Vol. 86 No. 17
On the Adjournment, Deputy Costello has given notice to raise:—
"The question of a letter dated 16th May, 1942, and addressed and sent by the Secretary of the Department of Supplies to six Dublin doctors containing a notification that their petrol ration would be reduced from June 1st, 1942, for certain reasons."
The matter that I have to bring before the House to-night and, through the House, to the attention of the people, is one which reflects not merely on the civic honour and professional reputation of six of the leading Dublin surgeons and specialists, but also is a matter very seriously affecting the public interest.
It is little short of a public scandal the matter that has occurred and that was given wide publicity through the Press and the comments in the Press in reference to the so-called application of these gentlemen with regard to their petrol allowances. In the Irish Independent of yesterday there appeared, in a framed part of the principal page of the newspaper, the following statement:—
"Six others"—meaning six other doctors—"have had their petrol allowances reduced. They applied to the Department for permission to use their cars for travelling to a golf course, thereby furnishing clear evidence that they are getting more petrol than is required for the purposes in respect of which the petrol allowance was granted."
That statement was repeated in the Irish Times and substantially to the same effect in the Irish Press. The leading article in the Irish Times was written with that particular notification, obviously given by the Department of Supplies, with Government authority and with the authority of the Minister for Supplies, as the text, and there was a particularly virulent leading article in the Evening Mail of yesterday.
I think it is no over-statement to say that that statement in the newspapers of yesterday formed the principal topic of conversation and comment amongst the citizens of Dublin. It was read with indignation and dismay. I mention that for the purpose of showing how difficult it is to catch up on a lie. My purpose to-night is to nail and catch up on the lie that has been given such wide publicity with Government sanction, and particularly with the authority of the Minister for Supplies and, so far as it lies in my power, I intend to see that reparation is done in this House, if not elsewhere, to these professional gentlemen who are so foully slandered by that statement issued with the authority of the Department of Supplies.
The principal statement I want to address my remarks to in the very short space of time that is afforded on this motion for the Adjournment, is the statement that these doctors applied to the Department for permission to use their cars for travelling to a golf course. That is a lie, and I will demonstrate here from evidence that I will produce that it is a lie. Whether it was made deliberately by the officials of the Department of the Minister concerned, knowing it to be untrue, or whether it is more probable that the statement was made recklessly without having carried out proper inquiries, as any reasonable person would do before a statement of that kind was disseminated through the public Press, makes no difference. A statement that is made recklessly, without regard to whether it is true or false, without taking the proper steps, the reasonable steps, that any prudent man would take before a statement of that kind is made and disseminated in the public Press, is none the less a lie.
I have the authority of the six gentlemen concerned to say to-night that they never applied to the Department of Supplies, directly or indirectly, for permission to use their cars for travelling to a golf course. Not merely did not they, or any one of them, ever make such an application, but they never thought, even in their innermost hearts or minds, of making such an application. They never authorised anybody to make application. They never knew that such application was being made on their behalf. The officials of the Department of Supplies were notified that, so far as any application to the Department's officials or any discussion of this matter with the Department's officials was concerned, the person making that application had not the authority of these gentlemen to make it. Not once but on three different occasions, were the officials concerned told specifically and clearly that any reference to or discussion in connection with this topic was without the authority or the knowledge or the sanction of these six gentlemen. The first that any one of these six gentlemen knew of this matter was when each of them received a letter, dated 16th May, 1942, from the Secretary of the Department of Supplies, to the following effect:—
"I am directed by the Minister for Supplies to inform you that he has had before him representations which were made on behalf of yourself and certain other members of the medical profession asking whether you would be allowed to bring your private cars to a golf club at week-ends; the suggestion was that a different car might be used each week-end.
"It has been made quite clear that petrol has not been made available to doctors for travelling to golf courses, and the application made to this Department affords clear evidence that the doctors concerned are receiving more petrol than they require for the purposes for which the petrol has been given. The Minister has accordingly directed that the petrol allowances in the cases in question shall be reduced. The allowance granted to you for May will be reduced by two gallons as from the 1st June."
That was the first intimation that any one of these gentlemen got that any such representations as are alleged in that letter to have been made were made on their behalf. They never authorised any such representations. They never knew it, but the officials of the Department knew, and were told specifically, that any statements made to them were made without the authority or knowledge of these gentlemen. Had any one of these six gentlemen known that such an application was made, they would have put an end to it. The officials concerned knew it, as I will show and as will be proved possibly elsewhere. That was the first intimation that they got.
One would think that before a letter of that kind, penalising a person without giving him an opportunity of being heard, condemning three of the leading surgeons of this city without giving them an opportunity of being heard, condemning two specialists in maternity without giving them any opportunity of being heard, condemning at least one leading physician without giving him an opportunity of being heard, after a trap had been set by the bureaucrats for this busybody, who made representations on his own and nobody else's behalf, the Department officials would at least make some inquiries.
Compare the letter I have read with the notification that appeared in the newspapers. It is practically word for word what is in that letter. It is quite clear that the officials, with the authority of the Minister, gave out this message to the public, the message that was starred in the newspapers and commented upon in the leading articles of the Irish Times and the Evening Mail without waiting to inquire from these gentlemen, whose services to the poor, and whose work in the maternity hospitals, in the surgeries and as physicians in Dublin's leading hospitals cannot be too greatly recognised. These gentlemen were not given even ordinary courtesy, not to mention the ordinary right of citizens. Without being asked did they make this outrageous application, or did they know it was being made, they were penalised and it was published in the Press without any communication being made with these gentlemen to know if they had any defence to make and at a time when specific warning had been given to the private secretary and to the secretary of the Department that the person speaking had no authority whatever from these doctors to speak for them and that they did not know anything about it.
There was never such a precipitate rush in the whole history of bureaucracy in this country to penalise six gentlemen of high professional standing or to poison the public mind against the medical profession generally, all in order to glorify the officials of the Department of Supplies, whose name is mud amongst the public in this city and in the country generally —to glorify that Department at the expense of these six professional gentlemen whose services to the poor will live long after the name of the Minister for Supplies and his Department has gone down in obloquy. Immediately these doctors got these letters they replied denying indignantly that they had ever made such a request. May I read one of these letters? Time does not permit me to read any more. One of these letters is as follows:
"I am in receipt of your letter P. 34/555 to-day and if the accusations contained therein were not so serious I would be inclined to regard them as an effort at a Departmental joke. I have never entertained the idea of approaching your Department for petrol for use other than for professional purposes and I have not even give permission to any person or group of persons to allow my name to be included in any request such as that contained in your letter.
"The penalty suggested of deducting two gallons from my monthly allowance, without first making inquiries as to the validity of the matter, certainly smacks of foreign methods which are not quite understood by people who have a sense of good citizenship. I would be obliged if you would rectify this mistake."
That letter was written before any publicity was given to this. That letter was written on Monday. Do you not think that the Department, if they had any sense of decency, if they had any sense of what was due to these professional men who stand at the top of their profession in this city, if they had any sense of what was due to ordinary persons, irrespective of what position they occupy, would have written to them, saying: "We are sorry. There was a mistake about this. We will see the matter is at least inquired into and if, on inquiries being made, we are satisfied the statements contained in these replies are true, we will see that reparation is made and public apology given"? No reply has yet been given to any of these letters. Not a single syllable from the Department has come forth in answer to this repudiation by each of these six gentlemen concerned, but in the Press of yesterday the matter was given the widest possible publicity in order to poison the public mind, not merely against these six professional gentlemen but against the medical profession in general. No reply has been given to these six professional gentlemen, although the person who was originally the cause of all this trouble, apparently, having previously told, during the course of his conversation with Departmental officials, that he had no authority to discuss the matter at all and that the matter was entirely being misunderstood, went and sought an interview on Monday with the officials of the Department of Supplies and explained to them that the matter was misunderstood and that he had no authority, direct or indirect, from any single one of the six gentlemen concerned, to make the application. That information was given to the Department on Monday. On Tuesday morning, with that knowledge before them, with the letters from these gentlemen in their Departmental hands, this statement was disseminated, given wide publicity through the medium of the Press.
The Irish Times wrote a leading article upon it, in indignant tones, denouncing these gentlemen. The Irish Times, having quoted the official words communicated to the Press, said this:
"Unfortunately, there have been signs already of a tendency to evade the law".
—a clear suggestion that these six professional gentlemen were evading the law and committing a breach of the law—
"One professional man has had his motor licence cancelled because he used his car in order to visit a golf course. Six others have had their petrol allowances reduced because they sought permission from the authorities to drive to their local golf courses."
Time does not permit comment on the rest because I want to read and comment shortly on the article in the Evening Mail yesterday. I quote from portion of this leading article. I cannot read the whole:
"At the same time it is announced that no fewer than six gentlemen who possess permits actually applied for permission to use their cars for golfing expeditions."
I pause there to point out that the editor of the Evening Mail, a distinguished and experienced journalist, reading the official pronouncement that was supplied to him by the Department of Supplies, or through Government sources, clearly read, as anybody else would have read, that statement to mean that these six professional gentlemen had applied for this permission, and as I have already stated and demonstrated, that is quite contrary to the truth.
"At the same time it is announced that no fewer than six gentlemen who possess permits actually applied for permission to use their cars for golfing expeditions. The response to what we can only describe as an impudent application has been not only the flat ‘No!' that was the only possible answer that the Department of Supplies could have made, but a direction that the amount of petrol allowed to the six gentlemen should be reduced. The justice of it pleases.' Obviously, these gentlemen had—and presumably still have— more petrol than they required for the purposes covered by their licences. If it is, as it probably is, petrol stored away since the times of comparative plenty, it is only proper that they should be made to appreciate its value."
That is the impression made by the official statement published in the newspaper about these six professional gentlemen. That is the strong comment that the editor of the Evening Mail thought was called for by him editorially. Perhaps the editors of the Irish Times and the Evening Mail were justified in making these comments. If that statement had been true, it is easy to understand the indignation of the editors of these papers in writing these leading articles, because they are merely reflecting public opinion that was rampant throughout this country, and particularly in this city, where these six professional gentlemen practise, yesterday and to-day. I quote these words from the leading article for the purpose of emphasising to this House, and through this House to the people, the seriousness of the matter and the effect it might have upon these six professional gentlemen in their practice, in their private lives and in their reputations, and also the grave effect that it might have in the public interest. No apology is forthcoming. No explanation is made, notwithstanding the fact that since Monday the Department are in possession of the fact that any application, if application was made, was unauthorised.
I want to read quickly the remaining portions of the correspondence that have been discovered, as a result of investigation to-day for the first time by these six gentlemen as to what happened, but before I do that I would like to refer to the comment of the Department of Supplies on the refutation by one of these leading professional gentlemen appearing in the Irish Independent of this morning. In the Irish Independent this morning there appears an indignant refutation by one of the gentlemen concerned of the suggestion contained in yesterday's newspapers. It is under a heading, in heavy type, in the Irish Independent—“Doctor Refutes Allegation”. Having given the text of this doctor's refutation, it goes on to say:—
"The action of the Department has aroused great indignation in medical circles.
"An Irish Independent representative was informed that the Department of Supplies had no statement to make for publication on the subject.”
The Department of Supplies, who are then in full possession of all the facts, who knew that each of these gentlemen had repudiated this thing and had said in their letters and under their hands that there was no truth in the allegation, who had been told on Monday by the busybody concerned that he had no authority, that he was acting on his own, that the Department had misunderstood even what he was getting at, informed an Irish Independent representative that the Department of Supplies had no statement to make for publication on the subject. The article goes on to say:
"It was, however, authoritatively stated that the letter which was forwarded to the Department of Supplies was not a hoax, and that if the six doctors whose petrol supply had been ‘cut' had a statement to make, the centre to be communicated with was the Department of Supplies."
There was never in the history of bureaucracy, as I said before, such an impudent performance, such an irresponsible performance, as the publication yesterday in the Press of this lie about these six professional gentlemen. It was only surpassed by this authoritative statement issued to the representative of the Irish Independent that the only authority to deal with this matter of grave import, not merely to these professional gentlemen, but to the public interest, the only centre to which any application or any reference should be made was the Department of Supplies—the criminal, who was to be judge and jury in its own cause.
That Department, which is judge and jury in its own cause, had given no opportunity to these six gentlemen to make their own case in their own professional interests. Now I have to make their case, indignantly to refute this lie, to bring home to the criminals what they did, the criminals who are to be judge and jury in their own cause. The courts were to have nothing to say to it; the public or the Dáil were to have nothing to say to it.
In the few remaining minutes left to me, perhaps I might be allowed to go into the details of the case. It is essential, in the interest of truth, that I should be allowed to put forward their case, and I shall try to do so in the shortest possible time.
The Minister must get at least ten minutes to reply.
I shall give him seven minutes. I must finish the case which I am making on behalf of these gentlemen.
I submit that the Minister can reply after half-past nine if he wishes.
If the House wishes.
I see no reason why the debate should not be confined within the time limits already arranged.
The Minister must get ten minutes to reply.
There is no reason why the Minister should not have until 10 o'clock to reply.
I cannot do justice to the case in the time at my disposal.
According to agreement the House cannot sit later than 9.30.
Has that been agreed?
I should not be deprived of the few minutes that are required to establish the justice of this case. I shall, however, put what I have to say within the shortest possible limits. I want to say that, so far as the six gentlemen are concerned, they ascertained, from inquiries made yesterday and this morning, for the first time how the matter arose.
The whole of this matter arose through a Departmental trap which was laid for a busybody who was interfering apparently not for the purpose of dealing with these six gentlemen, but for the purpose of putting forward a demand on his own responsibility for doctors generally. When that letter of the 4th May, 1942, was written by the particular gentleman concerned, he was asked for an interview and in reply to some questions put to him he said that he was speaking for doctors in general and for surgeons attached to public hospitals who might, if they were called out on an emergency call, require a car. He was asked what doctors he referred to. He said doctors attached to hospitals and he named a particular group attached to hospitals. He was going to give several names when the official interrupted him and said: "That is enough. I have the names of six men. These men have applied for petrol for golfing purposes." At the time, he made the statement specifically that he was acting on his own, without authority, and that no doctor he was referring to, either specifically or by class, knew that he was making the application. To use his own words on Monday, after the matter had appeared in the papers: "He would get hell for what he was doing." He was told that it was possible he would get hell for what he was doing. Although he told the officials that he had not the consent of these doctors for making this application, this Department poured obloquy on these six gentlemen, and in fact, on the whole medical profession by curtailing their petrol allowance. This is a matter that affects not merely the professional integrity and civic honour of the gentlemen concerned but it is a matter gravely affecting the public interest. It calls for more ventilation than I am able to give it to-night in the short time allowed to me.
On the 4th May a communication was received in my Department from a Dublin doctor, in the course of which he set forth certain queries which he wished to have answered. He asked if there was any Emergency Order governing the use of petrol by doctors and said that, if so, he would like to have a copy of it. He asked if a doctor might give a lift to a friend whom he met walking. He also asked if five doctors attached to a hospital who are members of the Portmarnock Golf Club might take out a car at week-ends so that, in the event of any one of them receiving an urgent call, he would be able to attend to it immediately. If Deputy Costello had confined his remarks to a defence of these six doctors instead of abusing the officials of my Department——
I was not defending them. I was merely stating the facts.
Deputy Costello did not stick to the truth. He said that this particular doctor was making a case on behalf of doctors in general and that he mentioned certain names only to illustrate his general argument. His letter, as received in the Department, refers to five doctors who are members of the Portmarnock Golf Club. I think that fact demonstrates quite clearly that he was not making an attempt to justify doctors in general using their motor cars to go to golf clubs, but that he was concerned with particular doctors whose names he knew and who had this in common—that they were members of the same golf club. He was communicated with by telephone by an officer of the Department and requested to furnish the names of the doctors referred to in his letter. He said he was not prepared to give the names to my Department without prior consultation with the doctors in question. He volunteered the information that they were attached to four well-known Dublin hospitals, which he named. He explained they were all senior men and whilst they had not been using their cars to convey them to Portmarnock Golf Club, they felt it would not be unreasonable to use a different car each week so as to facilitate them in looking after their patients without interfering unduly with their much-needed relaxation at the golf club.
On the following day he was again communicated with by telephone and asked if he was prepared to give the names of the doctors on whose behalf he was speaking. He was at the same time told that the officer making the inquiry was not in a position to give any indication as to the attitude the Department would adopt. Without more ado, he agreed to give the names and he read out the names of three physicians and three surgeons. He did not say that he had secured their consent to give their names but neither did he say that he had not secured it and in the light of what he had said on the previous day—that he was not prepared to give the names without prior consultation with the doctors in question—it was a natural and reasonable assumption that the doctors concerned were aware of the representations he was making on their behalf.
Natural and reasonable!
Natural and reasonable. I decided that it was a fair inference from the facts, that these doctors were getting more petrol than they required for the essential purposes for which petrol is given to doctors. It has been made clear, over and over again, that petrol cannot be issued to doctors or anyone else to visit golf courses or for any similar purpose. I, therefore, directed that their petrol allowance in all cases should be reduced by two gallons a month as from the 1st June. The terms of the letter sent to the doctors concerned have been read out by Deputy Costello. When the doctor who had made representations received that letter from my Department he called to the Department and, at a later stage, telephoned.
During the course of the telephone conversation he mentioned the fact, that some of the doctors concerned, who had received similar letters from the Department, had already been in touch with him about the letters they had received. Nevertheless, I have received letters from all these doctors, stating that they deny that they gave him any authority to make representations on their behalf; and the doctor who made the representations now states that he acted solely on his own accord and without consulting any of the other doctors concerned. The six doctors whose names were given to my Department are, as Deputy Costello stated, all men of eminence in their profession, and, while there are some features of the incident which are not easy to understand, I am prepared to accept without question the statements they have made in the letters addressed to the Department, to the effect that they had not authorised, and were not aware of any approach to my Department. I accept that statement of theirs all the more readily because I feel certain that men in their position would not be capable of such questionable conduct as to place their professional colleague in the very unenviable position in which he now finds himself.
I am therefore prepared to restore to the six doctors concerned the petrol allowances which I had decided to reduce, on the basis of their written statement that the representations stated to have been made on their behalf were, in fact, made without their knowledge and without their consent. I cannot agree to restore the petrol allowance to the doctor who made the representations, who, according to his latest letter, apparently still considers that the arrangement he suggested should be permitted. I may say that I have also received representations from the Medical Association about the case of the six doctors. I think the Medical Association have a duty to consider this matter further, having regard to the account of the incident which I have now given. I know that many doctors have misunderstood the requirements of the Department concerning the use of the petrol allowance. May I say that I am not accusing any of the six doctors involved in this incident——
Is the Minister now going on to some general point and away from this matter of the use of petrol?
I was going to say that a number of cases have come to my notice of the use of cars by members of the medical profession in a manner not contemplated by the Department, and entirely unjustifiable in present circumstances. I have seen, from the window of my own office, cars of doctors parked outside University College which were used to convey doctors to attend the College to give lectures. I have had to-day to cancel the permit of another doctor who had arranged for his car to call for him at a golf club. I think it is desirable that it should be made clear to all doctors that petrol is given to them only for the purpose of enabling them to attend emergency cases when they arise. Petrol is not given them for their convenience, and is not given to enable them to earn a livelihood. It is not given to enable them to get relaxation or recreation. It is given solely because occasionally emergency cases may arise which they cannot cope with, without having motor transport immediately available. Cars should not be used by doctors except in such circumstances.
I want to make it clear that it is the function of my Department to restrict the use of petrol to the maximum degree, and particularly in present circumstances to see that there is no abuse of the privilege given doctors in the use of cars. I think the indignation which Deputy Costello has shown is a measure of public indignation at any evidence that might be forthcoming, that doctors or others with permits to use cars misinterpret the obligations attaching to the permits. Because it is important, I want to say that I do not feel under any obligation to produce legal proof of abuse before withdrawing a permit. I think my Department is entitled to act on any bona fide suspicion, and to withdraw a permit whenever there is reason to believe that the use of the permit is being abused, or that the amount of petrol given to an individual is excessive in relation to his requirements.
You cannot condemn people without a hearing.
The onus of proof is on the people who get the petrol.
Officials have learned nothing by this incident. They are going to condemn people unheard.
The onus is on the individual who says that he requires a permit to use a car, or more than the quantity of petrol allowed to him. This is not a game in which the Department of Supplies is involved with a number of individuals, a game in which one of the rules is that if these individuals are not caught then they are entitled to escape penalties. In the circumstances in which this country is placed, having regard to the very reduced petrol supplies available to-day, and the need for conserving all petrol for the transportation of food and fuel, it is an obligation on the Department of Supplies—and I have given instructions accordingly—to cancel a permit, or to withdraw a petrol allowance, wherever there is reason to suspect that abuse has occurred or might occur. The obligation then is on the individual to make his case for the restoration of the permit.
Against your suspicion?
Against my suspicion?
Even though he did not know until the penalty was inflicted?
Nobody has a right to a car permit, and nobody has a right to use a car unnecessarily. A very large number of people to whom petrol and a car meant their livelihoods have been deprived of them. I want doctors to understand that the privilege given them is one which may have to be withdrawn under the stress of circumstances next month or the month after. So long as petrol is made available to them the onus is on them not to abuse the privilege, and on the Department to see that if there is any possibility of the privilege being abused the allowance will be withdrawn.
Is not the privilege given to patients and not to doctors?
I want doctors to look on it in that way. We spent 12 months trying to get the Medical Association to look at it in that way. For 12 months the Medical Association has been pressing my Department for more petrol for doctors. It has never attempted to face the problem which will arise for doctors when there is no petrol, by endeavouring to work out a plan to carry on medical services when these circumstances arise, as almost certainly they will.
You are withdrawing the privilege from patients because of suspicion against doctors.
I have taken steps to ensure that any doctor who uses a car in circumstances which give rise to reasonable suspicion will lose the permit.
How will he know of the suspicion?
He has to avoid the occasions of suspicion. Deputies laugh at that because they refuse to face facts. They seem to consider that the curtailment of the petrol supply is something done by me or by the Department of Supplies on a whim. It is done because of the necessities of the situation. We have not enough petrol to gather the harvest. We have not got enough petrol to bring fuel to the towns and cities this winter. Already this month, even with the reduction in the number of motor cars already enforced, the quantity of petrol allocated is more than we had to give. We have in future months to reduce substantially the quantity of petrol used this month if we are to accumulate enough to save the harvest or to cope with the urgent transport requirements of the country in the winter. It is in relation to that fact that doctors, clergymen, veterinary surgeons and other people given the exceptional privilege of the use of a private car, which is denied to everybody else, must consider every occasion upon which they deem the need to use it arises.
To avoid being suspected by your Department, whether there was a reason for the suspicion or not? That is a very hard test.
I have nothing further to say on this matter. I think my Department were entitled to assume, from the facts brought to their notice, that the doctors concerned were aware of the application.
With the knowledge of the fact that the gentlemen concerned had told the officials of the Department on Monday that he had no authority from the doctors concerned, why did the Department publish this document, the obvious meaning of which was that the doctors had personally applied?
The doctor concerned came on Monday and stated that he had been approached by some of the other doctors on whose behalf he had made representations concerning the letters they had received. The denials from these doctors did not reach my Department until Tuesday.
Did the gentleman concerned tell your officials on Monday that he had no authority from these doctors? I have a statement from him to the effect that he did.
I have no desire to deceive the Deputy at all. It is quite obvious, from the letters received from these six doctors, that my Department was misled.
The officials of your Department were told on Monday.
They were not told on Monday.
I say that they were.
Will the Deputy behave himself for a moment?
Will the Minister stick to the truth and an accurate statement of the facts?
During the course of the telephone conversation on Monday, the doctor concerned stated that some of the other doctors had already been in touch with him about the letters they received from my Department. Subsequently, he said that he had acted solely of his own accord and without consulting any of the other doctors concerned.
That was on Monday, and on Tuesday this appeared in the papers without that notification from the officials.
The letters from the six doctors came on Tuesday—some of them on Wednesday—but none of them came before Tuesday. The letter from the Medical Association arrived on Tuesday also.
But the statement from the doctor, that he had no authority, reached you on Monday.
Will the Minister say whether it was his Department that communicated to the papers that these six doctors had made application, and does he recognise that that was a gross misstatement? Was the information supplied by the Department?
The information which appeared in the papers was officially supplied.
And that was sent out to the papers, whether right or wrong?
I have already explained the circumstances to the House.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. Thursday, 21st May.
