asked the Minister for Health if he is aware of the claim for parity of rates and conditions with two English firms by the employees of the limb-fitting department of the National Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin; and the urgent action, if any, he intends takng to accede to the request of the employees concerned.

This claim has been the subject of a full investigation by the Labour Court. The court found that no sound and valid reasons for concession of the claim exist. In the circumstances I am not in a position to meet the wishes of the employees concerned.

I totally reject what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. He might tell the House what the basis of the claim is. Has he got the figures at his disposal? Has he had representations from the association for the scientific, technical and managerial staff? Is he aware of the basis of the claim? If the Parliamentary Secretary is not aware of the basis of the claim I will certainly put it on the record of the House for him.

I am aware of the basis of the claim but it is not accepted that the rates of pay or conditions of service of staff employed by private English firms should form the basis for establishing a rate of pay and conditions of service for any staff employed within the health services in this country.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the ASTM members, who are employed directly by the National Medical Rehabilitation Centre, claim parity with people doing identical work who are employed on a sub-contract basis? The majority of those people are English. I am not being in any way chauvinistic about it. They could be French, German or from some other country but in this case they are English and are paid considerably in excess of their Irish counterparts. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the quality of the work of Irish people has been widely acknowledged as excellent? Those people not alone fit artificial limbs——

I would ask for brief questions please.

Those people not alone fit artificial limbs but manufacture them. They do a far better job than many of their English counterparts do.

I must ask the Deputy to desist. I shall have to call the next question if the Deputy proceeds to make a speech.

The Labour Court recommendation issued on 2nd October, 1975, rejected in full the claim.

Question No. 5.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary encourage the association to resubmit their claim to the Labour Court in the light of the facts which are quite apparent? Their case is unanswerable. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that they are doing a first class job.

I agree entirely.

Question No. 5.

They should be considered on an equal footing with their British counterparts. Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree with that?