficient doctors are provided, they did not put something into this Bill to allow the committee to get rid of the people who, as I said before, got their positions without any competition whatever.

Reference has been made to Corkmen. I do not think it is because they are Corkmen that some people are objecting, but I think they have as good a right to be appointed to a hospital which caters for the Twenty-Six Counties as to any other hospital. If the board are going to take action over these appointments their first step should be to take action against the people who wrote and spoke and threatened these men that once the Bill was passed they would be kicked out. That is the first thing this board should be interested in inquiring into and not into highly qualified men who got their jobs by competition. If that board would examine into the efficiency of the men who got in without competition they would be doing something far more in keeping with what is being said.

Mr. Hickey

I am not concerned about the doctors because I do not know any of them personally, but I have listened to this discussion and I have heard something about the matter by way of letters, etc., and I am surprised that the Select Committee should bring in a section like Section 12. If the committee to be selected are representative of the corporate bodies, I am satisfied that they will be capable of doing the right and just thing when they come into operation.

Mr. Briscoe

It should be left to them to do it.

Mr. Hickey

I have a definite objection to the wording of Section 12. I notice that the word "may" is in it— that the joint committee may, without assigning any reason therefor, dismiss or remove a doctor from office. I am a long distance away from the situation in Dublin and I do not know what is wrong, why there should be all this confusion about the running of a hospital in Dublin when the main object should be to treat the patients properly and to get the best men possible to do it.

Captain Cowan

There is nobody causing any trouble except Corkmen.

Mr. Hickey

I would be sorry if I caused any trouble because I am from Cork. I am at a loss to understand what all this confusion is about in regard to the manning of the Meath Hospital with a medical staff. There is something wrong and, because there is something wrong, I do not want to see Section 12 passed in its present form. I do not care what elements are at work in the matter, but I am objecting to Section 12 and I shall refuse to vote for it in its present form.

Minister for Justice (General MacEoin)

I am glad that the discussion on this matter is running on certain lines. There are two or three points which I should like to bring to the notice of the House on this particular subject. It has been asserted here that this section is not casting any reflection on the existing committee, but the very first thing this Bill does is to remove the existing committee which has been found to have been lawfully and legally elected.

Thirty-Two.

Mr. McCann

I should have said Thirty-Two. Actually yesterday when I was in the Meath hospital a man came in from Belfast to be operated on by Mr. Lane, who has been there for some 26 years past.

Mr. Corry

I would not trust what you would do with him now after this.

Mr. McCann

We must approach this matter frankly. The Bill was introduced and received a unanimous Second Reading. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan and I indicated, when speaking briefly on that Second Reading, perhaps too briefly now, that our minds were not in accord with everything that was in the Bill as it stood and that we intended to amend it in certain respects; we indicated that we did not hold with the ten-guinea subscription and we did not hold with the section which gave the medical board the right to elect when a vacancy occurred. We believed that the hospital should be administered democratically and we believed that the public representatives should have control. We approached the Bill in Select Committee in that spirit.

As chairman of that committee I was at all times impartial. I did not concern myself with any amendments other than drafting amendments. But I must be frank and open and above board on this particular matter, as I hope I am open and above board in every other matter. A change was needed in the Meath Hospital. The Bill provided for that. The Bill provided that a new joint committee should be set up. While that Bill was in Select Committee, having received a unanimous Second Reading from the House, the administration in the Meath Hospital proceeded to short circuit the legislation pending before the House and, in fact, to hold this House in contempt.

Mr. Rooney

Hear, hear!

Mr. McCann

That is an honest, open and frank expression of opinion in relation to this Section 12 in particular. I had no objection to it, none whatever.

General MacEoin

Is it charitable to the committee that the Deputy should say they did that? Does he allege that this committee does not consist of law-abiding citizens with a sense of justice?

Mr. McCann

I know that plenty of things happen that are within the law. At all stages I preferred to approach this matter dispassionately. My first approach was that we should not turn the committee into a court of law and that no reference should be made there to any public proceedings; that we would not listen to persons representing any particular point of view but that we would be prepared at all times to consider as exhaustively as possible all representations made if they were made in writing. I think we approached the matter in as fair a manner as it could be approached.

That is an important point. Why did they resign? Senator Colgan stated in the Press that he resigned because, in his opinion, the appointments are superfluous and that the question should have been deferred for three months until the new board was appointed. These are the facts of the case. It has been represented here that the gentlemen in question— I do not doubt their qualifications; I believe they are very well qualified— did not know of the retrospective clause in this legislation. Between last night and to-day I have ascertained that on the day they were interviewed —a fortnight ago to-day all applicants were interviewed—each applicant was shown a copy of a newspaper which carried the story that the Select Committee had, in fact, passed this retrospective legislation. I make that point because it has been repeated here and elsewhere that these men had no knowledge of the retrospective clause.

So far as the interviewing board was concerned, again, under the new Bill the medical board will merely have the power of examining the credentials and recommending to the joint committee. The joint committee will have the power to appoint. Under the old 1815 Act, as it stands, the medical board has the power of making the appointments. We have repealed any portion of the 1815 or the 1898 Acts that was unsavoury. We recommended to the Select Committee that they be repealed and I think, taking everything into consideration, that we did our job in a strictly impartial manner having regard to the fact that all the time we were charged with the responsibility of bringing back into this House a Bill which could be said to be a good democratic measure. Those of us who spoke on the Second Reading had done what we had indicated we would do on the Second Reading. I make a frank and open avowal. I believe that this section should be in the Bill. I believe that the Dáil should pass this section so that if the joint committee to be elected under this Bill agree with those members who have resigned from the present joint committee that the appointments are superfluous they can deal with them.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I am sorry that this section should have been discussed in any atmosphere of controversy at all. I do not think it is wise that it should. A number of Deputies from the south have spoken in opposition to the section. I think some of them made a case against the adoption of sub-section (2) of Section 12 which might appear to be reasonable. I have endeavoured, even though I am one of those who sponsored this particular sub-section, to approach this with an open mind and to listen to the arguments put up by the Deputies in opposition and to the arguments and marshalling of arguments by Deputies Larkin and McCann. I have come to the conclusion that, on balance, the arguments are definitely in favour of retention of this section in the Bill.

I would like to say this. Deputy McCann mentioned a canvass of Deputies carried out within the last couple of days. I was not canvassed at all, but I would not resent it if I were canvassed. I think that any person who wants to approach a Deputy in this House is perfectly entitled to do so. If a person wants to make a case against any legislation going through the House I think it is that person's right to make his representations to his Deputy. Perhaps, unfortunately, but nevertheless it is the duty of the Deputy to listen to such representations. While saying that in disagreement with Deputy McCann's remarks——

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy McCann said the manner of the canvassing. He did not object to the canvassing.

Mr. Corry

It is a very unsavoury section.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

All of us do a lot of canvassing before we get in here. Deputy McCann was chairman of this Select Committee. As a person in the opposite benches, I would like to pay him a tribute which is his due. I was not able to attend all the meetings of the Select Committee, but when I did attend I have no hesitation in saying that Deputy McCann certainly was a very impartial chairman. He approached the problem of the Meath Hospital and the Meath Hospital Bill in a spirit of trying to bring back to the Dáil from the Select Committee a Bill which would meet the problem which arose in connection with the hospital and which would give the hospital a proper charter and a proper method of selecting a joint committee. I think it is due to Deputy McCann to say that. As one who may have played a less part than others on the Select Committee, I am free to pay the same compliment to a number of other Deputies of all Parties who worked in complete harmony on that committee to produce the Bill which is now before us.

I cannot accept the argument put forward by Deputies Flanagan and Lynch that the inclusion of this section in the Bill will inflict a grave hardship on the people who are appointed to these recently advertised posts. It is true, as Deputy McCann said, that the people who applied for these positions must have been aware of the legislation pending in the Dáil. The joint committee of the Meath Hospital undoubtedly were aware of the legislation which was pending. On the 6th of December last the Second Reading of this Bill was passed unanimously by the Dáil. Despite the fact that the present joint committee in charge of the hospital had at least a very significant hint from the Dáil that this legislation would be passed, they took certain decisions which they were perfectly entitled by law to take.

I think the Minister for Justice was somewhat naïve in making the point that any Deputies supporting this section are doing so on the ground that the committee did anything which was not strictly in accordance with law. Undoubtedly the committee had a legal right to advertise these posts and to make these appointments. No one is questioning their legal authority to do so, and, since this matter has already been disposed of by the courts, no one can, or should, now question the legal status of the present board or committee. They are entitled to be there, entitled to act as a committee and entitled to take any decisions in accordance with law which they may choose to take. They took this decision, as they had a legal right to do, but what exercises my mind is consideration of the question as to whether it was fair to do it or not. I do not question the legality of it, but was it fair to make these appointments? Was it fair or courteous not only to Dáil Éireann but to the people who made application and subsequently succeeded in getting these appointments, that, with the knowledge the committee had that this legislation was pending and the fact that the Second Reading had been unanimously accepted, this action should have been taken? That is a matter which the committee and the individual members of the committee must make up their own minds on.

Mr. A.P. Byrne

Did the committee know about this section?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They certainly did. It got quite an amount of publicity in the papers. In any event, as Deputy McCann has indicated, the committee were obviously not unanimous as to whether their action was the correct action or not. Some members of the committee after this action was taken, resigned, and I think they used the expression that the appointments were injudicious in making known publicly their resignations. As Deputy McCann has also pointed out, subsequent to that, the public representatives on the committee made known their attitude. I refer now to the public representatives and not to those who were elected or appointed to the committee under the old procedure which this House unanimously wants to do away with—the public representatives who are on that committee by virtue of being public representatives. They made known their views and their attitude with regard to this decision of the committee and their attitude was that the appointments should not have been made.

I rather resent—I do not want to do it in any heated way—the suggestion made by some speakers against this sub-section that those of us who support the section are in any way questioning the qualifications, the characters or the capabilities of the gentlemen who were appointed to these posts. I certainly am not doing that and I do not think any Deputy who supports this section is doing it. Reading the names of these gentlemen in the newspapers, I think I know one of them quite well personally and I am the last person in this House who would wish to do the person I have in mind an injury. I would much prefer to be able to assist him. I believe his qualifications and the qualifications of the others appointed are not only excellent qualifications but probably qualifications of the highest order. That is not what is in question in this section, and it is unfair to suggest that any slur is being cast on either the characters of the people appointed or on their high academic qualifications. That is not being done.

I do not think the question of grave hardship mentioned by Deputy Lynch and Deputy Flanagan arises at all. Deputy Flanagan seemed to think that something underhand, something of a bullying nature, something sinister, had been done because one applicant, and possibly all the applicants, for all I know, received a letter from a certain gentleman—I think the name mentioned was Robinson, though I do not know anything about him—enclosing a copy of this Bill with Section 12 marked. There are two points of view about that. I do not for a moment accept that that was done in any sinister or bullying fashion. It seems to me that it was probably done out of prudence and courtesy, so that people applying for these posts would be made aware without further delay of this provision in sub-section (2). I cannot see anything wrong with that; I cannot see anything sinister in it; and I do not think it was intended in that way.

The Minister for Justice commented on the fact that the committee were legally entitled to act as they have acted. I agree with that, but the Minister went on to make the suggestion that the enactment of Section 12 would make the acts of the committee illegal. That is simply not so. The enactment of Section 12, as Deputy Lynch and other Deputies pointed out, is permissive. It enables the new committee to act in a certain manner and emphasises that, by doing that, they also will be acting in a legal manner. Deputy Collins—and I think he had the tacit approval of the Minister for Justice in this argument, at least it was mentioned as an aside by the Minister—argued that this section was not necessary because the power to act as the committee would be authorised to act by this section would, in any event, be vested in the new joint committee. If we accept that as being correct—and I am prepared to accept it—why is there any opposition to this section? If this section merely re-states the law, even though it may be doing so in more emphatic language, why are Deputies opposed to the section? What would it benefit Deputies or the holders of these posts if that section were dropped? Assuming that Deputy Collins' argument is correct, assuming that the section was not in the Bill and never appeared in the Bill, that the authority to act in this manner would be inherent in the new joint committee, why is there any opposition to the section? I cannot understand it.

The Minister for Justice also gave it as his opinion that this section was not in accord with justice. I cannot see where the injustice comes in. Surely the committee are entitled to have this power, to be able to come to decisions and act in this way regarding any members of the staff? Either they are entitled to do that or not. If they are not, who then is to have the authority? I wonder if any Deputy opposed to this section would answer that one. Deputy Corry seems to think that in common with other Corkmen he would be taking up the cudgels against this section. Probably he will answer that one when he does.

Mr. Corry

He will.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

A suggestion has been made—I think it was by Deputy McGrath of Cork—that there was something wrong in enacting this sub-section to deal with appointments between 6th December and the appointed day and not to refer to earlier appointments. It may be that there is something in their argument, but I think Deputy McGrath will appreciate the reason why the date 6th December, 1950, was inserted in the Bill. That was the date on which this House formally signified its assent, in principle at any rate, to this Bill. Deputy Hickey of Cork was also opposed to this section, his objections being on much the same lines as those of Deputy McGrath. Deputy Lynch of Cork opposed it on the grounds which I mentioned already, that there was a grave hardship to the people who were appointed and that there was something sinister in the threat to determine the services of these people. I have dealt with those points already. Deputy Ted O'Sullivan of Cork also opposed this section. Possibly when he opposed it he was in a different position from the others who have since opposed it, in that he was a Corkman with no special connection with the City of Dublin or with the hospital situated in the middle of the city and he saw in this Bill a section which appeared to him to require explanation. That explanation has been given very fully by Deputy Larkin and Deputy McCann and probably Deputy O'Sullivan will accept it. I have already dealt with the objections made by Deputy Collins of Cork. If he is right in his argument, it at least has the effect of completely scuttling opposition to this section.

Mr. Corry

First of all, I am deeply grateful to the three Corkmen who called my attention to this section. I can quite understand the mentality of the four Dublin Deputies, O'Higgins, Larkin, O'Sullivan and McCann. When they find a terrible injury happening and three Corkmen getting jobs in Dublin, they bring in a special section to knock them out. I can understand the mentality of that, but I am deeply grateful to those who called my attention to the section. The section embodies a principle which could very well be put into effect in other spheres. It has a smack of Tammany Hall about it. It states:—

"Where a person was, after the 6th day of December, 1950, and before the appointed day, appointed to any office, then, notwithstanding the terms and conditions on which he was appointed, the joint committee may, without assigning any reason therefor, dismiss or remove him from that office."

With regard to the appointments and the advertising of them, I should say that no complaints were received either of bad treatment of patients or of an insufficiency of doctors. No complaint that any surgical work was left undone has ever been received. I understand that the bed occupancy figures for the Meath Hospital—the latest figure is for the year 1949—is 96 per cent., which shows that the turnover of operations and patients in the hospital is unusually high. That figure, I understand, is the highest in Dublin. Therefore, the case cannot be made that the hospital was either understaffed or inefficiently staffed. We know that amongst the very many fine doctors and surgeons in that hospital there is at least one who has a world-wide reputation. I mention that because Deputy McGrath seems to cast—I think probably unwittingly—a slight on the members of the medical board of that hospital. I do not think you could pick any hospital in Dublin, not to mention the whole of Ireland, which has a finer reputation for first-class medical and surgical work, nor any hospital which has produced on its staff down through the years more medical men of genius and of international repute.

Mr. Flanagan

And all the patients in lodging-houses throughout the city.

Mr. Dockrell

I am glad that the Deputy has mentioned that. It happens that there is a doctor in that hospital who, as I have said, is a genius of world-wide reputation. In order that the peculiar and unique skill of that doctor should be made available to as many as possible and that, therefore, as many lives as possible might be saved as a result of his skill—because he is unique and because he is able to save lives where even other skilled medical men might not be able to do so—a temporary system was instituted by which patients could be placed under the best supervision in approved apartments close by the hospital, both before and after surgical care had been given to them—in other words, both before and after they went under the knife of this particular surgeon. It was in order to give the maximum number of members of the public the benefit of this man's skill that that temporary system was adopted.

There are many other points in connection with the section, but other speakers have covered them exceptionally well. I ask the House to support this section of the Bill. It was put there in order that that great institution should be able to carry on in a harmonious fashion. Unfortunately, the joint committee, in opposition to the medical board, said that four new appointments were necessary. The only way this House can deal with that matter and see that the hospital is free to carry on is to give the new committee power to reorganise the hospital on the best lines. It would be very unfortunate if this House allowed that joint committee, which it is bringing in a Bill to get rid of, to leave its sting behind it like a dying bee and ruin the good and harmonious relations of the hospital in the future. For these reasons, I ask the House to support this section.

Captain Cowan

I feel that this section has been approached under a misapprehension. That misapprehension arose in the minds of the particular doctors who have been appointed. I do not know who told them that they would be dismissed; I do not know who sent them along to this House yesterday, but they misunderstood the position and, unfortunately, the Deputies to whom they spoke also misunderstood it.

When we were dealing with this matter in Select Committee, we went very fully into it. Deputy McCann has explained to the House the ideas which actuated the committee in taking the decision which they took. I want to make it clear that when we agreed on the new constitution of the joint committee, we agreed on a committee the majority of whom would be people subject to the elected representatives of the people in Dublin City and Dublin County and, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, to the General Council of County Councils. That was the committee that was proposed to be set up and that this House has agreed on this stage should be set up.

We knew that these appointments were being made, or about to be made. The appointments may or not be necessary. Members of the present joint committee, for whom I have respect, say that they were unnecessary and, at least, that the matter ought to be left over until this new committee was properly constituted. Without waiting for that, the present joint committee, for whom I have no respect as a committee, decided that they would go ahead with these appointments. They invited applications. They had an interview board. They appointed certain people who, I understand from their discussions, are men of the very highest qualifications. That is as it should be. It is understood and recognised all over the world that the products of our medical schools are excellent. We felt that when this new joint committee would examine the running of the hospital they might come to the conclusion that it was necessary to have some or maybe all of these persons but that, if they came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for the efficient administration of the hospital to have, say, one of them or two of them, they would have the right to dismiss them without assigning any cause, simply because they were redundant and unnecessary.

I believe that a committee formed in the way that this committee is now being formed will not do anything unjust, will not do anything hastily. It may be that the doctors who have been appointed will serve for long years in that hospital and will render very valuable services to the community. I sincerely hope that that will be so. That is why I think those gentlemen did an ill-service to themselves and that the Deputies who were misled by them did an ill-service to them by some of the remarks that have been made in this House. I would ask those Deputies who misunderstood the position and who were misled in the course of a very short canvass on the stairs in this House to accept it from the people who were on the Select Committee, who gave long thought to this whole problem, that there is no question of any injustice likely to be done and that the barrier against injustice is set out in Section 4, which gives you a joint committee of very responsible people. I would ask that it would be accepted in that spirit. I would ask that it would be accepted in that spirit in the interest of the doctors concerned. If it is accepted in that spirit and if those doctors remain in that hospital, rendering valuable service, they will themselves feel that, possibly, their action in regard to this Bill was not advisable.

I sincerely hope that the doctors concerned, in approaching members of this House, were doing it in their own personal interest and were not doing it in the interests of a section of a committee that is now administering the affairs of the hospital. That would be a mistaken thing for them to do. They do not know the figures that have been given in this House. They do not know many of the things that have been stated in this House, but certain members of the present joint committee do know those facts and those figures.

In view of the fact that there is a democratic committee, mainly controlled by public representatives, and that there is very little likelihood of any injustice arising, I would submit to the House that Section 12 should be agreed to. In its operation no injustice will be done to any individual. Let the new committee have a chance to operate.

The Meath Hospital is a very old institution. It was established in 1777 by Act of the Irish Parliament. There was an Act in the British Parliament of 1815 which referred to the type of people who could be employed as physicians and surgeons, which referred to the colleges from which they came. When that Act was passed, we had no National University; we had no medical school except the medical school set out in that Act, and it is not the fault of the hospital and it is not the fault of the doctors that there has been no legislation in this country since to put an end to that unsatisfactory state of affairs. The members of the Select Committee examined these old Acts and we eliminated anything that might be objectionable. Everyone will agree that the work of the Select Committee was valuable and that all, these matters to which exceptional objection could be taken have been eliminated from the statutes governing the hospital.

From my own personal experience in Dublin, I would say that the very high tribute paid to the hospital by Deputy Dockrell is well deserved. The surgeons and the physicians in that hospital are men of the very highest calibre. I, like other solicitors in this city, have very often to call on the services of these doctors in important cases in the courts in which very poor plaintiffs are vitally concerned. I have never yet known one of them to refuse to come to court and do all he could to see that justice was done to an unfortunate plaintiff. I am glad to be able to pay that tribute to them and I sincerely hope that the same spirit will actuate the physicians and surgeons on the medical staff of the hospital in future.

I hope the House will not delay longer over this but will enable this Bill to be passed into law so that this new machinery of democratic government of the Meath Hospital may be put into operation.

Mr. Sweetman

I have listened to a good many speeches on this Bill, and particularly to the entire speech made by Deputy McCann, to which I want to pay tribute as an objective summary of the situation. I want to add that I subscribe entirely to everything he said.

It was common knowledge that, as he put it, all was not well in the Meath Hospital. It was also common knowledge that the only way in which harmonious working in that hospital, which is so necessary for the welfare of the patients, could be ensured for the future, was by this House taking positive steps to make certain that there could not be a recurrence, from either the one side or the other, of the difficulties that had arisen. I think it would be very unfortunate if, in the consideration of this measure, we intended to go into the question as to whether it was one side or the other that was in any way at fault; but, whatever the position was in that regard, it was quite clear that there were differences, that there were bound to be recurring differences in the future, and that in those differences existing at the time and bound to continue, one thing was absolutely certain, and that was that the patients would be the people who ultimately would suffer.

When this Bill was introduced, the sponsors of it very correctly, as Deputy McCann has already pointed out, indicated that they were not satisfied with the detail of it at all, but that they brought it in as a solution which could be altered, remodelled; they felt it would end the unhappy differences that were existing, and would enable the hospital to start out on a new scheme of administration. I was not one of the sponsors, but I think I would be correctly interpreting their view when I say that they were not anxious to go into what had been the cause of the differences or the existence of the differences, that they were merely taking them as a fact and wanted to ensure that for the future the administration of the hospital would be harmonious.

The Select Committee have brought us a scheme which will mean that the administration of the hospital will in the future be governed on a democratic basis, on a new basis that does not attribute to either one side or the other any of the difficulties that existed. That was the whole ambition of the Select Committee, to ensure that there would be a new administration in the future, that it would start off afresh and give a chance of harmonious working which is so necessary in that hospital. That was the view of this House, through its Select Committee, and it was quite well known throughout the City of Dublin, well known to every member of the committee at present operating; yet that committee chose to try and jump over the wishes of this House, over the wishes of the Select Committee set up by this House.

It is because I believe that the actions of the committee were deliberately designed to nullify and to obstruct and to prevent the chance of the new administration that this House was going to give to the Meath Hospital, it is because I believe the existing committee tried to obstruct that in the appointments they have made, that I strongly support the plea put forward by Deputy McCann as chairman of the committee—a plea that was earlier put forward by Deputy Larkin.

I am looking at this matter in an entirely objective way. We must make sure that there is a completely new approach to the administration and you can only get that new approach if you take the position as it was on the day or on the night that this House decided and made its will known that it was going to ensure that there would be a new type of administration.

I do not wish in any way to comment on the merits of the people who were appointed as doctors—far be it from me to do so. They are, I am sure, highly qualified, thoroughly qualified. My regret in that regard is that I think they have been used, unwittingly used, by certain people for other ends. I think it was unfortunate that these doctors did not realise, on the day they were being interviewed, and when they were told—and they were told, as I have ascertained independently of the sources from which Deputy McCann ascertained it—that the Select Committee of the Dáil had decided that this section was going to go in. It is unfortunate that they were so used, that they were unwittingly used, and I want it perfectly crystal clear that I am not, nor is anybody else to whom I have spoken about this matter, casting the slightest reflection or aspersion on their qualifications as doctors or on their anxieties in regard to the position.

This House determined, I believe rightly and correctly determined, that it was undesirable that there should be any difference of opinion or any unharmonious relations in the hospital administration. The House determined on 6th December that it was not going to go into the question of who was right or wrong, but that it was absolutely certain that there had been some difficulty in the past year and, if it did not take action, that there would be difficulty in the coming year, that there would be another election on the old basis and there would be a tug-of-war between the different factions. The House came to the conclusion that the way to deal with the hospital, in the interest of the patients, was to set up a new administration that would give the whole thing a fresh start and it is because I believe an attempt was made to prevent that fresh start being given that I am subscribing wholeheartedly to and supporting wholeheartedly the section that has been brought in by the Select Committee.

Mr. de Valera

As a member of the Front Bench on the opposite side of the House has expressed his views, perhaps I should express my views also. I think that through our desire to avoid getting into the past and judging the merits or demerits of a certain situation, we are in difficulty in arriving at a proper sense of what is involved in this particular section. I think it would be quite wrong for the House not to accept in this case the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee which considered this whole matter in detail—a Select Committee that consisted of representatives of all Parties.

When this matter came to the House it came to us in the exercise of our duty as the highest authority charged with the public interest; it came to us as a public interest question. We knew that in a certain hospital the control was of an archaic type which lent itself to a coup. The papers made it clear to us that a coup had been effected and, as a result of the whole business, the medical service to our people was being interfered with. Now, as guardians of the public interest, we interfered, and the moment we interfered in this matter, it was only right that everybody should take warning and recognise that we, as the sovereign power, having interfered, were going to do our utmost to provide for the future and to see that there would be harmonious working in this hospital. I forget whether the Second Reading of the Bill was passed unanimously.

Captain Cowan

It was.

Mr. de Valera

We then set up a Select Committee, and they arrived at unanimous decisions. At one stage, the present hospital committee, which we could only regard from the moment we took action as a caretaking committee, took an action which they must have known was going to prejudice the situation and prevent this House from dealing with the situation in what I might term a stable or frozen form. It was only natural that the Select Committee, which wanted to provide properly for the future, should have issued a warning that they were going to freeze the position so that they would have a stable situation to consider and that steps could be taken to provide properly for the future on that basis. They gave public notice, and I think everybody should have taken heed of that public notice. The Select Committee of this House consisted of representatives of all parties and I do not know that any more solemn notice could have been given than the notice given, once the committee decided unanimously to make a recommendation of that kind to the Dáil. The need for it was obvious, because if the committee, which was going to be displaced, wanted to create a chaotic situation they could clearly do so, and it was essential to safeguard against such a possibility. Deputy McCann has been good enough from time to time to inform me of the proceedings of the committee and, so far as I know, it was in that spirit that that section was introduced.

It is suggested that this is something altogether unusual in legislation. It is not unusual. Whenever any particular group or section of the community are about to be affected by a Bill, and it is essential that the existing situation should continue until the Bill becomes law, notice of that kind is given, and very properly given, because otherwise interested parties of all sorts would try to circumvent the purpose of the Legislature and create a situation very different from that with which the Dáil was dealing at the start. It was necessary in many cases to stabilise the position so as to prevent interested parties stepping in and creating a new situation. I take it that is what is being done in this instance, and it is being done with the object of ensuring that the Dáil, when dealing with this matter, will see a certain situation continuing until the machinery they have provided can come into full action. They want that machinery to be as free as possible to deal with the situation with which it is designed to deal. If we were to allow the other course to develop, the new hospital committee possibly would be confronted with a situation which it would be impossible for them to remedy.

There is another aspect which I do not think has been referred to up to the present. We have given notice and that notice, I am sure, has been accepted by a very large number of doctors who might in other circumstances have been candidates for these positions. It is possible at least that a number of them would have been candidates but they accepted that notice. Therefore, having given this notice, if you now stop half-way and ignore it, you may be doing an injustice to others who might possibly have been candidates. The only logical and proper course, therefore, for the Dáil to follow is to accept the unanimous recommendation of our committee and to accept this section, with the other sections, as it is given to us.

Mr. C. Lehane

There are few things —I suppose they are very few—that have not been said on this section. I should like to associate myself with the main tenor of the remarks of the chairman of the Select Committee, Deputy McCann, and the observations of Deputy Larkin. Having said that, I should like to refer to the things which have not been said. Reference was made by Deputy McCann and Deputy Sweetman to maladministration. In Deputy McCann's phrase "all was not well". I think we must accept it that they correctly stated the position but I think it is only fair that we should go further and say this—that those terms did not become applicable to the position in the Meath Hospital only from the time that the new committee took over.

General MacEoin

That was not said.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am not sure it was intended that that should be said. I think, if we look at this matter realistically, we must realise that things have not been right and could not have been right in the Meath Hospital. Due to what Deputy de Valera said, to its archaic situation and to many other factors, things have not been well and have not been well for very many years. I think I am entitled to say that, whatever the motives of the group of people who carried out what Deputy de Valera referred to as "a coup", they did succeed—I do not wish to impute any motives to them other than the highest—in performing a useful public service by bringing about the situation which caused the present Bill to come before the Dáil in its present form. The term "voluntary hospital"—I have said this already—is a misnomer, these hospitals being in the position in which they are to-day. To my mind it is a complete anachronism that a hospital maintained mainly out of public moneys should be free from any form of popular or democratic control. One of the reasons why I welcome the Bill is that it does enshrine that principle of popular and democratic control.

Let me make this personal explanation to the House. Reference was made on a number of occasions to the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill was unanimous. I certainly would have gone on record as opposing the Bill in the terms in which it was introduced, were it not for the fact that Deputy McCann and Deputy Martin O'Sullivan very properly indicated that they themselves envisaged radical amendment of the Bill in Committee.

As a member of the Select Committee, let me say that the Bill was radically amended in Committee. I would find considerable difficulty in supporting the Bill as introduced. I do not know that I could. I would have to oppose the Bill if it came before the House for final consideration in the form in which it was first introduced. But the Select Committee, working in complete harmony, did ensure that popular and democratic control would be paramount. Let us be frank. Deputy McCann referred to the necessity for frankness, so let us be frank and say that the position that existed in the Meath Hospital, which barred graduates of the National University, was one upon which none of us, as Deputies in this House, could look on with approval or with equanimity. That was a bad position, that was a disgraceful position, and, to the extent that the existing committee are responsible for having ended that position, I think that the public are in their debt. Many rather hard things were said about these gentlemen here to-day. I can say truthfully that, personally, I think only one of them is known to me, or perhaps two. I know nothing about their motives, but I think it is only fair that, in appraising the situation, we should realise the condition of affairs which existed in the Meath Hospital prior to the carrying out of what has been described as a coup d'état. A condition of affairs existed which was not one that we should readily tolerate.

One thing that rather disquieted me here was a reference made by Deputy Flanagan, a reference that a threat had been issued to one of the successful applicants recently appointed by the existing committee. I hope and believe that the machinery which we are now setting up will be such that these gentlemen will in no way be barred from consideration for these posts. The section is a purely permissive one. If any person issued a threat of the nature described by Deputy Flanagan, then to my mind——

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. Deputy Dockrell has explained to the House that that was done on the orders of the present joint committee.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. It may be a useful explanation.

Mr. C. Lehane

I anticipated that it was not going to be a point of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

Possibly, the Chair did likewise.

Captain Cowan

The intention was good.

Mr. C. Lehane

Deputy Flanagan told the House, with what authority other than his own statement I do not know, that a threat was issued to one of these candidates. I think it should go out from this House that conduct of that nature would meet with our strongest possible disapprobation. I do not believe for one second that the machinery which we are now setting up will produce the type of joint committee which will make it possible for threats of that nature to be implemented. To my mind we have wasted probably—I do not propose to transgress myself—a considerable amount of time in airing personal prejudices in this House this evening. The correct approach was the approach taken particularly by Deputy Larkin and by Deputy McCann. Our concern here is not with the question of doctors' appointments. That is a very minor matter. Our concern here should be to ensure that the machinery that is being made available by this House, whereby this hospital can be properly run in the interests of the ordinary people of Dublin, should be the paramount consideration, and not the question of the appointment of doctors. My experience of doctors is that, as a general rule, they are very well able to look after themselves. The paramount consideration in our minds should be the interests of the patients in the hospital.

I believe, quite sincerely, that the fears which have been expressed by Deputy Ted O'Sullivan, by Deputy Lynch and those opposing the section, are groundless fears. I support the section, and I support the Bill in its present form, but let me repeat again that I did feel it necessary to underscore a little bit the fact that were it not for the action of the group of people who did come in there—that is the existing committee—we might, perhaps, be still continuing in blissful ignorance of the conditions and the archaic regulations under which the Meath Hospital was working.

Mr. Cogan

I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that a number of amendments were tabled in my name. I should like to say that these amendments were tabled inadvertently, and I apologise to the House for their appearance. I was not a member of the Select Committee, and, therefore, I have not that intimate knowledge of this whole problem which other Deputies have. Since I was approached on this matter I have given the whole question very careful consideration, and I have come to the conclusion that the Select Committee of this House justified itself, and, to a great extent, justified the principle of appointing a Select Committee to go into matters of this kind in detail.

Now, a lot of sympathy has been expressed with the doctors who are dealt with under this section. I share the sympathy that is felt for them. I think they deserve our consideration, and that they will deserve the consideration of the new committee. We have constituted the committee on more or less democratic lines, and while it may not be perfect, I think it is possibly the best that could be devised in present circumstances. I think we ought to have a reasonable amount of confidence in the members of that committee, and hope that they will take their duties seriously. Their first and most important duty will be to preserve the continuity of harmony and efficiency in the hospital.

Many interests have been mentioned in connection with this matter. The most vital and important interest of all is the interest of the patients—the men, women and children, who are lying on their beds of pain or on the table in the operating theatre who depend entirely upon the skill and efficiency of the hospital staff. We would be stultifying ourselves if we were to do anything to mar the work of this important hospital. While the constitution of the governing body and other factors may have been unsatisfactory owing to the many years which have passed since this institution was established, there can be no doubt that this hospital was outstanding in its success in the treatment of patients, and that, of course, is the most important consideration of all.

Some people have said that this hospital existed for the people of Dublin, and others for the patients of Dublin. As a rural Deputy, I think I can bear witness that this hospital has served the interests of people from all parts of the country, and the tributes which have been paid to the staff of the hospital by the people from every county are clear evidence that, while all may not have been well in the constitution of the hospital, there was very little wrong with the service that was given to the community and to the patients.

I do not entirely condemn the members of the present joint committee who took drastic action in this matter. People with zeal and enthusiasm often can be a great nuisance, but no progress has ever been made in any country without such types of people, and if, as I am sure will happen, a better constitution is given to this hospital, I think a very considerable amount of credit must be given to these people who intervened. Therefore, I hope Deputies who have opposed this section will, on reconsideration, see that they are not serving a useful purpose. The Select Committee was representative of all Parties and it has taken into consideration all aspects of the question. It has given due and long-term consideration all aspects of the question. It has given due and long-term consideration to the whole future of this hospital and hospitalisation generally, and I think the sense of responsibility which it has shown should be endorsed by this House. Therefore, I ask those Deputies who are opposing this section to withdraw their opposition.

Mr. Colley

Anybody who approaches the consideration of this section in an objective fashion must be driven to the conclusion that it is necessary having regard to the background in connection with the recent history of the Meath Hospital before the introduction of the Bill. I would agree with Deputy C. Lehane that the present committee, in the coup d'état, as it has been referred to, which they effected, did do a good job for the hospital in drawing attention to the conditions that existed there and enabling a Bill like this to be introduced. Every member of the Select Committee tried to look at the various questions that came before them objectively and tried to forget all they had heard about both sides of the question. I think we succeeded very well in doing that and that we are all a bit proud of the fact that, despite the various differences between us, we produced such a good Bill which some of us hope will serve as a model for the future government of hospitals.

When this amendment—I think it was the very first amendment—was put into the Bill it was immediately published. The Select Committee, when they agreed to it, took steps to see that publication would be made immediately, because they felt that possibly some people might be put to expense and inconvenience or that some people might even give up situations to take up positions which had been advertised and might lose them if this section passes. I think this section should pass. When this House unanimously agreed to the Second Reading, the present joint committee, who knew of that immediately, should have been satisfied that they had done a good job and should not, unfortunately, have set out at that time to dismiss certain people and appoint other people, knowing that the view of the Dáil was against it.

We do not know who will be the members of the new joint committee to be set up under this Bill. All we know is that they will be democratically elected and public representatives will be in a majority on the committee. Is it fair to ask people to take over the job of running that hospital, knowing the immediate background, if we delete this section and set them an immediate problem in which these various differences with regard to the dismissals and the new appointments are deeply involved? It is unfair to them that this House should do that. We should try to give them as clean a slate as we can. The date in this section is the date on which this House adopted the Second Reading and it should have been clear to the members of the present committee that from that time onwards they were only a caretaker government, as Deputy de Valera said —that they were only carrying on until the Dáil would have completed its job in connection with this Bill. Nobody can say that there has been any delay about the putting through of this Bill. It only got a Second Reading on the 6th December. The Select Committee got through their business during the Christmas recess and had it ready on the first day of the sitting and there has been no delay since. Therefore, nobody can complain that there was any delay in this respect. Consequently, this House should certainly adopt this section.

When the Select Committee were considering it, I was, perhaps, the most antagonistic of the members to it at the start. But, when one examines the question, one has to see that it is necessary. I put it to the House that they should accept the section in that spirit. I am sorry if any doctors have been misled into a false position, but I do not think that is the fault of this House, nor do I think that such a consideration as that should make us withdraw the provision here which would perhaps have the effect of producing more and prolonged friction in the new committee. I suggest to those who are in favour of the deletion of this section that there are much bigger considerations than the question of the appointment of these doctors last week and that, in the interest of the hospital, of the patients in it, and of the good working of the joint committee, it is necessary that this section should be retained.

Mr. Rooney

I hope this section in the Bill will be accepted unanimously. I have the advantage of being a member of the joint committee, not a governor elected by governors, but a representative nominated by the Dublin County Council. I am familiar with the running of the board there and with the conditions existing in the hospital. It would appear that the House is in general agreement that proper legislation in accordance with modern requirements should be implemented in relation to this particular hospital within the shortest possible time. This is an old institution. It is operating under old laws. It is desirable now that it should be brought up to date. This Bill proposes to regularise the management of the hospital. It is sponsored by both sides in a generous effort to try to meet present needs and to ensure that those who avail of the services of that hospital will receive the best possible treatment.

Deputy Flanagan last night, and other Deputies too, seemed to start off on the wrong foot. That may possibly have happened because they heard only one side of the story. If they understood the position as it exists I have no doubt they would not have been misled. I have no doubt they would realise the necessity for having the management of this hospital established on a broad basis, especially with reference to Section 12.

The argument put forward here has been based mainly on the fact that the 6th December was mentioned specifically. It was shown quite clearly here that 6th December was the date on which it was made known to the public that this Bill intended to provide for the management of the hospital in the future. The argument that appointments were made since that date and that hardship may be inflicted on those who were appointed as a result of the implementation of this measure cannot therefore stand. There has been a constant conflict with the existing medical staff in the hospital. It is not to the advantage of the patients that such conditions should be allowed to exist. Doctors were deprived of positions which they had held there for many years. Not only that, but they were deprived of positions in respect of which they received no pay. They were actually sacked out of honorary posts.

The appointment of new medical personnel did not appear to me to be necessary especially when one considers that the sudden decision to appoint extra personnel was only taken since 6th December. The existing joint committee had carried on for nearly two years. Only since the 6th December comes the sudden decision to appoint extra staff. The number of patients in the hospital has not increased. A certain number of patients is allocated to each member of the medical staff. The doctors are well able to look after the numbers allocated to them. I am at at loss to know where the work is in the hospital for this newly appointed staff. It may be said that there will be work for them in the future. Extensions to the hospital are in course of construction at the moment but they will not be completed for at least another two years. In the meantime these newly appointed doctors must wait until the patients come into the extension before they can engage in any work.

I believe that in the month of December four doctors were dismissed. These doctors had given loyal service to the hospital. The dismissals resulted from a certain amount of friction which has existed between the governors of the joint board and the medical board. The conflict has been in existence for a long time. Possibly it was that conflict which resulted in these dismissals. The services of these men, who have given loyal and efficient service to both the hospital and the patients, will be a great loss to the hospital and to the patients.

I am inclined to think that much of the misguided discussion which has taken place was the result of canvassing here yesterday evening. I was one of the Deputies asked to discuss this matter with one of the appointed persons. I refused to do so. I am sure there were other Deputies who also refused. But the fact remains that a high-powered canvass was carried on here yesterday evening in an effort to have this section of the Bill deleted and those Deputies who were not familiar with conditions in the hospital fell for that canvass. They were led to believe that efforts to have this section removed were justified.

Last week we saw the resignations of Senator Colgan and others from the joint committee. These people were elected governors of the board. They were not nominated by either the Dublin Corporation or the Dublin County Council. They resigned because they felt that the board was acting contrary to the general purpose of this Bill. They took the view, and it appears to be the view taken generally here, that 6th December was the zero hour for any new appointments, and the joint committee should have taken note of that. If we had a joint committee bad enough to do it, we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having two or three times as many staff as is required appointed between 6th December and the date on which this Bill will come into operation. We could have two or three extra porters; we could have two or three secretaries and extra clerical staff. There would be general confusion in the hospital when the new management took over. This section, therefore, making 6th December the zero date is well justified.

The ground has been very well covered by previous speakers, particularly by Deputy McCann and Deputy Larkin. They made the position very clear, especially for the benefit of those who are not familiar with the hospital. These doctors who have been appointed were told what the position was, and therefore no question of hardship arises. They knew they were accepting the position in the face of this clause. They knew they would have to take the consequences if, as a result of this measure becoming law, the new management found it necessary to put this section into effect.

This Bill will give the hospital, the staff and the patients adequate protection against any kind of trickery, treachery or conspiracy. In achieving that it will ensure that those who find it necessary to seek treatment in this very fine old hospital can do so unhesitatingly. This hospital deserves a Bill of this nature, and I hope that there will be no delay in passing it into law.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I have listened carefully to the debate on this sub-section and I have been disappointed because so few Deputies have addressed themselves to the sub-section. Generally speaking, they discussed the entire Bill and the whole position relating to the Meath Hospital. I do not think there is any reflection on the Select Committee in our action in opposing this sub-section. We have been informed that the Bill is necessary and that every section of it is in order except this sub-section, which is quite definitely objectionable:

That is the sub-section to which we object. We have no objection to the Bill in general and we cast no reflection on the Select Committee that prepared this Bill. We are grateful to them for the work they have done. I have heard nothing to convince me that this sub-section should not be deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Desmond

I did not intend to enter into this discussion but I am impelled to do so because of a point made by Deputy Rooney. I think the position needs clarification. Deputy Rooney mentioned the canvass that took place. In case it might be said that some of us will go into the lobby because of that canvass, I think it is only fair to state unequivocally that the words complained of by Deputy O'Sullivan are words to which we take very definite exception. I am a member of the committee of a hospital in Cork. At no time was there ever any question of a contract being signed when an appointment was being made.

The individual selected was appointed and was there at the goodwill of the committee so long as he carried out his duties satisfactorily. If at any time he failed in his duties the committee had power to act in a manner they thought fit. It seems to me that the wording of this section is unreasonable even if we take into consideration the permissive "may". Why is it necessary to have the clause "without assigning any reason therefor, dismiss or remove him from that office"? If there is a written contract between the employers and the employee surely they have a right at any time to take such action as they think fit. There is no question of our being "yes-men" on this particular section any more than on any other section. We take no exception to the Meath Hospital as an institution. It is what is written before us that we object to and we believe that we are acting in a proper manner in making that objection.

Mr. Briscoe

I have listened very attentively to the major portion of this debate on Section 12. I believe that those who object to this section do so quite sincerely, and even if those of us who are in favour of the retention of this section, particularly those of us who served on the Select Committee and who know the history leading up to the present position, give them the best evidence and the best proof that this section was to a great extent forced upon us, they still will not accept that as a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

No.

Mr. Briscoe

I know it will not be accepted. Those of us who served on this committee, in full agreement and working in full co-operation with each other for the benefit of the patients who will be served by that hospital, have reached conclusions and have made changes in the Bill which have greatly improved it. We felt it might be better not to have any great discussion in the House. It appears now that we have to take the gloves off. I was a member of that committee and, on the eve of its first meeting, I was canvassed outside the very doors of the room in which we were meeting by the chairman of the present joint committee. As a matter of fact, I mentioned to the members of the committee that these people were there and we discussed procedure about meeting anybody who wanted to make representations.

I had been informed that the committee had decided, once the Bill had passed the Second Reading, that no matter what we did in the Select Committee we were going to be faced with a fait accompli in the matter of dismissals and appointments. I appealed to the chairman of the committee not to make changes in haste, and suggested that when the Bill became an Act would surely be the best time to change, carefully and quietly, without any reference to what had gone on before with regard to the best way to manage the hospital in relation to its staff.

The Deputy first sought to suggest that he spoke to nobody, but new he has watered that down. I was canvassed here yesterday by a certain individual who told me that if I stood the ground I was standing, I would hear about it at a public meeting in O'Connell Street. That is the kind of canvass we are up against. The gentleman who canvassed me is in the House to-day doing more canvassing of that nature. I want to appeal to my colleagues on all sides to understand that we examined this matter thoroughly as representatives of this House on the Select Committee. Nobody can say that Deputy Cowan and I go arm in arm politically down the streets. We disagree on very many things, but fortunately at this committee all political opinions were put aside and we concerned ourselves solely with what we thought would bring about such control of this hospital as we could stand over and of which we could be proud.

All kinds of documents have been sent round. I have read some of them. There is not one of us about whom a document could not be circulated and something said about him if all the good things are left out. Some of these documents I have only half read, because I was satisfied, after reading the first few lines, what the purpose of the document was. I do not know if the Deputies who are concerned about the appointments which have been made, and who propose to challenge a division on this section for that reason, really appreciate that, if the present committee had been sufficiently reasonable to remain the guardians of this hospital until they had seen the recommendations of this Select Committee and had seen the control which is now suggested, and which I hope will be passed, with representatives of the local authorities who are contributing bodies and who will have the maximum control, before making changes, it would have been better. It will be public representatives or their nominees who will have the maximum control and if it is suggested that these unknown people—we do not know who they will be—together with the representatives of the subscriber members who will also have a certain number on the board are going to start by chopping off heads, the whole idea of introducing democratic control of these institutions will be futile. I am quite prepared to stand over the decision of this Select Committee. I subscribe to it with the rest of my colleagues 100 per cent. and I think it a tragedy that, at a late hour, a few days before or on the very day on which this Bill was to be taken here, these appointments were made.

It has been suggested that these professional gentlemen were not aware of this section until they had been appointed. I am informed, and I accept the information as being reliable and truthful, that each of the candidates was shown a copy of the Bill and was made aware of this section before his appointment. I do not know whether that will be challenged or not, but I am so informed and I accept the information as being true. I do not know who answered the advertisements. I am not interested in that. All I am concerned about is that we will hand over the hospital to the control of people who, we believe, will be reasonable people, representing the interests now responsible for the upkeep of the hospital and who are closer to responsibility in relation to the individual patients who benefit by treatment in that hospital. I believe we have done a good job, and I appeal to those who are being led to believe that this section was designed by us in advance to hurt individuals whom we never heard of and who were not appointed until long after we had finished our work to realise that that is not so, that we designed the section in order to try to avoid a situation such as this.

I do not know—and I do not say this in any spirit of levity—whether, if these men happened to be Donegal doctors, the Cork Deputies would be as interested as they are. They seem to be united in this objection to the section. Deputy Corry, earlier on, did not realise that two of the existing doctors on the staff are Corkmen. Surely they should be left alone? We are not concerned about their origins.

Mr. Corry

If you knew it in time, you would extend the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

It does not concern us as to what county they come from. What concerns us is that when the new body takes over it will have all powers it needs to see that the hospital will be controlled and run in the best interests of the community.

Mr. Flanagan

Permit me to raise one point, a Leas-Chinn Chomhairle. I understand that in the course of the debate a Deputy made a statement to the effect that there was no question whatever of any of the appointed doctors ever receiving a threat or anything in the nature of a threat. One other Deputy said that if there was a threat, he would view it with very great alarm. I rise now, with your permission, to have it recorded on the records of the House that a threat, which I consider is a real threat, was made over the name of a Cecil W.C. Robinson—who has no standing whatever except self-appointment as honorary secretary of what is known as the medical board. I understand that he appointed himself and that he sent out to the doctors, and to one doctor in particular, a copy of this Meath Hospital Bill on the day following his appointment, with a covering note:

I sent for certain information, as a Deputy anxious to know the facts. I was entitled to send for anyone I thought could give me reliable information on subjects for discussion in the House.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 44.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Belton, John.
Blaney, Neal T.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Patrick.
Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
Childres, Erskine H.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colley, Harry.
Corish, Brendan.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Cowan, Peadar.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
De Valera, Vivion.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Fagan, Charles.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, Joseph.
Keyes, Michael.
Kissane, Eamon.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, James.
Lehane, Con.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
McCann, John.
MacEntee, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Óg.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
O'Leary, John.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reynolds, Mary.
Rooney, Eamonn.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Timoney, John J.
Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

Beirne, John.
Blowick, Joseph.
Buckley, Seán.
Collins, Seán.
Commons, Bernard.
Corry, Martin J.
Davern, Michael J.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Donnellan, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Flynn, John.
Friel, John.
Giles, Patrick.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Hickey, James.
Keane, Seán.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kinane, Patrick.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lahiffe, Robert.
Lehane, Patrick D.
Leydon, Michael F.
Lynch, John.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEoin, Seán.
McGrath, Patrick.
McQuillan, John.
Madden, David J.
Murphy, William J.
O'Gorman, Patrick J.
Ormonde, John.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Pattison, James P.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, Mary B.
Spring, Daniel.
Tully, John.
Walsh, Richard.
Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies McCann and M. O'Higgins; Níl: Deputies S. Collins and Lynch.

Question declared carried.

Captain Cowan

I move amendment No. 29:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

Everybody knew that the court proceedings were about to be taken. This Bill was brought in —and you were gracious enough not to move the Bill while the matter was sub judice. You waited until the court came to its decision. Maybe you should have moved it while the court was in progress. Maybe you should have prejudged it. The fact of the matter is that, the courts having decided the issue, the Bill was then introduced. I must give the special committee this much credit—that the Bill we are now passing is not the same as it was when it was introduced. Not only were they going to disestablish this body but they were going to disqualify the members of the committee who formed it. You would need a Courts of Justice Act to remove the disqualifications in that case. Anyhow, that was dropped. I agree that a method of election was necessary. I think the method of election of the new committee in the Bill is a good one. I think you have done well. I submit, however, that the committee should be allowed to continue its normal life and that the machine you have set up is the one that is to operate when the next election is to take place. I submit that you should not abolish the committee during their term of office. I think that if we abolish them during their term of office, we are doing something that we should not do. It is true that this is the sovereign Parliament and that we can do so, but we often make mistakes and I am not at all satisfied that this matter has been fully examined. Before this Bill becomes law, I should like an inquiry of some sort into the whole matter. In that way, I think we would have enough factual informtion to enable us to come to a decision as to what steps ought to be taken. No matter what we may do now, I do not think we are going to meet the demands or the requirements. We are not going to please the existing committee and I doubt very much if you will please the people who will supplant it. It is not essential for its effectiveness that that should happen.

And too little about the Bill.

Mr. Flanagan

Whether I know too much or too little is a matter for the Chair to judge, as far as debate on the terms of the Bill is concerned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

I am availing of this opportunity to call on the Minister to hold a public inquiry into the administration of the Meath Hospital. The Minister can deal with that; he has the power.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to discontinue that line of argument.

Mr. Flanagan

If the Minister fails to order an inquiry into the running of that hospital for the past five years, he is shirking his responsibility. He should do it.

Minister for Health (Dr. Browne)

This Bill has been particularly well piloted through all its stages by persons who are competent to do so. I should like to clear up a misapprehension under which Deputy Flanagan appeared to be labouring. So far as these voluntary hospitals are concerned, the Department of Health has in the ordinary sense no responsibility whatever. Beyond the fact that I administer expenditure under the Hospitals' Sweepstakes Fund, the payment of deficits and certain capital outlay, I have no right of entry or no power of entry, in the normal state of affairs, into any of these institutions. They are particularly conscious of their rights in these matters and I would be the first to do anything that I could to protect those rights where a good job is being carried out by any of these institutions. My responsibility extends far enough inasmuch as it covers all the local authority and district institutions, sanatoria, county hospitals, mentals hospitals, etc. These voluntary hospitals are autonomous bodies and I have no control over them. The necessity for the introduction of this Bill has been accepted by this House. The Bill as originally introduced would have been completely unacceptable to me but inasmuch as it had been agreed that certain radical changes were required in it, in order to correct the condition of affairs which it was said, existed in the institution, it was sent to a committee of the House. After considerable thought, we have the Bill which is before us. It is the outcome of that committee's deliberations.

May I say that, while I accept the Bill as being the will of all Parties in the House, with its provision to ensure a majority of local authority representatives on the joint committee, I would have preferred if the total representation on the board of this hospital had been drawn from the local authorities. We are elected to this House on a popular franchise ourselves, and so I believe that, so far as our opinion was asked we would have given substance to our belief in the idea concerning the expenditure of public moneys or semi-State funds such as the Hospital Sweep Funds in a hospital such as this. Though the position is limited at the moment, I have no doubt that the expenditure of public funds in relation to all these institutions can only increase as time goes on. I feel, therefore, that the most desirable kind of a Bill would have been one with complete local authority representation for the administration of the affairs of this institution. There is nothing unusual about that principle. It would be a logical principle for members of this House to accept, either in their capacity as Deputies or as members of corporations, county councils or local authorities. Many Deputies are members of boards of local authority institutions. I do not see, therefore, why the principle could not, or should not, have been accepted in relation to this institution. It has been accepted in relation to St. Kevin's Institution, Crooksling, Rialto Hospital and the various local authority institutions throughout the country.

If a voluntary organisation, or a voluntary group, happens to get its affairs into a mess, and then comes to the Oireachtas, comes to what is so often described as the State bureaucratic machine in order to get its affairs put right, then I think we are at liberty to state our terms. The Bill, as I say, is a considerable improvement on the Bill which was introduced and which provided for the election of members under the old system. It is a considerable improvement in so far as it makes provision for a majority of local authority representation on the joint committee, and to that extent it is acceptable to me.

There are more Corkmen in Dublin than anywhere else because they never go back to Cork.

Mr. Keane

I have often heard that there were two catastrophies that could have been avoided, one that the Romans did not come to Ireland and the other that Corkmen did not go back. Only for Corkmen coming to Dublin, Dublin would not be what it is to-day. I wish to pay a tribute to the members of the Select Committee. I believe it is only right that the House should express appreciation of the case which they presented to this House. The way Deputy McCann presented the case this evening was a credit to himself and to the committee over which he presided.

Mr. Dockrell

In this very pleasant atmosphere, I should like to say a few words. I am glad to see that the Bill is closing on a note of harmony because, speaking as a member of the committee, that is what we tried to achieve. I think the way in which the House has handled this Bill from its introduction is a tribute to their sense of fair play and their sense of honour and justice. As a Dubliner and as a Deputy in whose constituency the Meath Hospital is situated, I want to make it clear that I have for the hospital and the doctors connected with it only the very, very highest praise, and I have heard nothing but the highest praise of it. The hospital stands high in the opinion of the people, notwithstanding what one or two country Deputies have said about it. I think they were not, perhaps, as au fait with the facts as the Dublin people were, and that is why they made the statements they did.

I am glad this Bill is being passed in the spirit in which it is being passed. I feel sure that the Meath Hospital under the guidance of the new joint committee, which will be based on persons elected as public representative or those chosen by public representatives as their nominees for the most part, will go forward to new successes in greater harmony. I thank the House for the way in which they have dealt with this matter. I thank Deputy McCann for the way in which he conducted the business of the Select Committee. He was both skilful and fair in his chairmanship.

Mr. McCann

May I say in conclusion that we have put into this Bill what we intended should be put into it on the Second Reading. We have established democratic control. We have repealed objectionable statutes. We have taken from the medical board the power of appointment and given it back to the democratic joint committee. We have reduced the subscription from ten guineas, as it originally appeared in the Bill, to two guineas. Those were the four points with which we indicated we would deal on the Second Reading. We have done that. I believe we have brought in a very good Bill and one that should be passed by this House.

I want to make a short reference to what Deputy Flanagan said last night in relation to lodging houses in which patients from the country are accommodated. There was insufficient accommodation in the hospital and a house near the hospital had to be acquired for treatment of urological cases. Everyone who knows that terrible disease that afflicts elderly people knows that where a stoppage of urine occurs the patient must be rushed immediately to a Dublin hospital for the purpose of operation, first an incision in the side to drain the kidneys and then a major operation some days later. It was a question in these cases of either leaving the patient in the country to die or bringing the patient to Dublin and accommodating him in a well-run boarding house, or lodging house, close to the hospital. I inspect that house myself. It is under the supervision of the hospital. Deputy Flanagan said it was badly run. That is not so; it is well run under the supervision of the hospital and it was imperative to acquire this house in order to save lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 22 Feb 1951