I was trying to proceed. It is very difficult to know the precise point which I was discussing, after the lengthy interruptions which have occurred. However, I do not want to tire or bore the House unduly, and I will do my best to get back to the point with all possible speed. The people of the country are now wondering why the services provided for them in the Act passed by the Oireachtas are not flowing to them. I know only what the man in the street knows about what has happened since the Bill became an Act. I think it is proper that I should ask the Minister for Health to give an explanation to this House of the Oireachtas as to why greater progress is not being made in providing these services. I thank the Minister for having observed the best democratic principle in having come into the House to listen to such criticism as I have to offer and, I have no doubt, when the time comes, to answer it.
It was assumed at the time the Bill became law that those who had opposed it would respect the will of the people and would say: "We wanted a different type of Bill but, now that the people's representatives in Parliament have spoken, the Health Bill has reached the Statute Book and it becomes our duty as good citizens to assist the Minister in making the best possible success of the machinery provided by the Act." That is what would have been expected. It would have been expected particularly that members of both Houses of the Oireachtas would have taken that view. It would, I think, be regarded as a very serious matter that members of the Oireachtas should inculcate disrespect and disregard for their own legislation.
Now, what has happened since? It is now the end of February — four months after the Bill passed into law. Apart from a few administrative provisions and the introduction of the maternity cash grants on the 1st January last, the Act in its main provisions is, up to the moment, stillborn. The public have no indication as to when they can expect to see the administration of the hospital services, maternity services, infant welfare services, the improved dental services or the rehabilitation services, including the allowances for disabled persons. There has been no definite indication from the Minister as to when he can provide those services.
I cannot make myself conversant — I have no means of doing so — with what happens between the Council of the Irish Medical Association and the Minister. All through this controversy leading up to the passing of the Health Bill, 1953, and subsequent to it, the council has been adopting what I can only describe as Prussian methods. They have been playing a game of trick-of-the-loop. I would like the Minister to take note of these statements. I venture to conjecture that the Minister has met representatives of the council and that they have told him: "We will not discuss it; we will not co-operate" or, to put it colloquially: "We are not going to play ball." They have every right as a trade union — just like the Federation of Rural Workers, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the Workers' Union of Ireland or any combination of workers, for their own benefit — to endeavour to secure for themselves the best possible pay and working conditions. I do not quarrel with that. If their attitude were that they would go to the Minister and say: "Here is the Act passed by the Oireachtas; we suggest that in schemes which you draft pursuant to this Act you should do so and so and so and so, and we feel that the doctors who have to work under the scheme should be amply remunerated and we suggest a figure of £x for those services or for this or that service," that would be perfectly reasonable conduct and perfectly in accordance with democratic practice and with trade union practice.
Is that the case? Is that what has been transpiring in the conversations which have taken place between the representatives of the Irish Medical Association and the Minister? I very much doubt that it is. On the 28th January last there was published a resolution of the Council of the Irish Medical Association which ran in the following terms. I have taken it from the journal of the association—and from a study of the terminology of the association you will see I buy the journal certainly not for its literary value. The resolution reads:—
"The council of the association, having already decided that the Health Act, 1953, is fundamentally defective, now consider that the proposals received from the Department in connection with the intended implementation of certain sections of the Act, are repugnant —
whatever that may mean —
and unacceptable."
So now we know that the Bill, which we in this House helped to pass into an Act, was fundamentally defective. We are receiving instruction on this matter from the Council of the Irish Medical Association.
There is just another little undertone which I would ask those members of the House who are interested — and they are not many, perhaps, on that side of the House — to note. The report of the meeting of the association at which this resolution was passed contained references to the payment of staffs in voluntary hospitals, and states that "all members were of opinion that the question of adequate remuneration, which had been engaging the attention of the voluntary hospitals and associated specialist groups for a number of years, should be considered and dealt with entirely separate from any proposals in connection with the recent Health Act." The Health Act is "fundamentally defective and unacceptable"; but if the Minister is prepared to make any grants or contributions which are connected with the Act, all contributions will be thankfully received. That is, to put it mildly, in my respectful submission, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, insolence — insolence which is out of tune and out of temper with all democratic practice.
If this headline is to be set up by the Council of the Irish Medical Association, see to it that it is not followed to-morrow, or next year, or the year after, by some other body of people who combine for the purpose of securing their own interest. See to it that you are not sowing the wind and will not reap the whirlwind. It may well be that the headline now being set will be copied next year or the year after, and that a body of workers will turn to a democratic Government in this country and say: "We do not care a crack of our fingers for your Act. We will not work it. We have no respect for Parliament, and, if the Act is being discussed in Parliament, we will tell the workers' representatives to remain out of the House, perhaps tell them to go dining and wining elsewhere, when the Act and matters relevant to the Act are being discussed in Parliament." That would be a sorry state of affairs indeed, and I am sure it is a state of affairs which nobody in this House would or should wish to bring about.
I want again to put a question to the Minister. I know what the attitude of the Council of the Irish Medical Association is. They have told me in the resolution I have quoted to this House, but is that the attitude of the ordinary general practitioner throughout the country? Is that the attitude of the hard-working dispensary doctor, the hard-working general practitioner in Dublin and in the rural parts of the country? I do not know. I do not know how far these people's claim to represent the medical profession as a whole is accurately based. I may quote from a letter dated 15th February, 1954, which appeared in the Irish Press of the 17th of this month. It is headed “Irish Medical Association Council Decision” and reads:—
"Sir,
The daily papers have given wide publicity to an editorial in the February issue of the Journal of the Irish Medical Association. This editorial mentions certain documents marked confidential which were explanatory of proposals made by the Minister for Health regarding the implementation of certain sections of the Health Act, 1953. It goes on to state that: ‘At the most recent meeting (January 28th) of the council of this association his proposals, having been examined by the representatives of every group and branch within the association, were, without one dissentient voice, declared to be repugnant and unacceptable.' As a result of this and of newspaper comments thereon, I find that many members of the public are under the impression that the proposals were examined by the branches of the Irish Medical Association prior to the meeting of the Central Council. As a rank and file member of the Association, I feel that it is necessary that this should be corrected and to state that copies of the proposals were first issued from the headquarters of the Irish Medical Association to its members on February 12th and that it is only since then we have had an opportunity of reading the proposals which were dealt with and rejected by our council at its meeting on January 28th.
The resolution to which I have already referred the House was, as stated, passed on January 28th and the proposals were released to the branches by the Central Council of the Irish Medical Association on the 12th February. The medical profession is a scattered profession. Its members, the general practitioner group, work very hard, and they are generally not very vocal — regrettably not very vocal. I think they dislike having to come out in public and perhaps contradict what are said to be their views by the Council of the Irish Medical Association. I would say this to the Minister, and I would say it to him on the best authority I have got from various parts of the country — I made it my business to get it and I ask him please to bear this in mind and to note it — that his views and proposals are being grossly and fantastically misrepresented to branches of the Irish Medical Association throughout the country, that there is a scandalous whispering campaign being carried on, that the dispensary doctor is being told that the Act represents ruin for him and that the general practitioner is being told that the Act represents ruin for him.
That is, in my respectful submission, a contemptible misrepresentation, and, in order to correct it, I think there is only one expedient open. It is that the Minister should suggest to the Council of the Irish Medical Association that they call a convention in Dublin of delegates from each branch of the association, and that that convention be given an opportunity of hearing the Minister's explanation of the proposals he is making pursuant to the Act and that there be a full and free discussion on the whole matter. I think that suggestion should be made. If it is made, I can see no reason why it should be rejected. It is wrong that a democratic Minister should be imposed upon and I am suggesting to the Minister that he is being imposed upon. He is a man notoriously of a kind and tolerant disposition and the game is being played with him — you will permit me to say this in passing — which was played with his predecessor. The game is this: "Keep on stalling. Tell him that we will meet him. When we meet him, tell him that we have nothing to say, that we will report back to our members, that we will get their suggestions and that when we have their suggestions, we will meet him again" and thus it goes on — a perpetual game of trick-of-the-loop. And the only sufferers are the people who would benefit by this Act and the services to be provided by this Act, if there was even the slightest degree of co-operation forthcoming from the medical profession.
The Minister has been tolerant from the introduction of the White Paper up to the present day and they play on his tolerance with the purpose of defeating his proposals. What lies behind it? Again I will tell the Minister what lies behind it and I have this on very considerable authority, which, unfortunately, I am unable to designate because it was given in a confidential way. The consultants who constitute the Council of the Irish Medical Association have been told: "Well, you do not like this Health Bill. Keep on stalling and if you keep on stalling long enough there may be a change of Government. Of course, if there is a change of Government, back you go into the Customs House and you can have any Bill you like at any cost you like and people will not be consulted. You will be able to arrange things for yourselves in your own way." Again, as I have said, the consultants, just like the general practitioners, are very hard-working people. They accept this. They feel it is possible that if you stall long enough there will be a change of Government.
I would ask them to go into the look-out of their ivory towers and from there survey the political situation. They will see how vain is that hope now. I would ask them to consider that. I would put this to members of the House who are representatives of the Irish Medical Association. There is quite a number, but the only one who has done us the honour of being present is Senator Jessop. I would ask him to convey to his fellow members of the Council of the Irish Medical Association that it is foolish of them to delude themselves with the possibility of a change of Government, that the people who have conveyed that to them and the people who are impressing on them that that is the right technique to adopt are deceiving them.
What they hope to do is this. They are not interested in the medical profession as such. What they are very interested in is in discrediting the Fianna Fáil Party and discrediting the Minister. If the Minister does not provide the services, the Council of the Irish Medical Association will say: "But this is utterly unreasonable. He will not have any discussions with us. When we went to him we told him that we would have to get the views of our members." They will not say this was put up for the 30th, 40th or 50th time. They will not say in dealing with the Minister that he showed, forbearance more than human in his dealings with them. In return they show for him a contempt which Senators of this House, members of the Council of the Irish Medical Association, have shown for this House by boycotting this sitting to-night.
I would not blame them if they felt like not having any desire to hear what I have to say but surely they are interested in hearing what the Minister has to say? In the little game which they are playing the Minister is a very important person but they are shirking debate. They shirked debate on every conceivable occasion. They do not want debate. I ask the Minister what he proposes to do in this context? I ask him if he is going to allow the trick-of-the-loop to go on indefinitely? I ask him whether, if this attitude continues, he has any proposals to make to provide the people with the services Parliament provided for them?
When the Public Health Services Bill was introduced in Britain, the men at the head of the British Medical Association showed opposition. The service went through and the British Medical Association said they would not co-operate but they went to the Minister and did their best to help and assist him. Now very many of them admit quite frankly that they were quite wrong in their opposition and that the scheme, costly though it may be, is producing what it was intended to produce—a vast improvement in the health of the main body of the British people, surely a consummation devoutly to be wished in any country.
We have a native Parliament now for a considerable time and it appears that there are some people who still display a high-handed attitude towards it. I would not have blamed the Irish Medical Association for taking the attitude they did, but I do blame them now for inculcating disrespect for the Legislature. I say to the Minister that if he tolerates it and submits to it he will be, as I said already, setting up a headline which may have very grievous consequences in the future. You cannot permit doctors and a privileged class to do what you are going to deny to other classes in the country. If you permit it to the doctor you must permit it to the farm labourer, plumber and carpenter. Senator Yeats says "and the lawyers." I would say, in passing, that a man does not have to go to law, but he cannot help being sick.
