asked the Minister for Health if any discussions took place between him and the trade unions who organise student nurses prior to the issue of his directive to the health agencies that the pay of second year student nurses be reduced from £139 per week to £100 per week in 1988; and if this decision is in accordance with the arbitration award of 1980 on which it was based, regarding agreed national scales for student nurses.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Student Nurses' Pay.
12.
Discussions were held with the representatives of the nursing staff and they have been kept informed of developments in this area.
Salary levels for student nurses which were recommended in 1980 were formulated against a background of an ever-expanding health service. There is a fundamental difference between the situation then and now.
The reality of the present situation is that the available resources at my disposal for training purposes must be used as effectively as possible: they can either be allocated to the training of an intake at the same level as 1987 or, alternatively, these limited resources can be spread over a greater number of students thereby giving more of our young people access to nurse training in 1988.
The action taken enables some 1,126 students to be recruited for general nurse training this year as against a figure of 720 in 1987. The intake of students in the other disciplines — mental handicap, midwifery and sick children's nurse training — are being maintained at existing levels while the intake in the psychiatric area will increase slightly. I am satisfied that the course adopted by the Minister is not in conflict with the objectives of the Programme for National Recovery.
Will the Minister of Stage agree that the forced reduction of £39 a week for second year nurse training students is contrary to the wage increase section of the Programme for National Recovery?
Is Deputy Desmond anxious to recruit 1,126 students in 1988 or retain recruitment at the 1987 level of 720 students? They are the choices before us. We opted for the choice of recruiting 1,126 students which gives 400 young students an opportunity which they would not have otherwise. The Government decision in the 1987 budget required savings of £4.5 million on student nurses. Discussions are taking place at the moment in relation to the second year. I can go into greater detail on this, but in the course of negotiations it became clear that the unions attached great importance to the continuation of additional payments for weekend and night duty. Because of this the rate of £100 per week finally approved included provision for such payments for the second year. In the circumstances I feel the Deputy would agree that it is better to recruit 1,126 students than 720 students in 1988.
Will the Minister of State agree that these young nurses are the backbone of a great many of the hospitals in terms of the nursing complement of those hospitals and that it was outrageous that they should be asked to take a cut of £40 a week with very little trade union protest on the matter apart from the INO? Will he not agree it was totally unfair that those nurses who commenced their training in 1987 should be asked now in 1988 to take a cut of £40 a week in their wages and possibly another cut next year, and that is in no way an equitable or reasonable manner in which to expect people to discharge their 40 or 50 hours a week of employment?
Student nurses are vitally important in the majority of hospitals.
One would not think so.
One of the measures agreed by the Government towards achieving this target was to pay student nurses in their first year of training a flat rate of £54 per week in addition to free accommodation. Where free accommodation was not available a living-out allowance of £25 a week was to be paid. Accordingly, all students recruited in 1987 were paid £54 per week except those who already had contractual arrangements entered into prior to the effective date of the Government's decision of 31 March 1987. As stated already, the number of students recruited was 720. When the decision on the £54 was being communicated to the various agencies in 1987 it was indicated that a decision would be made later in the year in regard to the rate to be applied to those students in their second year of training. That is the present position. The Deputy must bear in mind that the nurses receive an excellent training course in the hospitals. In the circumstances I believe we had no alternative but to take the action we have taken.
Finally, will the Minister of State agree that this is exploiting nurses in hospitals? It is bad enough to exploit them but to take on 1,000 student nurses this year and not even have the benefit of the common applications policy of An Bord Altranais in operation for the recruitment of those nurses just adds insult to injury with the abolition of the CAP by the Minister so that the old nepotistic system can be continued.
I would not agree with the Deputy. The number of applicants this year is very high as usual and the young people are prepared——
Depending on whom you know.
That is not the way it operates.
The Minister of State knows perfectly well that is the way it operates. Talk to any matron.
Standards are laid down.
Let us deal with this in an orderly fashion.
Maybe that was the case in the Deputy's time but it is not so now.
(Interruptions.)
We are recruiting 1,126 nurses. The Deputy should compliment the Minister and the Department on recruiting so many nurses in a difficult year.