asked the Minister for Health whether representatives of the Irish Medical Association have been appointed by him to be members of the National Health Council as being competent to advise on general matters affecting the health of the people; and, if so, whether in view of the recent boycott on medical posts instituted by the Association, he proposes to reconsider such appointments.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Appointments to National Health Council.
4.
Mr. Brady
Section 98 of the Health Act, 1947, as amended by Section 41 of the Health Act, 1953, provides that not less than half of the persons who are appointed to be members of the National Health Council shall be appointed by the Minister on nominations of bodies which, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the medical and ancillary professions and of persons concerned with the management of voluntary hospitals. The Irish Medical Association has in the past been accepted for the purpose of this provision as a body representative of the medical profession and for some years past three nominees of the Association have been appointed to the Council.
In the light of the recent irresponsible attitude of the Association I am considering what steps I should take in regard to nominees of the Association on the National Health Council and other bodies.
The big stick.
Does the Minister think this difficult matter is likely to be settled by the kind of action taken on his part which, if one is to interpret the language used by the Minister, is now likely to result in a lock-out of the representatives of the I.M.A. from this advisory council? Are we likely to get an early settlement of this matter by a boycott on the one hand and a lock-out on the other? Would the Minister not consider that it is much better to prevent this matter developing into a war of attrition and that this is an occasion when some steps should be taken before the situation is further bedevilled to bring both sides together and make a satisfactory settlement?
I am surprised at Deputy Norton's intervention. There has been no hasty decision on my part. As a matter of fact members of the Labour Party have been pressing me in relation to the Mallow incident to announce a decision which, after very deep consideration, I have announced and which I intend to stand over. I am not responsible for the fact that the I.M.A. have taken the action which they have embarked upon—what Deputy Norton calls a strike—without giving any notices, nor for the fact that, in the middle of negotiations with the representatives of the local authorities who employ county physicians, county surgeons and all the other members of the medical and surgical staff of local authorities, they have taken what Deputy Norton describes as strike action——
On a point of order— I did not use the word "strike" at all; I used the word "boycott".
The Deputy used the word "strike" and the word "lock-out". I have not locked out anybody.
I used the word "boycott". The Minister says I used certain words. The customary procedure is that a Deputy's denial is accepted. Is the Minister to be allowed to get away with another distortion?
All right: I shall accept the Deputy's word.
I shall teach the Minister truth.
The Deputy did use the word "strike" but it does not matter. I am accepting Deputy Norton's euphemism, but a spade is a spade, no matter what you try to make of it. I was going on to say that I am not responsible for the incident that has happened. I have had no notice at all of the objections which have been taken in relation to any medical or surgical appointment under the local authorities by a local authority. The only thing that surprises me is that Deputy Norton should have so little concern for the manner in which a non-paying patient, an agricultural labourer, was treated in this instance in Mallow.
It is hardly necessary to point out that that is a typical falsehood by the Minister for Health and one which is so characteristic of him. It is because I feel this matter is in such incompetent hands when being looked after by the Minister for Health that I suggest that some responsible member of the Government should take a hand in endeavouring to bring this dispute to a close so that we may have an adequate hospital service for the people of the country. Left in the hands of this Duke of Wellington, nothing will be done except to create chaos and disorder, conditions which characterise his administration and his handling of this dispute also.
I shall leave Deputy Norton to his own conscience.
It is nice to have one, in any case, and not to have a turnip for a conscience.