Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1961

Vol. 54 No. 9

An Bille Toghcháin (Leasú), 1961. - Nurses Bill, 1961—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Some eleven years ago this House had before it a Bill to replace the legislation which at that time existed for the training and registration of nurses and midwives. This Bill became law as the Nurses Act, 1950. Under this measure a new body, An Bord Altranais, was set up in June, 1951, to deal with the training and registration of nurses and midwives. The purpose of the present Bill is to make certain changes in its provisions which experience has indicated are desirable.

Section 2 of the Bill will clear up a doubt as to the law governing the election of nurses to membership of An Bord Altranais. Under the 1950 Act, ten persons are elected for a five-year term of office to be members of An Bord. The Act provides that some of those to be elected must be persons with midwifery qualifications, some mental nurses and other nurses with general qualifications. The procedure for election is governed by rules made by An Bord Altranais with the consent of the Minister for Health. The rules thus made—the Nurses Rules, 1953— provide that the total electorate of nurses will be divided so that those on the general part of the Register will elect the general nurses, those qualified as midwives will elect the midwife members, and those whose names are on the Mental Nurses Division will elect the mental nurses to An Bord. This arrangement seems to have been entirely acceptable to the nursing profession and, for myself, I cannot see any ground for objecting to it. However, doubts have arisen as to whether there was, in fact, power in the original Act to divide the electorate in this fashion. The purpose of Section 2 of the Bill is to put it beyond doubt that there was such a power.

Section 3 will make good an oversight in the drafting of the 1950 Act by providing that members of An Bord may be paid travelling and subsistence expenses when they travel on An Bord's business, as for example, in the visitation of hospitals.

The present arrangements for financing An Bord have for some time been regarded as unsatisfactory by the Minister for Finance and by myself. Under Section 59 of the 1950 Act there is an obligation on the Minister for Health to meet whatever deficit is incurred in any year by An Bord. Subsequently, one half of this deficit is recovered by the Minister from local health authorities. It is mandatory on the Minister to meet the deficit—whatever it may amount to—and he cannot curtail the amount which he will recoup in respect of any year. He has certain powers to control the expenditure of An Bord— its annual Estimates are subject to his approval, as are the amounts of salaries paid to the staff and fees paid to examiners—but he has no corresponding powers to ensure that the revenue raised by An Bord will meet any set proportion of their costs.

There is a further disadvantage— this time from An Bord's point of view—in the present procedure in that it receives no grant for any year until the accounts for that year have been audited. An Bord, therefore, must continuously await payment of the deficit for each preceding year and is thus compelled to work for a considerable part of the time on overdraft, a rather expensive procedure, as most Senators will recognise.

The new procedure under Section 4 of the Bill, which will replace Section 59 of the 1950 Act, is that the Minister, while still being obliged to pay grants to An Bord, will, in consultation with An Bord and the Minister for Finance, determine in advance what the grant for any year will be and will not be governed, as at present, by a requirement to meet, post factum, the deficit for each year. This provision will be more in consonance with the Minister's responsibilities to the Oireachtas for public moneys than the present system.

Section 5 is a corollary to the new provision for the payment of grants and will require An Bord to fix the amount of fees payable to them so that it will collect each year sufficient money to meet the part of its expenditure which the grant does not defray. The changes to be made under Sections 4 and 5, I would like to emphasise, are not designed to save money for the Exchequer but to establish a more satisfactory principle and procedure in the financing of An Bord.

Section 6 will repair an omission in the 1950 Act by giving the Minister a statutory power to require An Bord to give him information. The provision will put the law in this respect in relation to this board into line with the general position of other statutory bodies in this regard.

At present, under Section 16 of the 1950 Act, the members of An Bord Altranais each year elect one of themselves to act as President for the ensuing year. Section 7 of the Bill proposes that future Presidents will be appointed by the Minister from the members of An Bord and that their term of office will be five years, which is the term of office of the members of An Bord. There are, to my mind, sound reasons for these proposals.

An Bord Altranais is set up under statute, in legislation sponsored by the Minister for Health; the rules which it makes are subject to his approval; and his consent is required to a variety of its activities. In addition, he supplies it with substantial funds annually and will continue to do so. In fact it is clear from the provisions of the 1950 Act taken as a whole that in relation to all its functions An Bord acts as the instrument or agent of the Minister for Health, who if he sees fit to do so may appoint another body or even a person to act in its stead. It is essential, therefore, that harmony and understanding should exist between the body and the Minister and that it should readily co-operate with him in the fulfilment of his statutory obligations under the Act. One of the qualifications which the President of any statutory board must possess is ability to establish such relations with the responsible Minister so that through him an effective and cordial liaison may be maintained between the Minister and the board. A wide experience indicates that this position is most likely to be attained when the President of the body holds his appointment directly from the Minister to whom he is responsible.

In so far as the term of office is concerned, it appears to me that the balance of advantage is heavily in favour of the President's period of office being co-incident with the life of a particular board. Over a five-year period, a President will have time to initiate projects and bring them to fruition in a way which would not be possible for a President whose term of office lasted for only a year.

Section 8 and the repeal Schedule are consequential on earlier provisions of the Bill and also make a minor change by absolving An Bord from an existing obligation to provide midwives with special badges, while continuing An Bord's power to issue such badges as they consider necessary for midwives and other different categories of nurses.

I recommend the Bill to the Seanad.

This is not a Bill which in any sense can be welcomed by anybody, because it is a niggling, miserable Bill that proceeds from a smallmindedness which is unworthy of a Minister of State, particularly a person who is also An Tánaiste. The main purpose of this Bill is to pass Section 7 and I shall come back to that later. That is the section which deals with the appointment of the President of the Board. The real reason for this Bill is that the Minister wants to have as President of the Board somebody who will do his bidding. That is the effect of what the Minister said. If this Bill were one to deal with the remuneration of nurses, or affecting the status and conditions of nurses, it would be a worthwhile activity on the part of the Minister and the Oireachtas. There is no section of the community who are as badly paid, or who have worse working conditions than nurses. I have known nurses to work 12 hours on night work.

There is nothing in this Bill about conditions of employment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is a Bill about nurses and the Senator is quite entitled to speak about them.

I am talking about the kind of Bill I wish it was and I think I am in order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is in order.

If Senator Ó Ciosáin has a point to make let him stand up and make it.

The point I have to make is that this Bill does not deal with the conditions of service of nurses or their payment, or the improvements that should be made in their conditions or payment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Unless I am mistaken, this is a Nurses Bill and is so entitled. Therefore, the Senator is entitled to make a reference to the conditions of employment of nurses.

The Long Title says that this is an Act to amend and extend the Nurses Act, 1950, and to repeal Section 44 of the Midwives Act, 1944. This Act therefore does not deal with the employment or remuneration of nurses.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Long Title which the Senator has just read out does not contravene or contradict in any way the decision I have given.

I think the Chair is right in that Senator O'Quigley may well consider putting down amendments to the Bill on the lines he is developing.

He could not, because they would involve charges.

The plain fact of the matter is that you are always entitled to criticise a Bill's inadequacy——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

On the Second Stage.

——on the Second Stage. This is a Bill which deals with nurses and one thing which is of immediate concern to nurses is their remuneration. All I can say is that the conditions in which nurses work are, in my opinion, an outrage. Although they have a very efficient nurses' organisation they have been unable to make headway against officialdom. As I stated, I have known nurses to work for 12 hours on night work for six nights of the week for six months, even in hospitals under the control of the Minister for Health, public institutions. Indeed I have known them to do such work for a longer period than six months.

That is the kind of thing the Minister would be better employed attending to than coming here and talking about the substantial sums of money which he pays over to this board. I hope other members of the House will rise to give expression to what the Minister should be doing in relation to nurses covered by this Bill.

There is nothing else much to be said about this Bill except in relation to Section 7. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to explain Section 2. I want to call the attention of the House particularly to the fact that it is one of these deeming sections. The Minister says there was a doubt about the interpretation of the rules. It is heart-warming to see that the Minister is concerned to ensure that rules made under a statute passed by Parliament conform with the statute and are not ultra vires the statute. That is the kind of thing he ought to talk to the Minister for Local Government about.

The Minister for Health is to be commended for seeing that subsidiary legislation is undoubtedly intra vires a particular Act. The Minister deserves congratulation on that. I trust that the Minister for Local Government will, as he mellows, develop the same approach towards constitutionality and the doctrine of ultra vires as has the Minister for Health.

This Bill concerns, indeed, the amount of money which nurses will be able to put in the bank at the end of the year. Neither the Minister for Health nor the Minister for Finance is satisfied with the present financial arrangements for meeting the excess of expenditure over income of An Bord Altranais. Now when the Minister for Health is candid enough to admit that neither he nor the Minister for Finance is satisfied about the financial arrangements, one can be certain that what is troubling the Minister is that he does not want to pay as much money to An Bord Altranais as he has been paying up to the present time.

The Minister spoke of the new arrangements and when in that context he tells us that substantial sums are paid to An Bord Altranais, one would be inclined to think in terms of tens of thousands but we find in the Book of Estimates for this year that the grant to An Bord Altranais under Section 59 is the handsome sum of £2,300. Last year, it was £1,950. Presumably, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Finance are going to save money out of the £2,300. The money that will be saved will be found by increasing the fees to be paid by nurses who have to be registered with An Bord Altranais. I think it is a regrettable move on the part of the Minister for Health that when he is taking more power to himself under this Bill, he is not prepared to spend at least the same amount of money, much less a smaller sum, in helping An Bord Altranais to function properly.

I am in no way convinced that the arrangements which existed up to the present time whereby An Bord Altranais had to get an overdraft in the bank, pending a grant by the Minister, could not be amended. There would be no difficulty whatever, if the Minister consulted with his advisers, in making an advance estimated upon the deficiency in a previous year. If the advance was less than the audited deficiency turned out to be, adjustments could be made. That would not require any great thought on the part of the Minister and his advisers. It would obviate the necessity for having Section 4 and Section 5 in this Bill. It would also avoid increasing the registration fees of the nurses who are already, in my opinion, underpaid.

The main section of this Bill is Section 7. The Minister says it is necessary, in order to have harmony and co-operation, that the person who is President of An Bord Altranais should be appointed by the Minister and should, in fact, be—that is what the Minister says, in effect—a mental satellite of the Minister. The Minister has many powers over the Board. He can require them to do this and that.

The Minister for Local Government has a great many powers over local authorities. There is hardly an item of expenditure that county councils incur for which they do not have to seek the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. There is hardly a scheme of any dimensions they can undertake for which they do not have to get the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. In fact, the great delays in regard to the administration of local authorities is due to the fact that so many sanctions have to be got from the Department and so many inspections have to be carried out and so on.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister can suspend the local authority in certain circumstances, the Minister has nothing whatever to do with the appointing of the chairman of the local authority. Indeed, if he had, some of them might not be there as long as they are. The Minister has all these great powers over local authorities. Still, it is the authority itself and the persons themselves who are to work with the chairman who select the chairman. The Minister for Health has not considered that the effective functioning of An Bord Altranais also depends upon co-operation between the chairman and the members of the Board.

It may well be that the person selected by the Minister will be a person whom a majority of the people on the Board will not want. Of course, that has not occurred to the Minister for Health. All he is concerned with is power to put somebody in who will be a mental satellite of his. The Minister for Health has not indicated in any way how it is a bad thing that the members of a body such as this should be entitled to elect their own chairman.

We have seen a number of Bills passed here relating to An Bord Bainne and other organisations of that kind. I had detected, I thought, a new spirit in forming the constitution of these boards; that the members comprising the boards were being elected by representative interests and that thereafter the chairman would be elected by those people who had been elected by the representative interests. The purpose of this Bill is the unworthy purpose of conducting a dispute between the Minister and another organisation to which a former president of An Bord Altranais belonged. I do not commend legislation of this kind and I do not commend the Minister for wasting the time of the Oireachtas in conducting a feud of that kind.

I think that these necessary changes in the construction and arrangement of An Bord Altranais should be supported in this House. I am sorry that Senator O'Quigley sees fit to bring in extraneous matter. On the previous Bill, which was passed with much patting of people on the back, it was suggested that the Minister had had a wonderful change of heart and that he would be very wise in helping these hospitals to federate. Even the smallest child can learn that in any discussion it takes two sets of sensible people to come to a sensible arrangement. I think this is one of the extraneous matters that have been dragged into this Bill.

Perhaps I have a special privilege in that I am a member of the nursing profession still on the register and entitled to vote in these matters. I do not pretend to know of any internal discussions or disputes that may have been going on but I am prepared to accept the idea that improvements can and should be made. Therefore I recommend and am glad the Minister has seen the necessity for making these changes. Mention was made of terrible wrongs which I consider very exaggerated. The whole case was over-simplified by Senator O'Quigley. The exaggeration is so extreme as to make it seem ridiculous. In the first place, there is a nurses' organisation and in the second place there is this power dealing with these matters. If there is nothing else that calls for change in this organisation I think the exaggerated claims of Senator O'Quigley are indicative of the necessity for change. I do not want to drag in extraneous matters.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair ruled that they were not extraneous and the Chair subsequently consulted the Rules and Precedents and found that the ruling of the Chair was correct.

I beg to differ with Senator O'Quigley. I claim he is exaggerating in what he says about the nursing profession in Ireland. As a Governor of two hospitals I know that if the conditions are as bad as stated by the Senator it is an extraordinary thing that for any vacancies for probationers or staff we invariably have applications from four times the number of people we need. People who have, like myself, worked on voluntary hospitals as committee members over the years have not, I think, completely wasted our time because step by step and in a very high degree at this stage we have worked for and succeeded in improving the lot of nurses.

I cannot contradict Senator O'Quigley or anybody else if he says nurses are working 12 hours a day six days a week for six months and longer in Dublin. If that is so, it is very wrong. I would draw the Senator's attention to the fact that many nurses prefer to stay on night duty and that it is not always obligatory on them to do so. In one hospital of which I am a Governor, when I discovered that some nurses were longer on night duty than I and other people thought was desirable, enquiries were made in the matter. Two months is I think the longest they should be. We found that these nurses did not want to leave night duty but we forced them to do so. Therefore, I do not think it is right to claim that that is the procedure in hospitals all over Ireland. Such a claim is quite wrong.

The conditions of living are also very much improved. In any of the hospitals, with one exception, that I know, living conditions are as good as the buildings and other conditions will permit. Every possible thing is being done to improve those conditions. I must say that in the new hospitals being built the nurses are being extremely well treated. I am a member of that profession and would fight equally hard with anyone else to see that these conditions are improved. I object to exaggeration and what I consider statements that are not true.

The increasing of fees to ensure more money for this board, to lessen the amount to be paid perhaps by the Minister, is not, I think, quite fair. It must be in the Minister's mind, I do not know, but we people of the nursing profession are hoping that our pressure to have nurses promoted to university standard will become a reality in the near future, and, as we all know, fees have to be paid for examinations of that or lesser standard.

With the improved pay and living conditions that nurses are having, and the hope of creating a university status for them, I hope Senators who have any influence in hospitals where nurses are left too long on night duty, will see that that is remedied. I repeat sorrowfully that the fact that such exaggerated statements are made is a very serious matter. I hope this measure will go through. I feel there must be something in the Minister's mind about improving the working of that organisation so that in time the nurses' conditions, and the improvements Senators wish for nurses, and which we all wish for them, will develop.

Senator Mrs. Dowdall refers to improved pay and conditions. As far as I know, there is at the moment confusion between nurses and the various bodies for whom they work about conditions and improved pay conditions have not occurred. As far as I know there has been an offer from the Dublin local authority to the nurses and that offer has been rejected. Therefore, it is presupposition to say there are improved pay and improved living conditions.

I know that nurses' living conditions have been pretty bad indeed in a lot of the local authority hospitals throughout the country and, indeed, in the local authority hospitals in County Louth. I hope they will be improved and I hope their pay conditions will be improved. I think the nature of their work will demand for them equality with work in any other profession, equal hours, equal duties. In their profession, which really is not a profession but a dedication, they would need to be paid something better than comparable pay in other modes of life and certainly considerably more than they are being paid at the moment.

When a Board is being set up it has been the practice to leave it to the Board to elect its own president or chairman or, alternatively, to have the Minister of State in charge of that particular Government board appoint the president or the chairman. There are arguments on both sides for both modes of appointment but there is no argument for changing an existing mode of appointment, that I know of. The Minister has put forward no specific argument for the change. There is a danger the people concerned will think that there is some ulterior motive in the change. Even from the point of view of the Minister and of future Ministers, it would be a mistake to proceed on the basis that the existing method of appointment of chairman or president should be changed. The Minister should reconsider that matter.

This is a Nurses Bill. I do not know whether it would help very much to enter into a long discussion about the rates of pay and conditions of service of nurses generally. I cannot let pass what has been contended by Senator Mrs. Dowdall even though she is a member of the profession, because from what little I know of the conditions of nurses they are not satisfactory. It is no answer to say that for every vacancy there are four applicants. The trade unions are there to protect people and not to allow the law of supply and demand to operate in that way.

It is a fact that many girls are willing to take up what I regard as the vocation of nursing. They are charged heavy fees for the privilege of taking up that vocation. From what they tell me in hospitals I have unfortunately had to be in for a little time, the conditions are really intolerable. The pay, if it can be termed pay, is more of an allowance after paying fees for the privilege of being trained. There is an organisation, but all I can say at this stage is that the Minister should allow or should encourage the free play of negotiations so that the organisation representing these people will be enabled to act as a proper trade union to improve the lot of these people who are doing a very good job and devoting their lives to what is a real vocation.

The spirit of this Bill is one that is to be deplored. It shows that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In 1955, there was a determined effort to bring the new Agricultural Institute under State control and to make it a State-controlled body. That provoked a magnificent reaction throughout the country. After a fight which lasted a few years, it was brought home to those in charge that State control could not go so far; that we had to have regard to the principle of subsidiary function and allow lesser bodies capable of controlling their own interests have their say.

Since the passage of the Agricultural Institute Bill, the main proponents of State control have been gradually recovering. Now we have two Bills before us, this one, and one which will shortly have its Committee Stage here, the Industrial Research and Standards Bill, under which the Minister is to nominate the entire body, in flat contrast with what we won in the struggle for the Agricultural Institute. This Bill moves in exactly the same way. There is only one relevant section in this Bill. It could be boiled down to Section 7 which says that the Minister wants to nominate the chairman of this nurses board. A whole amending Bill has been brought in to achieve that.

Up to this, the Act of 1950 provided that 12 out of 23 members were elected directly by the nursing profession, as they should be in any proper approach to a vocational organisation, or in vocational representation. Consequently, they had a slight majority and evidently the selections over the past 10 years have not pleased those who would like to see the almighty State running everything. Now the Minister is taking power to nominate the chairman, without even consulting them. He already has his nominees amongst the 23 so that we can take it if the advocates of State control have their way, the chairman will be one of those.

I believe all sides of the House should unite in resisting such further incursions of State control and in opposing this Bill. Opposed it must be, because we cannot tolerate any further extension of State control. It may be all right for a little while but State control grows on what it feeds and it wants more and more control. It must reach down to control every facet of our lives. We see what has happened over the past 20 to 25 years. I appeal to all sides to reject this Bill and ensure that the power to nominate the chairman of An Bord Altranais is left rightly where it belongs, with the Council itself.

I should like to support this Bill. I am amazed at the extent to which the discussion has roamed on this Bill. I draw my own conclusions from that, that is, that it was largely due to a desire to have "a go" at the Minister. Those people with whom the Minister was dealing were those very reasonable, pious men, who are always prepared to accept everything, provided it suits themselves. In regard to one point, if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that heretofore the money could not be paid until the fund was audited.

That is quite true.

Great play was made with that point. Of course we all know in regard to various types of expenditure in the country, for instance, in regard to road maintenance, that we cannot get the grants until the county engineer sends up a certificate that this money was spent. Sometimes that involves a period of six to eight months. In the meantime, in order to keep the public services going, the local authority often has to pay interest on an overdraft. People should be reasonable in their approach and not try to score a political point on every issue. Discussion on the Bill centred on nurses and then it moved on to the medical profession. Senator O'Quigley was even rubbing in the salt when the Minister was absent from the House which I think was not fair.

I should like to say that I have served on both kinds of bodies which enjoy considerable financial support from the Minister. These bodies have included those in which the council or the board concerned nominated its own chairman and another in which the Chairman is nominated by the Minister for Health. In the second case, the chairman has been successfully nominated by Ministers of both political Parties and I see no difference at all in the harmony we have enjoyed amongst ourselves, on the one hand, and between the Board and the Government Department concerned with the money, on the other.

If a body were being set up de novo, I would not find myself worried as to whether the board was to be allowed to appoint its own chairman or the chairman was to be appointed by the Minister. As was mentioned by a previous Senator, I think it a pity that a change such as this should be made in an Act of the Oireachtas. I do not understand why it is necessary. The Minister gave us a number of reasons for which, if they were applied all round in respect of every board, the president would automatically have to be appointed by the Minister. Many of these boards get on very well as they are. I do not understand the reason for this. There must be something rather sinister behind it by way of failure on the part of the people concerned to establish reasonable relations. I think it is a pity that this has to come about like this.

The conditions of service of nurses were mentioned. I am deeply interested in these conditions. I would agree with Senator Mrs. Dowdall that they have improved immeasurably since I was a medical student. I know, of course, that historically they have improved very greatly compared with the conditions that obtained long before that but they are far from being the conditions we all desire to see obtain for these girls who do such a tremendous amount of work in this profession.

I know that, for instance, in Dublin the target of a 96-hour fortnight is still being sought by certain hospitals. Some hospitals have been able to implement that—in other words, an average of a 48-hour week. I do not think any trade union would have its members working a 48-hour week. Yet there are hospitals in Dublin that cannot allow their nurses a 96-hour fortnight because of lack of accommodation for the extra nurses who would have to be employed if they adopted this standard.

I am astonished—I cannot conceal it—at the wide range of this debate. The Bill now before the House is one "to amend and extend the Nurses Act, 1950 and to repeal Section 44 of the Midwives Act, 1944". I have looked through the copy of the 1950 Act, which I have here, in order to satisfy myself, if I can, that this board has anything whatsoever to do with the terms and conditions of employment of nurses.

Part II of the Act contains Sections 7 to 25 and relates entirely to the constitution of An Bord Altranais. Part III of the Act relates to the establishment of a Midwives Committee. Part IV of the Act empowers the Board to employ officers and servants. Part V—which is an important one— provides for the register of nurses, registration in the register of nurses, registration of certain persons trained outside the State, rules for grant of certificates of registration, badges and uniforms of nurses, removal from the register of nurses, removal of the name of midwife from the midwives division, restoration to the register of nurses, appeals from the Board or the Commitee, rules for courses of training and examinations for candidates for registration in the register of nurses, rules for courses of training and examination for nurses, holding of examinations, approval by the Board of hospitals and institutions suitable for training purposes, provision of institutional, hostel or other accommodation, scholarships, improper assumption of title of registered nurse or midwife, and profession or calling ancillary to nursing. The next part deals with financial provisions dealt with in this Bill and which were not referred to. Part VII contains miscellaneous provisions and Part VIII contains transitory provisions.

There is not any provision in that Act empowering this Board to deal in any way with the terms and the conditions of employment of nurses. I think that the reason it was dragged in by Senator O'Quigley was in order to find an opportunity of attacking, not the Minister for Health—the Senator's speech was not directed so much against the Minister for Health—but a Minister who is not here to answer him, the Minister for Local Government. I cannot describe Senator O'Quigley's performance as an abuse of his position in the Seanad. It does not fall to me to pass judgment. I am not passing judgment upon it but I can say——

The Minister is not permitted to do that.

Certainly, I am not permitted to do that and I accept my disability. If the Senator were outside this House, I know what I could say about a gentleman who attacked another person in the absence of that other person, knowing very well that he could not answer. In so far as Senator O'Quigley's remarks touch my responsibility as Minister for Health, I am not aware of any nurse in any hospital in respect of which I have any functions who is compelled to work six nights a week for 12 hours a night for six months or longer at a stretch.

That allegation was made by Senator O'Quigley. If these conditions exist in any hospital, I deplore them. I do not think they ought to exist. I think we should try to ensure that they will not continue to exist. As Senator Mrs. Dowdall pointed out, there are some nurses, not by any means all of them, I am sure, who for certain domestic reasons, find it more convenient to work at night and even to work long hours. They do that of their own volition. They are not compelled to do it so far as I know by the conditions of employment in any hospital and they are certainly not compelled to do it by any of the regulations made by the Minister for Health. Senator Jessop referred to this matter in a very reasonable way. He pointed out that one of the difficulties which some voluntary hospitals have in trying to ensure that nurses will work upon a more reasonable rota was the fact that they had not got accommodation for these nurses.

On a point of explanation, I should like to tell of our experiences in Cork. We have got over the problem of employing nurses and having them live outside. We have been able to see that our nurses work a 96-hours fortnight maximum and many of them are working much less.

I am glad of that intervention because it certainly makes it much easier for me to deal with the point made by Senator Jessop. Here is how we have to look at this matter. I have a certain amount of money at my disposal. What priority am I going to give? Whom am I going to put first on the list? Am I going to put the position of patients first or the nurses? I have to find money to make good the deficiency which exists in the city of Dublin and elsewhere for patient accommodation. Quite frankly, so long as there is this shortage of patient accommodation, I think the patients are entitled to get priority. Many hospital authorities, if they set their minds to it, can solve their difficulties in much the same way as the hospitals in Cork with which Senator Mrs. Dowdall is associated succeeded in solving theirs.

Then I come to Senator Quinlan. I have never heard such a piece of tushery either in the Dáil or in the Seanad——

Is that word parliamentary?

I will use the word "nonsense."

The Minister is not responsible for Senator O'Quigley's lack of knowledge of modern English.

——as to try to talk about this measure in terms of subsidiary functions. This Board is set up by statute under the control of the Minister for Health to act as his agent and instrument. It is responsible to the Minister for Health. If it does not function properly, in accordance with the judgment of the Minister for Health, he can put it out of existence altogether. The former President of the Board, to whom Senator O'Quigley referred and whom I think Senator Donegan had in mind, brought that Board, by his utter defiance of his responsibilities under the Nurses Act, to the point at which I had to consider whether or not I would dissolve it.

In other words, you had an argument.

That is quite true. At one stage he persuaded the Board to refuse to fulfil its responsibilities under Section 23 of this Act. It was necessary for me to point out to the Board that if a direction given under Section 23 were not complied with I would have to consider dissolving the Board and, under another section, appointing some other persons to carry out these functions.

When that situation arises, when a person tries to bring extraneous matters, as Senator Donegan has described them, into the proceedings of this Board and carries into the councils of the Board a feud which he has been waging outside with the Minister for Health then it is time for the Minister for Health to make quite certain that that sort of situation would not occur again.

More State control.

Not only that. The gentleman whom Senator Quinlan, Senator O'Quigley and Senator Donegan have in mind realised the situation into which he had put himself, and so did not go forward again for re-election as President.

Would the Minister tell us about the efforts of the present Lord Mayor of Dublin at the meeting —his first attendance in 10 years.

May I appeal to the Leas-Chathaoirleach to point out that there were no interruptions while these Senators were speaking? When the Chair ruled a certain way, there was silence. I protest against these interruptions and ask that they be discontinued.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The interruptions should cease.

I feel that in these matters my immediate predecessor, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins, was wiser than one of my earlier predecessors who was responsible for the Act of 1950 because when he set up any statutory board he reserved to the Minister, and I think quite properly reserved to the Minister, the power of appointment to the chairmanship or presidency of the board. He did this in relation to the Opticians' Board and the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. I think, on the whole, that is a much better arrangement than the one which was adopted in the Nurses Act, 1950.

But it has been alleged that I have tried to reserve to myself personally, during this period when I am for the time being Minister for Health, the power to appoint the President of the Board. On the contrary I think that I have succeeded in making a very admirable transition from one system to the other. The present President of the Board has been elected by the Board as a whole. Under Section 7, he will be continued in office until 1963 and it will fall to another Minister, to whomsoever may be my successor, when the present President's term has expired to consider whether or not he will continue him in office for a further period. I am not trying to ensure that the next person to be appointed will be an instrument of mine. I am trying to make certain that, by a wrongful choice, my successor will not be faced with the unpleasant dilemma which I had to face and which, quite frankly, I was determined would be resolved.

I do not think anything else was said in relation to this matter. There is this talk about subsidiary function. If we were to carry that to its logical conclusion, we should not have a Government in this country. We should have anarchy or the country ruled by a bureaucracy without any responsibility whatever to the people. Whoever is Minister for Health is responsible to Dáil Éireann for the proper discharge of its functions by An Bord Altranais, or indeed by any subsidiary body for which as Minister he may happen to be responsible.

Therefore, the Minister who happens to be responsible for these functions and who has to answer to Dáil Éireann for these boards and for the manner in which they discharge their functions is not trying to give the State abnormal powers. He is trying to fulfil his duties to the people who, first of all, elect him to the Dáil and by whose suffrage he happens to be a member of the Government.

The Government exists to rule the State in the interests of the people. There is no question that the ordinary, fundamental human rights are being interfered with when a government has the firmness and resolution to govern in the interests of the people. The people of Ireland have no use for syndicalism or any form of occupational authoritarianism such as would appear to appeal to Senator Quinlan. They elect members to Dáil Éireann and to Seanad Éireann to ensure that the people will be governed by a responsible government, by a government which will enforce its authority whenever the need arises and which is not prepared to farm out its responsibility, its authority or its powers to a subsidiary body.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for next sitting day.

Was it for the same reasons that the Minister removed the chairman of the former National Health Insurance Society from office? He was a Bishop.

Does the Minister for Health consider that subsidiary function is identical with syndicalism?

In the sense in which, in this instance, the issue has been argued by Senator Quinlan.

Is this discussion in order?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not unusual to allow a question or two at the end of a Second Reading.

The Second Stage is agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Senator will consult the Rulings and Precedents of Seanad Éireann on page 15, he will read:

After the concluding speech any further remarks must be by way of question.

We have already passed the Second Reading.

I wish to support Senator Sheehy Skeffington on this. It should not be recorded.

It is on the record.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This is an example of subsidiary function.

If the Senator continues to interrupt in the future, there will be other things on the record.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should resume his seat.

I will see that the Senator will not interrupt so often.

Business suspended at 5.50 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Barr
Roinn