asked the Minister for Health whether he has seen the reference in the December issue of the Journal of the Irish Medical Association to a recent change made in the regulations governing the admission of candidates to competitions for posts as District Medical Officer and to the possibility that he might "pack" with his Medical Inspectors the selection board for these posts with the object of securing the selection of a particular candidate; and whether he has any statement to make in regard to the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - District Medical Officers: Statement in Medical Journal.
13.
I have seen the statements referred to. They were contained in an unsigned article, under the heading "A Rumble from the Periphery," and were subsequently reprinted in a Dublin evening newspaper. They impute that I and members of my staff have been corrupt by showing favour in the making of a public appointment. This imputation is related to an alteration made in June last in the qualifications declared for posts of district medical officer. In view of its serious nature, I feel that it is necessary for me to deal with the matter at some length, and I would ask the indulgence of the Dáil accordingly.
The first of these referred to an alteration made in June last in the qualifications declared for posts of district medical officer.
On 30th September, 1960, I had introduced, for the first time, an upper age limit of 50 into the qualifications for such posts. This followed a decision, taken as a matter of general policy, shortly before that date, to introduce upper age limits for a variety of medical posts in the local authority service. As is customary in such cases, the declared qualifications provided that the age limit would not apply to persons who were already pensionable officers of a local authority in the State. That exception has not been impugned by the Association.
Subsequently it was brought to my notice that, while the position of persons already in the permanent service of a local authority had been equitably dealt with, no account had been taken of the position of doctors who, over long periods, had given satisfactory service to local authorities in a temporary capacity. It will be within the recollection of many members of the House that in the Dublin area there were doctors who throughout periods of 18, 14, 6½, 5, 4 years and for shorter periods had served in a temporary capacity as district medical officers because, for a variety of reasons into which it is not necessary to enter now, recruitment to permanent dispensary posts in the area was suspended. I felt that it would be unreasonable in these special circumstances to debar such persons from the opportunity, now that recruitment to permanent posts in Dublin had been resumed, of competing for such posts because of the new upper age limit introduced, such a short time previously. Accordingly, on 30th June last, I amended the age qualification so as to provide that in reckoning age a prospective candidate who had been an officer of a local authority for a minimum period of six months might deduct from his age half the aggregate of all periods of temporary service in excess of six months, subject to a maximum deduction of five years. The amended qualification was not related specifically to the competition then in question but has application to all competitions for posts as district medical officer.
This action is now stated in the official organ of the Irish Medical Association to have been taken "to enable someone to compete who was over age and had not got a permanent post before he was fifty years of age." Later there is a reference to "the person he went to so much trouble for". Clearly, therefore, the accusation is that the action was taken in the interests of a particular individual. In fact, as I have shown, it was taken in favour, not of an individual, but of a class.
The statement goes on as follows:
"If influence like this could be brought to bear on the Minister, could it not also persuade him to pack the Selection Board, with his Medical Inspectors (who may have got their posts, because better qualified candidates would not apply, when the Association did not consider the terms satisfactory and listed them under the "Important Notice") to select the person he went to so much trouble for?"
In regard to the quotation I would point out, first of all, that the competition was conducted by the Local Appointments Commissioners and consequently the composition of the selection board was determined by those Commissioners and not by me. The Commissioners have complete autonomy in such matters and consequently, even if I were so minded, which I was not, there could be no question of my "packing" the selection board, with Medical Inspectors or otherwise.
In the second place, as is by now within the knowledge of the many persons who appeared before the selection board, of the four members of the board only one was a medical inspector.
Thirdly, a medical inspector or other officer of my Department serving on a selection board is a free agent and is morally bound to exercise his judgment in complete accord with the dictates of his conscience. I am satisfied that the medical inspector who served on the board now in question acted accordingly. No suggestion was made to him by me or by any person on my behalf that he should show favour to any candidate.
Fourthly, the implication that medical inspectors are inferior in qualification or in character to other members of their profession because they competed for their posts in face of an "Important Notice" issued by the Irish Medical Association is devoid of any foundation. Apart from the fact that experience has shown that doctors of the highest character and professional skill have refused to be influenced by the manoeuvring of the Association in regard to appointments in the public service, so far as I have been able to trace, none of the permanent medical inspectors was recruited while an "Important Notice" operated in relation to the grade.
The persons responsible for this gross libel on me and on their professional colleagues serving as medical inspectors in my Department are well aware of the procedure for the filling of permanent posts in the public service. This is apparent from the fact that in their "Important Notices" by which they seek to boycott certain competitions (posts as district medical officer have so far escaped the boycott) they counsel their members not to sit on interview boards for such competitions without first communicating with the Medical Secretary of the Association.
In this House on 15th ultimo, I stated, in relation to the phraseology of the duty requiring certain medical staffs in the local authority service to furnish information, if required, to medical practitioners nominated by me, that "if the Irish Medical Association wishes to discuss it and puts me in a position to receive a deputation for that purpose, I shall be glad to do so". Following publication of that statement I received a letter from the Medical Secretary stating that "my Association is prepared to meet you to discuss the redrafting of the regulations".
On a point of order, Sir.
Deputy Dillon, on a point of order.
Could the Minister not continue this next week?
Is this not a gross abuse of Question Time in this House, that the Minister should get a Deputy of his Party to put down a Question and then deliver himself of a speech?
That is an unfounded allegation, for which the Deputy has no justification and no authority.
I know it is perfectly justified. The Minister is making a speech, an ex-parte statement occupying 15 to 20 minutes, and that is a gross abuse of Question Time.
May I continue?
I submitted a point of order.
I do not think there is any rule limiting the length of replies to Questions.
I was——
I am submitting a point of order to you, Sir, and I expect courtesy from the Minister. Is there not a practice in this House by which Questions are asked by Deputies, the Minister replies and there are such Supplementary Questions as you think proper to permit? Do you think that an ex-parte statement running to 15 or 20 minutes constitutes a genuine reply to a genuine Parliamentary Question?
It seems to me to be a genuine reply to a question. The Deputy may characterise it in any way he likes.
I submit it is a gross abuse of Question Time.
How long more has the Minister to go?
I was referring to the fact that on 15th of last month, I stated in this House, in relation to the phraseology of the duty requiring certain medical staffs in the local authority service to furnish information, if required, to medical practitioners nominated by me, that "if the Irish Medical Association wishes to discuss it and puts me in a position to receive a deputation for that purpose, I shall be glad to do so". Following publication of that statement I received a letter from the Medical Secretary stating that "my Association is prepared to meet you to discuss the redrafting of the regulations". It is to be assumed that shortly after this letter had been received by me, and while it was having my consideration, the material for the December issue of the Journal of the Irish Medical Association was in process of being made up for the press. Included in that material was this grossly offensive and libellous article, suggesting by innuendo that I and a medical member of my Department had conspired to make an improper appointment. I now propose to reply to the Association to the effect that I am not prepared to meet its representatives until: (i) the Association ceases its attempt to interfere with the proper working of, and in particular recruitment to the Health Service, and (ii) it causes to be published in its Journal an absolute retraction of the innuendoes contained in the article and a satisfactory apology for having made them; this, of course, would be without prejudice to any other procedure which may be available to my officers to vindicate their honour and reputation.
Mr. Donnellan
I did not fully understand that reply. Would the Minister repeat that?
An admirable comment.
When the Dáil resumes after the Recess.