Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 1

Priority Questions. - Contingency Plans for Nurses' Dispute.

Brian Cowen

Question:

15 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Health the contingency plans, if any, which are currently in place if a dispute by nurses goes ahead on 24 February 1997 in view of the fact that there will effectively be only two days between the result of the latest ballot and the commencement of the strike; the Government strategy for dealing with the nurses' dispute; and the plans, if any, he has to address the concerns of retired nurses in relation to their pension entitlements under the deal. [4493/97]

Limerick East): I apprised the House on 6 February last of the detailed contingency planning arrangements which had been put in place in the event of a nurses' strike, at that time threatened to commence on 10 February. Briefly, health service managers held two meetings, on 14 and 31 January 1997, with the alliance of nursing unions to discuss the broad approach to ensuring that emergency and essential services would be maintained for the duration of a strike. In addition, I met representatives of the alliance on 21 January on the same subject. In tandem with this, management in all health agencies had drawn up detailed contingency plans for their own organisations on the basis of discussions held with local strike committees. Deputies will be aware of developments that have taken place since I last had an opportunity to address the House on this issue.

In view of the threatened strike action by nurses with effect from 10 February 1997, the Labour Court decided to use its powers, under section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, to carry out an investigation into the reasons for the proposed action. The recommendation of the Labour Court issued on 7 February 1997 and provided for improvements in the package of proposals which had emerged from independent adjudication in September 1996 as follows: in respect of staff nurses, a new ten point salary scale to a maximum of £20,350 in addition to one long service increment of £650 for nurses who are on the maximum of the scale for three years — this is effectively a maximum scale of £21,000; the deletion of proposed lower entry points on the staff nurse scale; improvements in three areas in respect of early retirement — that up to 200 nurses per annum be allowed to retire at age 55, subject to 35 years service; the age for application for the previously proposed pre-retirement initiative be reduced from 57 to 55; the pensions commission give priority to the nurses' pensions claims; and that temporary nurses be allowed to progress to the seventh point of the incremental scale — incremental progression for temporary nurses and other health service grades has hitherto been capped at the fifth point of the scale.

The court also recommended that 2,000 temporary nurses be offered permanent positions. This is an increase of 300 from the previously proposed number of 1,700. It further recommended that a commission on nursing "become a reality within one month from acceptance of the Court's recommendation".

The present position is that the unions decided to defer strike action, pending a ballot of their members, on the revised proposals incorporating the additional gains recommended by the Labour Court. In the case of SIPTU this decision was taken on 8 February 1997. In the case of the Irish Nurses Organisation, Psychiatric Nurses Association and IMPACT the decision was taken on 9 February 1997. No recommendation on the revised proposals is being made by the unions.

The Government has accepted, in full, the terms of the Labour Court recommendation, including the establishment of the commission on nursing for which chairmanship and terms of reference have been agreed. It is my earnest hope that there will be a favourable outcome to the ballots currently taking place, enabling us to proceed with implementation of the pay increases due and to allow the next phase of the process of addressing grievances in the profession to commence through the work of the commission. The contingency planning arrangements drawn up for the threatened strike on 10 February remain in place. My Department continues to be in direct contact with all of the affected agencies in relation to contingency plans and regional centres have been established to provide an ongoing flow of information on a daily basis to the Department. These arrangements will remain in place until such time as agreement to the terms of the Labour Court recommendation is confirmed by the unions representing nurses.

Regarding the concerns of retired nurses in relation to their pension entitlements under the deal, it is the Government's intention that retired nurses and other public servants will benefit from the local bargaining clause of the PCW pay agreement.

The pay proposals developed to date involve an element of restructuring, as provided for under the local bargaining clause of the PCW pay agreement. This applies to nurses and many other groups such as civil servants, clerical and administrative grades in the health boards and local authorities, teachers, gardaí etc. who have or are concluding agreements under the restructuring option of the PCW.

Generally speaking, the agreements emerging do not provide for uniform increases across groups and, in many cases, even within grades. This complicates the position regarding adjustments to pensions, and this question will now have to be considered in respect of all affected groups across the public service.

Detailed discussions on this issue have yet to take place. When this general policy issue has been resolved, my Department will be in a position to clarify the adjustments to be made for retired health service staff, including nurses.

I specifically asked what the contingency plans in respect of retired nurses were, and how they would be affected by this deal. I also asked about the Government's strategy for dealing with the dispute. This week the Minister for Finance stated that he will be seeking contributions from other Departments, including the Department of Health, to pay for this deal of over £80 million, should it be accepted. Can the Minister confirm that one of the proposals of the Department of Finance is that there should be an increase in hospital charges to help pay for the increases to workers?

(Limerick East): The Deputy is right in concluding that there is no provision in the 1997 Estimates in respect of the additional moneys that would be required to meet the Labour Court's recommendations. The position of the Minister for Finance, as a result of a Government decision, is that the Government will continue to live within the expenditure parameters as laid down in the post-budget Book of Estimates for 1997. Consequently, the Minister for Finance will, in due course, identify savings across all Government Departments. The savings will not be confined to the Department of Health which consumes about 19 per cent of Government current expenditure. The Minister for Finance has no proposal in respect of savings in any particular area but, from conversation with him, I know he will not be bringing forward the proposal to which the Deputy alludes, and there will be no increase in hospital charges as a result of the Labour Court recommendation on which the nurses are voting.

Is the Minister aware that, under the Industrial Relations Act — which brought about the last minute intervention of the Labour Court in the absence of a Government strategy to deal properly with this issue — there is a statutory requirement that no undue pressure should be placed on any group of workers who have to consider a Labour Court recommendation? Would he agree that it would be unwise of him to mobilise any other groups to put pressure on nurses to accept this deal in view of the statutory provisions that exist under the Industrial Relations Act to allow people to come to their own decisions independently?

(Limerick East): There is no question whatsoever of any pressure being put on the nursing profession as its members individually consider whether they will vote for or against this deal. The nursing alliance, which consists of the four nursing unions, is arranging ballots around the country and is briefing members in respect of the Labour Court offer which is additional to the offer made by me in adjudication in 1996. I would again express the wish that the nurses would accept the offer because it is fair and reasonable, taken in conjunction with the commission which will be chaired by Miss Justice Mella Carroll. That is not putting pressure on anybody, but the hospitals will be on strike on Monday if the offer is turned down.

In respect of the Deputy's inquiry about the Government's strategy, there were direct negotiations in the first instance. Subsequently the Labour Relations Commission was asked to intervene in a conciliatory role. It came forward with proposals which were recommended by the unions. Subsequently, we went to independent adjudication which was recommended, and the Labour Court intervened. I cannot dictate the time at which the Labour Court will intervene, but the Deputy is well aware that Programme 2000 was being negotiated by the social partners and being voted on by the representative unions until just before the Labour Court intervention. A Member of Deputy Cowen's experience as a Minister with responsibility for labour relations would have been more than surprised had the Labour Court intervened at a time when the main industrial relations agenda for the next 39 months was being negotiated and voted on. There was no suggestion of there not being a strategy.

This is a very difficult, protracted industrial relations dispute which I hope will come to a satisfactory conclusion. As the nursing unions have said, they are dealing with grievances which have grown up over a 15 year period. The Labour Court said in its recommendations that the position of the nurses was unique and drew particular attention to the fact that promises about a review which were made to the nurses between 1990 and 1992 were not complied with and that this was a major contributory factor to the annoyance among the nursing profession.

Regarding the Labour Court's remarks on the question of a commission, this Government has had responsibility for the Department for the past three years and did not provide a commission either. On the question of retired nurses, can the Minister explain why SIPTU made its statement on Saturday rather than doing so with the nursing alliance on the Sunday? Is there any truth in the rumour that a deal has been done by the Minister with SIPTU in relation to retired nurses who were formerly members of SIPTU that allowed it to state earlier than the other unions its position on strike action? Did the Minister give SIPTU to understand anything that resulted in its position becoming public on Saturday?

Would the Minister not agree that it is the view of the vast majority of nurses who are now considering this deal that, notwithstanding the merits or demerits of the deal, were it not for the Labour Court intervention, what is on offer would never have been offered in direct negotiations by the Government, and that the strategy of making five different offers, beginning with an offer of £10 million and ending with the Labour Court recommendation of £80 million, is an indictment of the Minister's inability to grasp the legitimacy of the grievances which are now agreed by everybody, including the Minister, as having been justified in the first place?

(Limerick East): There are a number of questions and allegations. I will try to deal with the questions. There is no truth in the Deputy's allegation that a separate arrangement is being made with SIPTU. All our relationships both at ministerial level and at official level in the Department of Health were with the nursing alliance which was formed specifically to process nursing claims. That has been the situation all the way through.

The position in relation to the pension claim by retired nurses is as I outlined in my original reply. It is not unique to nurses, but it is the Government's policy that adjustments will be made in pensions of retired civil servants arising out of the various negotiations that have been conducted under phase III of the PCW.

How long will it take?

(Limerick East): Not only has it varied from profession to profession or from category to category of workers but also there have been differences within grades. As the Deputy will also be aware, it is a matter for the Minister for Finance to decide on the appropriate level of pension and pension adjustments to be made in respect of any pay offer. It is the Government's policy that adjustments will be made but the amount will be subject to future consultations and negotiations.

With regard to members of SIPTU coming out on Saturday and the members of other nursing unions coming out on Sunday, the matter has been explained by SIPTU and I accept the explanation. The Deputy should not try to drive a wedge between the nursing unions. They have had difficulties with this industrial relations situation and the nursing alliance is the body with which the Labour Court and I dealt. There is no change in that position.

The total cost of the award is £80 million. It has been a protracted and difficult industrial relations problem and it remains difficult. The difficulties have arisen over a 15 year period and have been magnified by broken promises in 1991 and 1992, as referred to in the Labour Court recommendation. Those broken promises soured relationships to the point that when I became Minister for Health the nurses were not particularly interested in a commission because they did not believe that the promise of such a commission would be delivered upon. This aspect of the claim was not actively pursued with me until quite recently.

Top
Share