Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1946

Vol. 99 No. 19

Adjournment Debate. - National Health Insurance Society Trustees.

Mr. Pattison

Having heard the reply of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to Question No. 9 on the Order Paper to-day, I had reluctantly to give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the adjournment, because I was not satisfied with the reason given by the Minister for his refusal to appoint the former trustees of the National Health Insurance Society. The Minister stated that only one of the three former trustees had been reappointed, because the other two declined to give written assurances on conditions held out by the Minister. We were not told who the third trustee was. I understand he is a subordinate of the Minister, a civil servant working in the Minister's Department. It is only reasonable to assume that he would not follow the independent course adopted by his colleagues.

My main reason in raising this matter on the adjournment is to point out that this is a further definite indication of a tendency on the part of the Minister to adopt a dictatorial attitude in all matters within the responsibility of his Department. As to the refusal of the two trustees to give the Minister the assurance that he asked for, the communication, which I had the privilege of seeing, was not a proper one. These men had given no less than nine years' service. I understand that during that time, year after year, not only were they reappointed, but a very special tribute of appreciation was paid to them for their previous services.

During their period of service they succeeded in getting the Department to make available much earlier than the Minister or his Department intended additional benefits for members of the society. I understand the view of the Minister's Department was that a reserve of £12,000,000 should be available before they would approve of the distribution of additional benefits. Through pressure, and due to the efficiency of the trustees and the committee of management, these benefits were made available much earlier. Another remarkable achievement and proof of the efficiency of the management and of the trustees, was that by wise handling of the funds of the society, and by investments, they added to the reserve fund not less than £10,000. I think the House will agree that these trustees, who gave such a long period of good service to the society, should merit more respect from the Minister, when they were due for reappointment. This is a matter to which the Minister ought to direct his attention, because if it is to occur again to people who give free and valuable time to the welfare of such an important section of the community as members of the National Health Insurance Society, grave harm will be done to such desirable efforts in the future.

Mr. Cosgrave

I wish to say a few words on this matter, but, in doing so, I hold no brief for any of the former trustees, nor am I in any way interested as to whether they are appointed or not. This is from the personal point of view. I think the dismissal— it amounts to dismissal—of two of the former trustees raises a question of considerable importance, not merely as affecting the National Health Insurance Society, but also future public appointees whom the Minister desires to put on this body or any similar body over which he has power of appointment. If they have not only to give an assurance of the type which the Minister requested from the existing trustees, but have further to assure him, in the event of any intended action on the part of a trustee which might conflict with the Minister's opinion, that they will so inform him, in order that happy and cordial relations may continue, I think that raises an important question. An individual is appointed to a position covered by statute, which statute contains a specific provision dealing with the functions, powers and duties which are normally laid down and which are further prescribed by regulation. If over and above the prescribed conditions under which he holds his appointment, he has to give an assurance to the effect that he will not in any way disagree with the Minister, that is a suggestion almost that all the functions of the trustees are carried out with the Minister's consent. I think the Minister will have difficulty in getting anyone, other than mere yes-men or people who are subordinate in some other way to the Minister, to accept such nomination.

As I understand it at the moment, of the three trustees who were trustees for a considerable period, one of them was appointed just a few years before the period of office of the other two terminated, and he was a civil servant. One of the other trustees held office for nine years. During that time the funds at the disposal of the society increased considerably. I think the trustees may take justifiable pride in their investments, but, irrespective of whether the funds increased or decreased, the trustees acted in accordance with the regulations laid down, and not alone the Minister's predecessor, but the Minister himself, appointed these trustees. I think he appointed at least one of them more than once, but, apparently, in 1945, after the announcement of the proposals by the Bishop of Clonfert, the Minister no longer felt himself in a position to reappoint the existing trustees.

I think that in future, if people with independent minds, who value their own opinion, are to accept nomination for such an office or offices they will do it only on their own conditions or, if they do it on the Minister's conditions, they are fixed automatically with notice that if they disagree in any way, even in thought which they propose to translate into action, then the Minister may immediately dismiss them. I do not know whether Deputies are aware but, as the Act stands, the Minister may remove any trustee from office at any time, and it seems unnecessary that he should not alone have the power to remove the trustees, but should also get an assurance from the trustees that they will only act in a way which conforms entirely to his opinion. I think that the autocratic powers and influence of the Minister and his Department have gone sufficiently far and that this further indication of them is not a good sign for the future of this society and is one which I, in company with Deputy Pattison, deplore.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I do not know what all this pother is about. The two Deputies who have just spoken on this matter seem to assume that the persons who are appointed by the Minister to these positions are appointed on a secure judicial tenure to hold office for life. Of course, that is not the position at all. These gentlemen were appointed from year to year. None of them held a continuous appointment for nine years. It is true that one of them was appointed once and reappointed subsequently eight times. Each such reappointment was an expression, if you like, of confidence on the part of the Minister in the wisdom and the prudence and the discretion of his appointee. Deputy Cosgrave has referred to the functions, powers and duties of the trustees, quite forgetting that the Minister has superior powers, and superior functions and superior duties, that it is he who carries full responsibility in a matter of this sort, that it is he who has the power of appointment and the responsibility for making an appointment. If he is to exercise that power wisely and to discharge that responsibility adequately, the first thing that he must do is to satisfy himself that those whom he appoints will, as I say, in the public office to which he appoints them, act with wisdom, prudence and discretion.

If a matter arose which indicated a failure on the part of his appointee properly to appreciate the position of the Minister responsible for them— the Minister to whom they owed their office—I do not think that he would be justified in reappointing such persons unless he were in a position to satisfy himself in advance that nothing would arise in future to disturb the relations which ought to exist between the Minister on the one hand and those in whom he has reposed his confidence—because that is what is involved—on the other. As Deputy Cosgrave has reminded the House— the Minister—I do not want to drag myself into this unnecessarily—the Minister under the Act in relation to this society and those whom he appoints has very wide powers indeed. He has, as Deputy Cosgrave reminded the House, the power of removal. It is a power which was not exercised by me. It is a power which I think everybody would agree should not be exercised except in extreme circumstances. It is a power which if an occasion arose in which it had to be exercised, everybody would regret the occasion. But, I had in this instance to take precautions in advance. For it was quite clear that there was some lack of understanding on the part of those to whom I had previously given my confidence, as to what I regarded as the proper relationship which ought to exist between them as officers of the society on the one hand and myself as Minister responsible for the administration of all the National Health Insurance Acts on the other. I had to assure myself, therefore, that if they were reappointed no future occasion for misunderstanding would arise.

And what were these gentlemen asked to subscribe to? First of all, I think everybody will agree that for the proper working of the National Health Insurance system as we know it, there should be close and cordial and harmonious relations between the Minister on the one hand and the committee of management of the society on the other. We do not want to conduct a sort of public dispute in relation to every matter about which a difference of opinion may arise. We do not want to have the committee of management running off the rails and the Minister having to put the society back again.

Mr. Cosgrave

They did not do that.

Mr. MacEntee

We want to have close accord between us, because if that accord does not exist, then there can be no progress. Whatever progress the society makes it can only make with the assent of the Minister, and it can only make after it has persuaded the Minister to submit to the House the legislation which is necessary to allow the society to grow and develop. Deputy Pattison referred to the additional benefits and suggested that the trustees were primarily responsible for them, that in regard to the additional benefits, the introduction of which required the passage of legislation by this House, the trustees, in some way or other, had forced the Minister's hand. Let me say in relation to the Deputy's suggestion that the legislation in question was not introduced until after the actuary's report had shown that it would be financially practicable to introduce this scheme of additional benefits. Let me also say this, that the plan of a unified society was first conceived, not by either of the trustees, not by any member of the committee of management, but by my predecessor in Local Government.

One of the definite purposes which the Government had in view in promoting that legislation and bringing the unified society into being was that it might be able to provide additional benefits for its members. Now the Government, which had preserved, if you like, a considerable number of members of former societies from the fate which would have overtaken them when these societies became insolvent and which had put national health insurance in this country on a proper financial basis, were not going to jeopardise what they had already done by introducing these additional benefits at an unduly early stage, no matter what pressure were brought to bear upon them by any member of the committee, no matter how influential. Furthermore the Act to provide these additional benefits was submitted to the Government by me as Minister for Local Government and Public Health and was introduced here under my auspices and put through this House by the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward. I can assure Deputy Pattison that that would not have been done unless we ourselves were convinced that the time had come to do it, and no amount of pressure would have made us do it. Therefore, we can abandon this idea that any member of the committee of management was able to influence the Minister for Local Government one minute before he thought the time was ripe to make the advance.

I was saying that there must be close and cordial relations existing between the committee on the one hand and the Minister on the other, because unless these relations existed there could be no progress on the part of the society and no improvement in the condition of its members. If the committee of management, the trustees, or any other officer of the committee had been at loggerheads with the Minister for Local Government of the day, the additional benefits provided for in the Act of 1942 would not be on the Statute Book.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the Minister who is going to appoint persons should, as I have said at the beginning, have absolute confidence in their wisdom, their prudence and their discretion.

Mr. Pattison

What about public confidence?

Mr. MacEntee

When, as I have said, it becomes clear that the committee and the Minister had become separated and taken divergent paths, not I must say by any action on the part of the Minister, and that it was necessary for me to reestablish the relations which had previously existed, and which should not have been broken, I had to make certain that those whom I proposed to appoint would accept what I regarded as the fundamental condition of their appointment, that is to say, that they would strive to ensure that a close and cordial liaison was maintained between the committee of management and the Minister. What objection could there possibly be to asking a person whom one is going to appoint to assent to the proposition, that if you place him there as your appointee he will at least try to ensure that the fundamental condition which is essential if the affairs of the society are to be properly conducted will be honoured and accepted?

The next thing was that, should anything arise which might disturb these harmonious relations, the person in whom the Minister had reposed his confidence should inform the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary who appointed him so that we might have an opportunity of discussing this matter, in an endeavour to preserve those close and harmonious relations which I regard as essential for the well-being of the society and of the members of the society. I cannot see why any person can regard it as unreasonable, when there was clear indication that these principles were not properly appreciated, that I should make certain before I appoint him that they had been brought to his notice, so that I would not have to proceed with the unpleasant duty, if a similar incident occurred, of having to remove him from office. I think indeed that in this matter I acted with some forbearance. I have no apology to make for the fact that I endeavoured, as I have said, to restore a proper relationship between the Minister on the one hand and the society on the other.

Let me say this. The Minister is independent in his judgment too, and has his independence to preserve. I think it would be a rather absurd position in which to place the Minister, who is responsible to the House and responsible to the people, that his independent judgment should have to defer to the judgment of his appointees. Surely that would be to turn the whole position topsy-turvy. Do you not think that if appointees find they are in conflict with their Minister the first thing for them to do is to resolve the ambiguous and invidious position in which they have placed the Minister by offering their resignations, not by waiting to have them asked for?

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 14th March.