The matters to which I propose to refer to-night arise out of Questions Nos. 4 and 5 on the Order Paper of 18th May. As no doubt you are aware. Sir, on that day, as a result of the unsatisfactory answers I got from the acting-Minister for Health, I gave due notice that I intended to raise the matter on the adjournment. I was precluded from doing so by a ruling of the Chair, the merits of which I am still at a loss to understand.
Adjournment Debate. - Nominations to National Health Council and National Rehabilitation Organisation.
The Deputy may not discuss my decision on this.
I do not intend to do that. Sir. At any rate, I was precluded from raising the matter on the 18th. However, that was a mixed blessing because it has given me the advantage of having present to debate the matter the Minister for Health who has returned from America. In Question No. 4 on that date I asked the Minister if he would tell the House his reasons for rejecting the nomination made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to the National Health Council, and in Question No. 5 I asked the Minister his reasons for rejecting the nominees of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to the National Rehabilitation Organisation.
To the first question I got the following reply from the acting-Minister for Health:
The Irish Congress of Trade Unions is not a body which was asked to nominate a person to be a member of the National Health Council. As the Minister has explained to the Congress he wished to choose a Trade Union representative to act on the Council. This choice, under the statute, was entirely a matter for him but he was prepared to consider the selection of a representative from a panel of two persons, willing to act, submitted by the Congress. The Congress have up to the present not submitted such a panel and it is for this reason that no appointment of a representative of the trade union movement has yet been made.
To members of the public who would not be expected to be conversant with the correspondence that has passed between the Congress and the Minister it might appear that the reason why there is no representative of the trade unions on the National Health Council is because the Congress failed to reply. Therefore, I think it behoves me to set out exactly what the position is.
From the Minister's reply it can be taken that he regards it as reasonable and desirable that there should be some representative of the trade union movement on the National Health Council. Indeed, it might be suggested that it would be advantageous to the work of the Council if there were on it a representative of the organised workers of the country. The Minister, therefore, was posed the question as to who this representative would be and what body, organisation or group of people would best be entitled to nominate their representative on the Council. One would think that it would immediately suggest itself to the Minister that the body best fitted to nominate a representative on the Council was the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Of course, while that might be acceptable to any reasonable individual, apparently it was not acceptable, and still is not acceptable, to the present Minister for Health. He feels, apparently, as he feels in many other matters, that he can nominate to the National Health Council a person better fitted to represent the workers than the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
I do not think there is any need for me to point out that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions represents the overwhelming body of organised workers in this country. In the ordinary course, any reasonable or rational Minister for Health or any other Minister would simply say to this democratic organisation, as the Minister has said to other organisations: "Let you nominate the person you think best fitted to represent you and I shall appoint him on that body." The position may have been influenced by the past history of the organisation; I do not know. It should be placed on record that since 1954 the trade union movement has been represented on the National Health Council by Mr. Michael Moynihan, a member of the National Executive of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, first as nominee of that particular trade union and subsequently as nominee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
To reflect on the history of this unfortunate case, the position is that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions received an invitation in the month of March this year to nominate a panel of two from which the Minister would select one, whom he would then regard as the representative of the Congress on the National Health Council. I think nobody can regard the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as being unreasonable when they sent to the Minister the name of the man who had represented the organised workers of this country on that Council since 1954. There has been no official intimation to the Congress or anybody else that Mr. Moynihan was an unsuitable person to represent the workers. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions do not regard him as unsuitable. They regard him as the most suitable man to represent them on the National Health Council.
I should like to know from the Minister why he employed this device to remove Mr. Moynihan from the Council. Was it because he did not toe the line as far as the Minister was concerned? Was it because of the fact that he was not a "yes" man for the Minister's policy on the National Health Council? I think both the trade union and the individual concerned are entitled to know why the Minister did not accept the renomination of Mr. Moynihan on the National Health Council and why he felt that the trade union movement should submit a panel of two from which he would select the one whom he thought best fitted to represent the Congress on the National Health Council.
It should be noted that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions not only represents a very large number of citizens to whom the Health Acts apply in practice but there are affiliated to that Congress trade unions which cater for nurses. It is a fact that the organisations affiliated to that Congress represent more nurses than any organisation in the country. In view of the fact that the Congress claims to represent the interests of insured workers and workers generally and to represent the majority of nurses in this country, I fail to see why the Minister should announce that, in his opinion, the Congress is not entitled to make up its mind as to whom it would select to represent it on the National Health Council.
It may be no harm to reflect on the background of this whole matter. The facts that have emerged in this particular instance are not without surprise as far as I am concerned. The Minister's failure to appoint the person nominated on this occasion by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is quite in line with the policy followed by this Minister over a period of years. I would only appeal to his reason and reasonableness to examine his conscience in this matter and make up his mind once and for all as to who is entitled to say who can best represent the trade union movement on bodies such as this.
When the nominations were first sought, the Provisional United Organisation at that time went to the trouble of interviewing the present Taoiseach who was then the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Tánaiste as to the whole position of the trade union nominees on State bodies. I am sure that the present Minister for Health has available to him the minute of that particular meeting. I think he will not deny that the present Taoiseach made it quite clear to the trade union deputation on that occasion that there would be no change in his policy or in the policy of the Government regarding trade union representation on State bodies.
He is on record, I am quite sure, in the Departmental minute of that occasion as stating that he regarded as quite proper and quite appropriate that trade union representations appointed as such should be selected by the central organisation of the trade union movement. The present Taoiseach, who was then the Tánaiste, stated quite clearly and without apology to anybody that, in his opinion, in any State body or on any organisation such as the National Health Council the trade union movement, if it were felt by the Oireachtas, the Government or any particular Minister, should be represented. The present Taoiseach expressed the opinion that the people best fitted to make that nomination was the central organisation of the trade union movement which is now the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
He further undertook to convey this message to the Minister for Health. I do not think it can be denied that Deputy Lemass on that occasion did endeavour to convey to the deputation, to the trade union movement, that he would deliver that message. I suppose it could be implied that he would endeavour to convince the Minister for Health as to the merits of that argument. I do not know what kind of tête-à-tête he had with the Minister for Health or what conference he had with him but the fact emerges that he apparently did not convince the Minister for Health as to the merits of this particular argument. That is in relation to the National Health Council.
I do not intend to delve into the position regarding the National Rehabilitation Council except to say that in 1959 the Minister issued an invitation to the Congresses to nominate a panel of six from which he would select two. He wanted a pretty wide panel at that time so that he could select two from the panel of six. Up to that the trade union movement had representation to the extent of two and were quite certain whom they wanted to represent them on the organisation.
That did not suit the Minister for Health. He would not like the trade union movement, through their democratic organisations, to have that selection. He wanted his finger in the pie. Instead of saying to the trade union movement: "Let you nominate two members whom you regard as best fitted to represent you on the National Rehabilitation Council," he said : "You give me six names and I shall decide for the trade unions and the organised workers of this country who is best fitted to represent them."
No doubt the Minister would consider who would best suit himself in subsequent events to represent the workers on this particular organisation. The Congress at the time pointed out vehemently to the Minister how interested they were in these particular matters. I am sure the Minister, the Government and the House will appreciate how desirable it is to have the goodwill of the organised works of the country in the operation of bodies such as the National Health Council and the National Rehabilitation Council. I would even suggest to the Minister that it is not possible for these organisations to function properly or effectively or for the benefit of the people they are supposed to benefit without the co-operation and the goodwill of the Trade Union movement.
It is certainly a peculiar method to endeavour to invite the goodwill and co-operation of the Trade Union movement by crossing them in this particular way when it is quite unnecessary and unreasonable. I think that were it not for the pig-headedness —I am sorry to say this—of the Minister for Health this difficulty need not have arisen at all. I hope he has not got it into his head that he can deal with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as he has endeavoured to deal with other organised groups. I hope that this apparent obsession of his to lord it over all, irrespective of what the organisation represents, will not continue in this particular case.
I am suggesting to him that the organisations catering for the organised workers of this country know best what suits them. If they are not to have representation let the Minister say so but if they are to have representation I say to him that he should leave it to their own elected representatives in the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to say who is best equipped and most suitable to represent them.
I hope that the Minister with everything else that he has on his plate is not embarking upon a vendetta against the Trade Union movement in this respect. I hope that, even unknowingly, he is not endeavouring to write down the influence and the power of the Trade Union movement. The net result of his activities in these two vital organisations—the National Health Council and the National Rehabilitation Council—is that there is no representative of the organised workers on them. I can tell the Minister that while he persists in his stupid attitude there will be no representative and no cooperation from the trade union movement.
I do not know how the functions of these organisations can be carried out without the goodwill and the co-operation of the Trade Union movement. The Minister will not get that if he persists in the attitude he has adopted up to this.
I think there has never been in the history of the State a more arrogant and barefaced attempt to usurp the functions and statutory prerogatives of a Minister of State. The position in relation to the National Rehabilitation Council is quite simple.
Their Articles of Association provide that:
No person shall be admitted to membership of the Association who has not been nominated by the Minister as a desirable person.
That does not say anything about the Trade Union Congress or any other body whether it is a trade union or not. The power rests with the Minister who is responsible for this organisation to appoint, to direct it, the people best suited to do that. I have no obligation, under statute or otherwise, to nominate any person representaing a trade union, or congress of trades unions. I think that should be the first fact that the Deputy and those associated with him should get hold of.
I did the trade union movement the courtesy of asking them to submit a panel of six names from whom I would select, in my statutory right and responsibility, the two persons whom I felt were best fitted to be members of this National Rehabilitation Organisation. I treated the trade unions with courtesy and I got back a most boorish reply. I want to say I shall never again put them to the inconvenience of being boorish.
That is a threat, of course.
It is not a threat. It is merely, as I said that I shall save them the trouble——
(Interruptions).
The Deputy was not interrupted and he should not interrupt the Minister. There was not one word while he was speaking.
I shall save them the trouble of having to write me discourteous letters.
The Minister is very sensitive.
I am not very sensitive, but I am here as Minister for Health, and I shall not surrender any one of the responsibilities which I owe to this House nor shall I become a rubber stamp for any organisation in the State whether trade union, or congress of trades union, or Labour Party Deputy.
With regard to the National Health Council the position there is quite clear also. Under subsection (7) of Section 98 of the 1947 Health Act, as inserted by the 1953 Health Act, it is provided 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 (including particular branches thereof) and of persons concerned with the management of voluntary hospitals.
That is the only restriction upon my right of constituting the National Health Council in the manner in which I think best suited to advise me upon matters which may be referred to it by me. Notwithstanding that I asked the two trades union congresses in 1958— the rival trade union congresses——
They were not rivals. The Minister is trying to make mischief.
The rival trade union groups——
That is just mischief.
In 1958 they were not——
They were then——
Not now.
I asked them to submit to me two names from which I would select one to act on the National Health Council. Again, I was not bound to ask them at all, but I did them the courtesy of asking them to submit two names. One of the bodies did submit two names—that was the Congress of Irish Unions— and out of those two names submitted —one being Mr. Peter Farrell and the other Mr. Moynihan—I appointed Mr. Moynihan to act on the Council. The Irish Trade Union Congress, of course, refused to submit two names and, consequently, no person from that body sat on the Council.
That was two years ago. Tell us about this year.
I was at some pains to explain the position to those two organisations.
That was two years ago. Tell us about this year.
The position this year is unchanged so far as I am concerned.
Tell us about this year. Do not mind going back.
If the Deputy did not interrupt he would be told more.
Nobody could teach the Deputy manners. He was not reared to good manners.
(Interruptions).
He is an elected representative here and the Minister must recognise him.
Order.
I may say, also, that I administer my Department in the interests of the people and not in the interests of the Deputy or of various organisations.
So long as I am here the Minister will hear from me what I want to state.
The Deputy does not want the public to know what is involved in this. In a letter to the Congress I recited the subsection and pointed out that the only people who had a right to be nominated to the National Health Council were those who, "in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the medical and ancillary professions (including particular branches thereof) and of persons concerned with the management of voluntary hospitals". I stated:
It will be seen from this subsection that the number of persons of his own independent designation whom the Minister may nominate to serve on the Council is determined and limited by the number of those who may be nominated by bodies representative of the medical and ancillary professions. Notwithstanding this limitation in regard to numbers, but not in regard to the Minister's right to choose his appointees according to his own discretion, and notwithstanding the fact that he would have had no difficulty in otherwise securing the consent of the necessary number of highly suitable persons to accept appointment to the Council, the Minister extended a courteous invitation to your Congress to submit the names of two persons, it being his intention to select one of them to fill one of the places on the Council reserved for Ministerial appointees. Your rejection of this invitation has been noted, is considered by the Minister to be final and, so far as he is concerned, the position in regard to the exercise by him of his statutory right of nomination is not open to further discussion.
That was the position in 1958; that is the position now in 1960; and, so long as I am Minister, it will be the position which I will maintain. I will not be a rubber stamp for any Praesidium or Soviet.
What is the Minister talking about?
The Minister should not insult the trade union movement.
The functions of the Minister for Health are involved here and I shall exercise my independent right of nomination and appointment——
The Minister can do that, but he should not insult the trade union movement.
I would say this then: if it is an insult to the Irish Trade Union Congress or to its Governing Body to ask them to submit a panel to me in order that I may select a person——
They would not demean themselves—that you should select them.
That settles it. They will not be asked to demean themselves and no question like this will ever arise again because everything is reserved entirely to me. I am not responsible to Deputy Casey as to what I do.
The Minister will continue to be questioned on it.
The Oireachtas has vested this power in me and I shall exercise that power, and in so far as any question is concerned, I am not bound to answer any question the Deputy puts down.
The Minister will be asked questions week after week.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 2nd June, 1960.