Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 1934

Vol. 51 No. 18

Adjournment Debate. - Meath County Medical Officer of Health.

The following question appeared on the Paper to-day under my name:—

"To ask the President if he will state (a) whether the appointment of the county medical officer of health for Meath was made on the recommendation of the Appointments Commission; (b) if so, was the recommendation made on the advice of a Selection Board; (c) if so, will he state the names of the members of such Selection Board?"

In reply, the Vice-President said:—

"The reply to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the third part, the invariable practice has been to treat the personnel of Selection Boards as confidential. It is, in my opinion, essential to the proper working of the system that this practice should be continued, and I do not presume to depart from it."

I asked further, bearing in mind the criticism that the Vice-President himself had made of this particular appointment, and the fact that the name of one member of the Selection Board had already been designated to the House, did not the Minister think it only fair that when the name of one man was mentioned all the names should be given? In reply, the Vice-President stated that he was not responsible for the giving of the names to the House, and that he did not know who the members of the Selection Board were. Deputy Mulcahy then addressed a further question:

"All the Minister knows is that they were influenced by political considerations in making the appointment?"

The Vice-President made the reply to this—I did not catch the words at the time—"I am satisfied that they did their work conscientiously." That reply of the Vice-President, I take and take greatfully as, to a certain degree, a retraction of the criticism he made very definitely in this House a few weeks ago. Nevertheless the matter is of sufficient importance to be brought definitely before the Dáil.

I should like to remind the House of the incidents that led up to my asking this question. On the 31st January last in the debate on the Second Reading of the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, the Vice-President, in reply to the remarks of Deputy O'Higgins, made suggestions which I think were taken by the House, whether so intended by the Vice-President or not, as suggesting that Deputy O'Higgins had been appointed County Medical Officer of Health for Meath on political grounds, and not on the grounds of professional efficiency. The retort made by the Vice-President —"for services rendered," meaning services of a political nature—would seem to emphasise what he had stated. That remark was made, no doubt, and it occurred twice in the debate. It was made in the heat of the debate, and might be passed over without further notice. But on the 22nd March, on the Report Stage of the Local Services (Temporary Economies Bill, Deputy O'Higgins drew the Vice-President's attention to this remark and the Vice-President made it very clear that, in his opinion at that time, this particular appointment had been made on political grounds. His attention was drawn to the previous remark in the following words used by Deputy O'Higgins:—

"Not only by way of speech but by way of interruption he (the Vice-President) pointed to my appointment as medical officer of health as a political appointment..."

The Vice-President replied: "I believe it was." Deputy O'Higgins said further:—

"This amounts not to a charge against me, but to a charge of corruption against distinguished professors of the National University. If I received my appointment for political reasons and for corrupt reasons the charge is against those who made the appointment. If I received that particular post in competition with better men, there was something vile and something despicable about the members who formed the Selection Committee. The Minister has some slight association with the National University of Ireland, and he should hesitate to use his position as a Minister to level that contemptible charge."

Then the Vice-President asked:

"What has the National University got to do with this?"

Deputy O'Higgins replied:

"The Selection Board was constituted of distinguished professors; two of them professors in the National University. The third was a distinguished medical officer of health from the South of Ireland, whose politics are not in line with mine. All except one were unknown to me on the day before I faced that Tribunal. On the same occasion as I received my appointment two other medical officers of health were also appointed. They were supporters of the Minister and adherents of the Fianna Fáil Party."

The reply of the Vice-President to that was:

"I do not think I have anything to withdraw."

Further in the discussion the Vice-President made this remark:

"With regard to the Local Appointments Commission and the professors of the National University I am sure there are many honourable men attached to the National University. I do not know who was on the Board. Everybody was asked to sit on a board sometime."

May I say that that is an inaccurate statement? The Local Appointments Commissioners are very careful about the selection of persons to sit on a Selection Board. Then the Vice-President went on:

"They are looked upon as honourable men, but does the Deputy suggest to me that there is no such thing in the National University as men with a political outlook?"

Deputy O'Higgins then designated one of the members of the Board and said that he was the Senior Professor of Bacteriology and Public Health in the National University. The Vice President said:

"I do not know anything about his politics at all, but he might be as political as the professor who sits beside the Deputy."

The suggestion in the Minister's mind was that because certain professors of the National University are members of this House, the political opinions of other professors who were invited to accept membership of a Selection Board are allowed to influence them and that the appointments they make are governed by considerations other than the consideration of professional fitness. The Vice-President said, further:

"I do believe that the professors of the National University cannot and do not divest themselves of their politics at all times."

The point I was on was not whether they divested themselves of their politics or not, but the Vice-President made the charge that when they were asked to give an opinion of a man's professional fitness they gave an opinion in consonance with their political views. The plain meaning of the words used was that certain members of a Selection Board had been guilty of a breach of faith and recommended appointments on political grounds rather than on the grounds of professional efficiency.

Let me say at once that I am not at all concerned with how this may affect Deputy O'Higgins. He is well able to look after himself. I would not venture to bring the matter before the House if it were merely a personal criticism of him in his professional capacity. But it is a matter of public interest and public importance that anyone in the responsible position of Minister should make such a charge. This is particularly so in the case of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, under whose Department are the greater number of the officers of local authorities who are appointed under the regulations of the Appointments Commissioners. The Vice-President's criticism is not so much criticism of Deputy O'Higgins' ability or suitability for his present position, as a charge that the Appointments Commissioners, or the Selection Board whose advice they got in this particular case, acted corruptly. A remark of that kind coming from such a responsible person is likely to interfere with the efficiency of the service and with public confidence in the present method of the appointment of officers under the local authorities. That I take up the time of the House in the matter of this sort of factious criticism is because of the importance of the issue raised. That sort of charge is bound to increase the criticism of this method of appointment, which must be a matter of trouble to the Minister himself. Whatever may have been the misgivings at the time the Local Appointments Commission Act was passed it is now agreed that this system of appointment has received the confidence of nearly all Deputies in this House who believe it has caused a great improvement in the public service.

Coming to particulars, I venture to say it has done extremely good public work. It has certainly improved the quality of those appointed to positions under the local authorities. In my profession we are very familiar, now, with the exertions and labours, and the time which intending candidates spend to fit themselves for the approval of the Selection Board and the Appointments Commission. Over and above that this method of appointment has done a very great deal to purify public life in the different counties in Ireland. It would be deplorable both in respect of the public and the local authorities, for the Appointments Commission and the Selection Boards, and the assistance that they call in, if they were in any way to be disowned. For that reason I think it is unfortunate that the Minister should have used the expression that he did, and did not correct it when he had an opportunity of doing so. Moreover the Government must see that any such criticism is likely to create difficulties for the Government themselves. They have already, on various occasions, had to take action, through the courts, to force the local authorities to accept recommendations made by the Appointments Commission. Incidents of that kind will be present to the minds of Ministers and to Deputies in all parts of this House.

There is another question which is important, namely, the effect on the Selection Boards and the class of people the Appointments Commission invite to act upon these Selection Boards. It is the duty of the Appointments Commission, not as the Minister suggested, to ask anyone to sit upon the Board, but to select persons of independence and standing whose position is well known, and who are recognised as persons of probity and integrity. From my own knowledge of these Boards, so far as my experience goes, the invitation from the Commission to persons giving their service is very successful. The persons who are invited are good citizens who place themselves at the disposal of the State, gratuitously, for these purposes. It certainly will not encourage people of that class to accept such positions in the future if they are to be exposed to captious criticism from responsible people. They are used to such criticism from persons whom they do not recommend, but criticism, in this House from the Minister who is the most concerned with their work, is a very serious thing. In face of that I fear it will be difficult in the future for the Appointments Commission to get the same class of persons to serve on the Boards as have been willing to give their services in the past. I think it would be very unfortunate for the public services of the country if the Selection Boards were no longer composed of reputable people, and of able and honest men, and if we had to fall back upon people of a different class, who would be glad to use their position for the sake of the patronage they might get by sitting on those Boards.

I brought this matter before the House not with any desire to attack the Minister, for whose position I have the very greatest respect. But I thought it a public duty to ask the Dáil to pay attention to these dangerous remarks made about a Department of State whose work, is, in my opinion and in the opinion of other Deputies, of very great importance. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of putting himself right with the Dáil and the Appointments Commission, and the members of the Selection Board, and that he will, perhaps, be induced to state, a little more fully the partial retraction he made this afternoon, and which I had not myself heard when I asked permission to raise this matter on the motion for the adjournment.

It is usual, in asking to have a matter brought before the Dáil on the motion for the adjournment to base it on something unsatisfactory in the reply given by a Minister to a question. I am not quite clear in my mind as to whether the Deputy who has spoken was dissatisfied with the reply given by the Vice-President this afternoon. I am the Minister who is responsible to the House regarding this matter of the Local Appointments Commission, and I can tell the Deputy that I had intended, on my own Vote, to make a statement about this whole position. The main question is whether there was anything unsatisfactory in the reply given to-day to the question whether:—(1) the appointment of the County Medical Officer of Health for Meath was made on the recommendation of the Appointments Commission. The answer to that was in the affirmative: Yes, the appointment was made on the recommendation of the Appointments Commission. The second question asked was: "If so, was the recommendation made on the advice of the Selection Board?" The answer to that was also in the affirmative: The appointment was made on the advice of the Selection Board. And the third question was: "If so, will he state the names of the members of the Selection Board?" The answer to that was that the invariable practice was to treat the personnel of the Selection Board as confidential. "It is, in my opinion"— and the Vice-President was giving the answer for me, as responsible Minister —"essential to the proper working of the system that that practice should be continued, and I do not propose to depart from it." From the remark made by the Deputy, it would seem that he was dissatisfied with that part of the reply, if he was dissatisfied with the reply at all. But I am sure, coming from one whose statement indicated he has had experience in these matters, the Deputy will agree that it is essential to the working of the system that the names of the Selection Board should not be given. They act on these boards in a confidential capacity, and it is not right that the names should be given. But I think I could go this far to meet the point made by the Deputy. The Selection Board, on the occasion, consisted of a lay-chairman, two specialists, a University professor with special knowledge of the subject, and an experienced county medical officer of health. I hope that will come sufficiently close to what the Deputy wants without endangering the principle that I think is of importance if we are to continue this system of local appointments.

I do not think I have anything further to add. The Deputy has apparently brought this matter forward to stress the fact that an independent selection board of the character indicated did recommend the appointment, and that the appointment was made on that recommendation. That has been the statement in the reply, and if there are any amends to be made that ought to be sufficient.

May I ask the President whether the statement he made as to the persons constituting the Board establishes the charge made against the Board by his colleague the Vice-President?

I am afraid I have not caught the significance of that question.

The President made a statement as to the qualifications of the persons on the Board, but he did not give the House, as far as I understood him, any justification for the charge made by the Vice-President that the Board acted from political motives. The object of my question was that the House might be in a position to judge whether the Vice-President's charge was justified or not.

I have not put forward that to justify a charge of any kind against that Board. Before I came into office I shared prejudices which were very common. After I came into office I made it my business, on many occasions, to sift charges that I had heard and to examine them as far as I could to the bottom, and I must say that I have found no basis for any of the charges made.

Deputies

Withdraw.

Might I ask a question?

It is most unusual, after the President has replied, to allow a question. I have already allowed one question.

The House adjourned at 10.53 p.m. until Friday, 27th April, at 10.30 a.m.

Top
Share