asked the Minister for Social Welfare if any negotiations are at present taking place between his Department and the dental profession with a view to settling the dispute which is at present depriving a large number of insured persons of their dental benefits; and if he will say when the benefits are likely to be restored.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Restoration of Dental Benefit.
I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question by Deputy Norton on the 23rd October last.
Mr. A. Byrne
In the meantime has nothing been done? Would the Minister tell me now if dental benefits are completely expunged from the list of benefits that people are supposed to get and have paid for? Is he not doing anything now to try to settle the dispute?
I am doing everything I can but the Deputy by his questions is preventing me because he is encouraging the dentists to hold out.
I think that is an unfair observation.
It is not unfair. Everybody knows that it is fair.
Even at the risk of annoying the Minister further, I want to ask a supplementary question about this matter. The Minister is the custodian of the interests of the insured persons in this whole matter.
And their funds.
It is the funds now.
If there is a clash between the insured persons and the funds the insured persons lose, according to the Minister. I suggest that he has a higher responsibility than that, namely, to look after the interests of insured persons. I see nothing derogatory in the Minister taking the initiative and saying to the dentists: "Look here, you and I are quarrelling about this matter. The insured persons are losing because they are not getting dental treatment or have to pay for what they get out of their own pocket." He could ask the dentists to meet the Minister with a view to getting this matter settled. It will have to be settled in the long run. I see nothing wrong in the Minister taking the initiative, being actuated by the proper motive, that his job is to look after the interests of insured persons. There is no question of saying that the Minister should surrender. The row is between the Minister and the dentists but, unfortunately, the casualties are not the dentists or the Minister, but the people who expect the Minister to look after them.
Does not that happen in every strike?
The Deputy does not see anything wrong in my taking the initiative but he thought it was altogether wrong when he was Minister and instructed his officials not to advance one step to meet those people when they were looking for these terms.
May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this situation never arose when I had any responsibility for administering dental benefits? They were continued without interruption. As a matter of fact, one of the first tasks I had to do was to settle a strike in the National Health Insurance Society which was left by my predecessor, the present Minister. I am asking the Minister now to do what he ought to do, namely, to meet the dentists and get this thing settled, in the interests of the insured persons. The Minister ought to do that and I believe the dentists ought to recognise their responsibility in the matter, too.
The Deputy, when he was Minister, told the officials—and I agree with him—on no account to agree to contracting out. The dentists threatened to go on strike and did not; but when the Minister retired and I came in, they did. Maybe it was due to the fact that they did not like me as well as the Deputy.
You were professional colleagues. You should not drag them around the House now.
You are the professional strike maker.
Now, Hysteria.
It must be obvious to any man of fair intelligence that if the dentists think that the Labour members and the so-called Independent members are on their side they will think it is better to hold out for another while.