I have allowed two Private Notice Questions on industrial action in Dublin hospitals.
Private Notice Questions. - Industrial Action in Dublin Hospitals.
(Cavan-Monaghan): asked the Minister for Health the urgent proposals he or the Eastern Health Board have to deal with the consequences of industrial action taken by hospital porters, auxiliaries and domestics; if he is aware that St. Vincent's Hospital, Dublin, has had to cancel visiting facilities as from today; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Health whether he is aware of the closure to visitors of city hospitals in Dublin, including the Rotunda, Temple St., St. Vincent's Psychiatric Hospital, St. Brendan's, Grangegorman, Mater, Bon Secours, Jervis St.; and also of the fact that meals will have to be prepared by senior management at certain times, due to an industrial dispute; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take both questions together. As part of a programme of industrial action in pursuit of a pay claim, an overtime ban is being introduced today by porters employed in Dublin voluntary hospitals.
I want to assure the House that this action does not involve any risk to patients. I might add that the preparation of meals by management staff does not arise at this stage. However, some hospitals have considered it necessary to cancel night visiting facilities with effect from this evening—from a recent check we are aware of only one, St. Vincent's. Hospitals administered by the Eastern Health Board, such as St. Brendan's, Grangegorman, are not affected by this dispute.
I want to assure the House that every effort has been made to prevent this dispute from taking place, including a full Labour Court investigation. However, the offer to the staff concerned, amounting to £9.08 a week, was rejected following a ballot. This sum was, of course, in addition to the standard increases under the national understanding.
I have at all times been in close contact with this dispute and I shall continue to make every effort to have this resolved. I am very anxious to avoid any inconvenience for patients or their relatives.
A Labour Court conciliation conference has been arranged and this will take place tomorrow morning. Therefore, I ask the House to refrain from further comment this evening which might exacerbate the situation.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the Minister aware that from this evening porters' duties will be halved, that only half the duties of porters will be carried out, and that during the weekend there will not be any porters available at all? Does that not mean that immobile patients will have to be moved to and from theatres by medical or nursing staffs? If this goes on much longer, does it not spell a complete breakdown of hospital services in the hospitals affected? Are these hospitals not preparing to send patients home? Would the Minister take this matter a little more seriously in order to get something done about it?
I assure the House that, as I said in my statement, I take this matter very seriously. I have been in very close contact with it. It is an industrial dispute and it has been fully and thoroughly investigated by the Labour Court. The findings of the Labour Court, which provides the industrial machinery available for such disputes have been turned down. A Labour Court conciliation conference has been arranged for tomorrow morning. With the ban coming in this evening, having arranged the Labour Court conciliation conference in the morning represents urgent action. I can assure the Deputies it is being dealt with urgently within the machinery available.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister tell us why, in this very sensitive area involving suffering, hardship, anxiety to patients and their immediate relatives, things were left to get to the stage this dispute has reached before the Minister or the Department involved themselves effectively? Why did they let it drag on to reach this stage?
If the Deputy had some knowledge of industrial relations he would not have asked that question. I said already that we have been very deeply involved in this dispute throughout its development. We have taken any action that was open to us in relation to the dispute and I can assure the House we will continue to do that. At present there is not any risk to patients.
I want to ask three brief questions. How long has the Minister been aware of the dispute? Second, is there not a danger that the involvement of senior staff, usually engaged in administrative duties, in duties which are not theirs in order to substitute for those on strike or in dispute will inevitably mean there will be some degree of hazard or risk to the normal good management of the hospitals which could involve problems for patient? Three, is it a fact that at this moment hospitals are preparing lists of patients for early release?
I have asked the Deputies not to prejudge industrial relations procedures. I certainly will not do it. The resolution of industrial disputes is difficult enough in any event and I have asked Deputies to desist from this line of questioning so that those who are directly involved trying to resolve the dispute can bring it to resolution. In relation to the preparations and plans which management might have, the Deputy is anticipating, as management would have to anticipate, the problems that might arise if the dispute is not resolved soon.
I asked the Minister three questions and he had not the courtesy to reply to one of them.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The questions put to the Minister might be answered more appropriately by his colleague, the Minister for Labour. What proposals has that Minister for dealing with the problem?
Arising out of the Minister's statement earlier, that he has been deeply involved for some time in this dispute, has he personally met the union representing the people involved?
I do not think it would be wise to get into the details of it.
Did the Minister meet them or not? The Minister is a doctor.
I would not like to exacerbate the situation.
The Minister is doing a good job on it.
I hope this will not have any adverse effect on the situation. Of course I have met the senior people involved.
Has the Minister met the trade union officials?
Of course I have. What does the Deputy think I have been doing in my job?
When did the Minister meet them?
I met them before today.
Are we to have the same incompetence the Minister brought to Social Welfare transmitted to the Department of Health?
I want to refute all these allegations. These are ridiculous suggestions. Would the Deputy talk to the union involved? There is a dispute in the Department of Social Welfare.
A Cheann Comhairle, you have ruled out a Private Notice Question which I put down on the grounds that the Taoiseach is not responsible to the Dáil for Deputy Loughnane. But is it not the case that the Taoiseach is responsible to the country for the inflammatory remarks of Deputy Loughnane and that he has a duty, which he is evading, to the people of Northern Ireland——
The Deputy cannot discuss my decision. The Deputy has been given the reason for the question being disallowed and we cannot pursue the matter further.
The Taoiseach can run for cover as usual.
May I have a written reply to Questions Nos. 135 and 136.