HOSPITAL SCHEME

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 153, 25 March 1938, Page 8

HOSPITAL SCHEME

Alternative BuildingProposals NO RECONSIDERATION Commission To Report On Original Plans The vexed question of the Wellington • Hospital Board’s building pro-, gramme was again discussed at the meeting of the board last night, when Mr. F. Castle moved that a special committee should be appointed to consider and report whether the board’s present building plans should be abandoned and alternative proposals adopted. The following amendment, moved by Mr. A. W. Croskery, was carried: “In view of the fact that the .Minister of Health has stated that he intends to set up a commission to go into the board’s building scheme no action be taken in the meantime.” Mr. Castle’s motion, of which lie bad given notice, was as follows: — “That a special committee consisting of all members of the board.be appointed to. consider’the following matters and report to the board within 21 days after date of meeting:— “(1) -Whether or not the board's present building plans and proposals should be abandoned and some or all of the following proposals be adopted. (2) That immediate instructions be given to the board’s architects to prepare plans and specifications for: (a) A general hospital at Lower Hutt to accommodate 200 patient beds for children and adults, and also a nurses’ home of suitable size; (b) a maternity hospital to supply the needs of the Hutt Valley. (3) That the present main hospital buildings, including wards 1 to 7, be maintained and used for patients for at least 15 years, and that additions and renovations to this block be made in accordance with this condition. (4) That a multi-storied block for 150 to 200 medical cases be erected on the land now occupied by “Seddon shelters” and the “tin shed.’' (5) That additional accommodation for nurses and extensions of steam and other services be limited to supply to a maximum of 700 beds instead of 1000 patient beds as now proposed.” ... At the opening of the discussion, the secretary read a letter from the Minister of Health, Hon. P. Fraser, iu which he stated that it was his intention to recommend Cabinet to.set up a commission to' investigate and report upon the building proposals of the board. He hoped soon to be able to announce the personnel and order of reference of the commission and when it would commence sitting. Board’s Responsibility. “We have been discussing building plans for three years without reaching finality and no commission can settle '-the question for us,” said Mr. Castle, speaking to his motion. “It is the ■board’s responsibility, and to ask the Minister or a commission to assume it is a confession of weakness.”

Mr. Castle was proceeding to recapitulate the history of the building proposals when he was cheeked by the chairman, Mr. J. Glover, who remarked that he' was not going to allow any discussion on building proposals. Discussion must be confined to the question of whether a special committee should be appointed, he ruled. “The building proposals have been carried by a bare majority and we can get no further ahead,” continued Mr. Castle. “We are waiting for something else to turn up, and this trump card —the letter from the Minister—introduced now, is supposed to be the solution. We would be better to try to settle some of our differences of opinion in committee instead of trying to press forward with proposals to which nearly half the board and practically all the contributing bodies are opposed. We cannot get the loan authority yet, and what it amounts to is that we are trying to get something more than we can get. We cannot progress till we settle. the question of whether the major scheme is to go on Or not. Even if we get the decision of a commission, the responsibility still rests with the board, as representatives of the public, to say yes or no to any scheme. 1 oppose asking the Minister to usurp our functions.” Mr. Castle pointed out that by adopting his motion members would not be committing themselves to any of the alternatives mentioned in it. Objection To Ruling. He objected to the chairman’s ruling against his outlining the history of the matter. "Are the members going to be bludgeoned into accepting a gag, which has been imposed to prevent me from raising certain points?” ho asked. “I contend that the chairman’s ruling is absolutely incorrect and that the whole of the notice of motion is before the meeting,” said Mr. J. Andrews. "I move that the ruling be disapproved.” Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell seconded the motion. Mr. Glover: What Mr. Andrews says is not correct; the first four lines of the motion and nothing else are before the meeting. If we considered other matters we could keep on going all night and to-morrow morning. Mr. Grover left tbe chair, and the motion to disapprove of bis ruling was' defeated by 11 votes to live. Seconding Mr. Castle’s motion, Mr. Treadwell said that there shoiild be no objection to the board reversing a previous decision of its own. To carry ■the motion would mean that the board was not satisfied with the £BOO,OOO scheme, as, apparently, the Minister was not. It was the board’s duty to the Minister and to the people to prevent any waste of time. They had no right to proceed with the £BOO,OOO scheme, which the commission might recommend should be abandoned, until a further investigation was made.Mr. Croskery’s Amendment. “What a lot of goats we would be to turn round now and consider another scheme when we have a commission which is going to decide whether our scheme is sound or not,” said Mr. Croskery, opposing the motion. It would be time to consider another scheme if the commission rejected the one which bad already been decided upon, he said.

He then moved his amendment, which was seconded by Mrs. Semple. Seventy-five per cent of those who contributed to the board’s funds were definitely opposed to the building proposals, said Mr. Andrews. The weight of medical and architectural opinion was against tbe scheme and alternatives had not had fair consideration.

Mr. A. 11. Cadman said that, while he was definitely of opinion that the present plans could be improved on, he doubted whether the board could ever arrive at a clear decision except by a bane majority. The . commission’s report would no doubt be in the form of a recommendation to the Minister, and any subsequent action would be taken by agreement between, the

board and the Department of Health. The amendment was carried by 9 votes to 7. Mr. Andrews attempted to introduce an amendment to the original motion, but the chairman’s action in ruling ■against him was supported by 10 votes to 6. , “The position in Lower Hutt is getting desperate,” said Mr. Andrews at tbe close of the discussion, “and we would like an assurance from the board, to- which we are fairly substantial contributors, that something will -be done to give us some hospital service.” ' ' The chairman replied that the board appreciated the position.