John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the work programme of NESC; and if he will make a statement on its current institutional and administrative arrangements. [17453/99]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Partnership 2000.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach, further to Parliamentary Question No. 1 of 17 December 1997, the progress being made by his Department in implementing Partnership 2000 and the further development of the social partnership process. [17454/99]
John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the next meeting of the Central Review Committee is scheduled to take place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17458/99]
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the Government's views on the negotiation of a new national agreement to replace Partnership 2000; the discussions, if any, which have taken place with the social partners in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17459/99]
John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with IBEC; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17410/99]
John Bruton
Question:6 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meeting with ICTU; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17411/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the outcome of his meetings with the social partners on 13 September; when he expects the negotiations for a new national agreement will open; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17738/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:8 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the outcome of the Partnership 2000 plenary meeting on 27 July last. [17739/99]
John Bruton
Question:9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will provide details of his recent correspondence or meetings with the competitiveness council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17756/99]
John Bruton
Question:10 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when the NESC strategy report will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17769/99]
John Bruton
Question:11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will elaborate on the points he made in his speech on 28 September 1999 at the launch of the National Centre for Partnership; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18644/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his address on 28 September 1999 to the annual conference of the National Centre for Partnership. [18905/99]
Joe Higgins
Question:13 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with employers' organisations and trade union leaders. [19161/99]
Joe Higgins
Question:14 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for further discussions with the social partners. [19756/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:15 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has received the report he commissioned from NESC entitled Opportunities, Challenges and Capacities for Change Overview; if so, the response, if any, he has to the report's findings; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19987/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, together.
Social partnership has played a hugely significant role in the transformation of Ireland over the past decade in both economic and social inclusion terms. The Government is deeply committed to the process, as exemplified by the latest progress report on Partnership 2000 which has been placed in the Oireachtas Library.
The development of the partnership model has been a priority and this is, perhaps, most clearly illustrated by the wide-ranging and systematic monitoring mechanisms in place and the establishment of the National Centre for Partnership. The further development of the model in the years ahead remains a priority, particularly in terms of deepening partnership at enterprise level but, for that to happen, there must be confidence on the part of all participants that the terms agreed will apply.
Against that general background, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and I met with representatives of IBEC and ICTU separately on 13 September. We conveyed the Government's concern at the apparent willingness of some groups to substitute strikes and industrial conflict for the partnership approach and a corresponding concern that the terms of Partnership 2000 should be honoured fully by all sides. We emphasised that the Government has honoured the terms of the present and previous partnership agreements, especially in the area of public service pay.
It is clear that IBEC and ICTU share the Government's view that social partnership has delivered substantially in terms of employment creation, higher living standards across the board, better public services, and improved public finances.
In our meeting with ICTU specifically, it was agreed that social partnership is only possible in a climate of trust, based on the honouring of commitments. It was further agreed that, in the present context, developments in any part of the public service cannot be viewed in isolation but will have direct implications for pay and conditions generally, through established relativities. This reinforces the importance of developing a new framework for the management of public service pay in its entirety. My recent address to the National Centre for Partnership was anchored on these points.
It was also agreed with ICTU that social partnership could evolve to support a continuing improvement in living standards, keeping the benefits of a high value-added, high income and socially inclusive economy. It was further agreed that discussions on the shape of a renewed model of social partnership, to succeed Partnership 2000, would continue. These would include the shaping of a consensus through the forthcoming NESC strategy report, the continuing talks on a new framework for managing public service pay and the radical investment programme set out in the national development plan.
On the NDP specifically, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Finance and I held a final round of consultations with the social partners last week. The consultations were most helpful to all sides and the general reaction was very positive. That in itself holds special importance since the plan will represent an important building block for the next stage of social partnership.
Regarding the July plenary meeting of Partnership 2000, the main item on the agenda was an overview assessment of progress on social inclusion. The principal areas covered were unemployment, educational disadvantage, income adequacy, urban disadvantage, rural poverty and equality issues. Subsequently, the Government and the social partners met in secretariat format on 29 September and will meet again in plenary mode to review overall implementation.
In response to Deputy Bruton's question on the National Competitiveness Council, I met with the chairman and a number of members of the council on 13 July. The members briefed me on papers they had prepared on the issues of social cohesion, telecommunications and e-commerce, and skills. This was one of a series of meetings between the council and relevant Government Ministers.
Subsequently, on 13 September, the competitiveness council published a Statement on Social Partnership which concludes that "social partnership has been central to the significant social and economic progress made in Ireland over the past ten years". The council believes it is essential that formal partnership agreements are maintained and has identified a number of issues pivotal to Ireland's international competitiveness which need to be addressed in a new agreement. I share the council's views in this regard.
As regards the work programme of the NESC, I understand this will be settled by the council on the completion of its strategy report at the end of this month. The council and the NESF are now sharing premises and support services. I expect that the legislation to place both bodies and their shared support structure on a statutory basis will be published before the end of this session.
I understand that the report, Opportunities, Challenges and Capacities for Change Overview, referred to by Deputy Quinn is the working title for the NESC strategy. I have not sought copies of the various drafts prepared to date and do not propose to do so. The final report will contain the considered view of the social partners and I propose to wait for this considered view.
Does the Taoiseach agree his urgings in regard to social partnership would be more persuasive if the Government led by example in regard to partnership? Why has partnership broken down between the Government and the unions representing the nursing profession?
The Labour Court decision is there to be accepted. The nurses asked for a due process when they asked that some of the issues in the nursing commission report should be dealt with by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has made those decisions. I do not wish to answer for the nurses, but, for our part, the Government has honoured the terms of the present and previous partnership agreements in relation to nurses.
The agreed terms have been applied fully in respect of the public service, including nurses. The outcomes of adjudication through agreed procedures have been accepted by the Government. Modernisation of the public service has been promoted on the basis of partnership. The development of partnership at enterprise level and the associated measures of gain sharing have been accepted by us. Most importantly, discussions have commenced with the public service unions on a new approach to public service pay. Those have been ongoing since the beginning of the year. They have not reached a conclusion but they are proceeding successfully. From the Government's point of view, we have honoured our commitments, especially in the pay area.
As regards the nurses, I urge the profession to take account of the national interest and to accept what is on offer so that we can all move forward with the new agreement, which is what the Minister for Health and Children said to them last night.
Does the Taoiseach accept that one could form the impression that he regards a strike as inevitable at this stage, that the issue is on autopilot until the strike begins and that we have a situation in which the Government acts as if it were not a party to the dispute and were simply a dispassionate observer of an event which could lead to one of the worst human tragedies in recent Irish history in which people will die due to lack of treatment because of this industrial dispute?
No, one could not take it from my view that all these matters are automatic. I hold the view Deputy Bruton held a few years ago, that strike action is contrary to Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work . There is no need for a strike. I have great respect for the nurses, their work and their integrity, and all their unions have to do is accept what they asked for. They asked the Labour Court to examine the outcome of the nurses' commission and to deliberate on that, and that was done. They received due process, which indicated that the Government should pay according to the outcome, and it accepted that. That is how the matter stands.
If we were to transfer the Government's attitude to the nurses' strike and apply it to Northern Ireland, would the Government have given up a long time ago trying to find a solution to the problem of Northern Ireland? Is it simply because the nurses are seen as a group, to quote the Minister for Finance, bent on creating national chaos that the Government can take this hands-off attitude? Does the Taoiseach agree that, when there is a 9:1 rejection of a decision or recommendation of the Labour Court, followed by a 9:1 endorsement of strike action, somewhere between both sides communication has broken down and that, at the very least, the nation expects the Government to reopen dialogue with that group of people which so massively rejected the decision of the Labour Court, following due process? Does the Taoiseach agree that, if he and his colleagues were to adopt the same attitude of inevitability and lethargy in respect of Northern Ireland, we would never have made the progress we made on that part of this island? Why can the same sense of commitment not now be brought to this process?
I will not begin to make analogies between Northern Ireland and a dispute in any sector of industrial relations. I will try to give the Deputy the answer which I believe to be the case. The Labour Court issued three main findings on nurses in the recent past. It has spent four years on this and the chairman and his panel recently spent more time on this issue than anything else. In February 1997, 17 per cent of an increase was given to the nurses. The due process stated they deserved it and it was given and was paid for. A Commission on Nursing was established which resulted in another £85 million being granted and paid for. In February 1999 the issue of special allowances arose. That cost £25 million. In August 1999 the process had moved on, with 10 per cent being granted to ward sisters, additional annual leave and a lump sum of £1,250 per person which cost £40 million overall. Through all that, the discussions in the Commission on Nursing continued and they clocked up £50 million in pay costs. In no sense do I believe in taking a hard line in disputes. One must talk and discuss. In this case, that is precisely what we did. The Labour Court finding on nurses' pay of 31 August, together with the earlier finding of February this year on specialists' allowances, and the significant improvements which have already been conceded in overtime payments and incremental credit will cost £110 million this year. The lump sum alone will cost £40 million this year and £70 million a year thereafter. That is on top of the £85 million in February 1997 which is within the same period of this whole programme.
The combined value of these improvements on an ongoing basis, more than £150 million, equates to 23 per cent on average. It is always wrong to take averages, so I will give the exact figures. When the latest Labour Court finding is implemented, and taking account of the general and special increases, the maximum salary of a staff nurse will have increased by £88 a week, 26 per cent, and that of ward sisters will have increased by £144 a week or more than 37 per cent compared to the rates which applied in 1997. By way of comparison, the CSO index of average weekly earnings for the public sector, excluding health, shows an increase of £43 a week or 11 per cent between December 1996 and March 1999. The February 1997 award provided for special pay increases of 17 per cent.
The previous Government – and I have supported the figures since we came into Government – allowed for an increase under the PCW from 3 per cent to about 5.5 per cent. However, at that time there was an increase of 17 per cent in special pay. Significant additional pay costs were subsequently incurred in respect of additional posts and acting allowances. In November last year agreement was reached on national overtime arrangements for nursing grades which I also strongly supported because until then nurses' overtime pay rates were not clear. In February of this year the Labour Court recommended that the locations specialist qualification allowance be increased from £333 to £1,000 for nurses in the specialist area and £1,500 where they have a specialist qualification. Many staff nurses and a significant number of ward sisters benefited from that. At the same time – a point I made earlier – the Labour Court recommended significant improvements in the incremental staffing arrangements for temporary staff. The latest offer, if it is taken up, and I hope it will be, will increase the maximum salary of ward sisters from £20,023 or £384 a week before the 1997 settlement to £27,522 or £527 a week, an increase of more than 37 per cent, inclusive of general and special increases. The maximum pay of a staff nurse has increased over the same period of two and half years from £17,747 or £340 per week to £22,339 or £482 a week, an increase of 26 per cent. Public health nurses' salaries have increased by 36 per cent.
On the basis of the PCW and Partnership 2000 nurses have done very well out of the State. That is what I believe, and that is why we cannot pay any more.
I will respond to what the Taoiseach has put on the record. Is it not extraordinary that, notwithstanding all that the Taoiseach has listed so extensively, the general public and the nurses themselves believe they have a good case and, more to the point, the general public believe there is a crisis in our health service of greater proportions than simply money can solve? If, faced with what the Taoiseach has just read out, there is still a 9:1 rejection and a 9:1 ballot for strike action, surely there is something deeply wrong with our health system. Surely it is time to move this debate beyond the question of money, because clearly money will not solve it, and construct a national forum on our health service to see what will solve it. The Taoiseach would readily agree that as he speaks, and notwithstanding those increases, there are 900 nursing vacancies in the Eastern Health Board alone and many of the graduates who come out of our nurse training institutions immediately emigrate. We therefore have a serious crisis in the health system that requires something more than a sense of inevitability as we drift hopelessly towards the chaos that will undoubtedly happen next week. What new, innovative measure does the Taoiseach propose to avoid that catastrophe and put the health service back on the sound footing it needs?
There is some merit in the Deputy's recommendation to proceed in an organised and balanced way. That is why a huge effort went into the report of the Commission on Nursing. Subject to correction, I believe the report contained approximately 202 recommendations of which three have been addressed and the remainder await action. In time they will help all aspects of the nursing profession.
Given that almost 100 per cent of nurses voted for strike action, they should work on the report of the Commission on Nursing to try to correct matters. We should try to implement the report's recommendations. We have already spent £50 million on the non-pay aspects and we have never said pay was the only issue. It is necessary to deal with all the issues involved, and the Minister for Health and Children and the Government want the nurses to proceed on that basis.
We dealt with three of the report's recommendations because pay was an issue. The Deputy and I might think the award should not be given and that, based on these figures, the nurses effectively got six times more than the average public service worker, even though they were not behind others, either domestically or internationally. However, I do not wish to argue about that. I put those figures on the record and I do not want to repeat them. The nurses can work on the recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Nursing and try to improve the profession.
With regard to the Deputy's argument on the health issue, I used to believe that money would solve the health crisis when there was a crisis. This year £3.5 billion has been spent on health, an increase of 10 per cent on last year. In a short period of time – I am sure the Deputy agrees that two years and three or four months is a short period – the Minister for Health and Children has spent £800 million extra on the health service. Comparing like with like over a similar period when the Deputy was Minister for Finance, he sanctioned £400 million, yet the Minister has allocated £800 million. Staffing levels have increased by 6,000. I hope the extra money and staff will have some impact, but I do not believe that is the issue here.
The nurses had a case and they put it. Three times in the course of a short period they got special attention. They also got special adjudication, which has been sanctioned and ratified. I have the greatest respect for nurses and the nursing profession, but I and my colleagues must take everybody into account. We cannot continue to pay hundreds of million of pounds to one sector while expecting other sectors to quietly acquiesce. The gardaí and bus, DART and local authority workers are now queuing up to take strike action because they accepted a 3 per cent pay increase in the first instance, but then saw a coach and carriage driven through it not once but three times by the nurses. That is the reality.
If the nurses believe they have got so far but are still aggrieved they can use due process under the aegis of the report of the Commission on Nursing, the new public service pay determination system and the post-Partnership 2000 talks. They can use all or one of these mechanisms to prolong their case, but we cannot give any more and will not during this round.
Will the Taoiseach agree, as he said, it is not all about money and that this dispute is about people? Does he agree it is about patients who will lose their lives if the dispute goes ahead and that, regardless of how they are paid or what has been offered to them, nurses feel they are not being valued as a profession? Does he also agree it is a communications disaster on the part of the Government that the nursing profession is in this state and that nurses do not feel valued and do not feel that the Government is listening to them? They cannot hear the list of statistics the Taoiseach has just given. As people well know in politics, when one is explaining, one is losing and one is certainly losing when one is listing statistics, as the Taoiseach is now doing. Will the Taoiseach agree that personal contact needs to be resumed between the Government and the nursing unions with a view to establishing that the Government wants to resolve the issue and to reach an accommodation, not just on the financial issues but on the valuing issues as far as the profession is concerned, so that nurses will feel they count and that the Government is willing to listen to them?
As soon as the Labour Court made a determination on 31 August – that was a Tuesday and the Government met on Wednesday – out of respect for the nurses and their case, we agreed that morning and by lunch time the Minister for Health and Children was indicating that we were prepared to accept it even though the cost was high. When the Nursing Commission report was published, the Minister tried to ensure that its recommendations were delivered speedily. He was prepared to implement the recommendations and £50 million has already been expended on the non-pay aspects; the pay issue has gone through the Labour Court system. This Government and previous Governments have recognised the value of the nursing profession. This is why they have received substantial increases. Facts were put on the record, not just statistics. There is a view that no one wishes to become a nurse. However, this year there were 5:1 student nurse applications to posts throughout the country. Admittedly, some hospitals are short nursing staff, nevertheless there is a big demand for student nurse places.
The Government will continue to work to solve this problem. I am sure Deputies Bruton and Quinn will agree there is no need for a strike. People asked for due process and adjudication, they put a claim forward and this has been paid. There is no outstanding claim because the Labour Court has dealt with the issue. In the normal course of industrial relations since the foundation of the State, it would be difficult for a Government to pay out a claim which has not been made. In this case it was agreed to pay the claim. If there are outstanding issues – I am not saying that every nurse is happy because almost 100 per cent of them have voted against the Labour Court recommendations – there are ways of progressing these matters under the new public service pay determination rules and under the next round, which apply also to other sectors who have a grievance. I have to deal with these grievances which Governments do not like, but it is unacceptable, given that special claims were made in 1997, 1998 and 1999, which resulted in far greater increases for one sector, with the Government conceding each time, a claim is rejected and not even put to the membership. This cannot and will not be allowed to happen.
I hope that when the unions sit down tomorrow with the public service management agency workers they will agree the emergency plan if a way of resolving the dispute cannot be found. However, the Government is prepared to work on the outstanding issues in the following context: (a) the new pay determination being discussed with the unions; (b) in the next programme; (c) under the Nursing Commission but not by way of a gun being put to the Government's head. That will not be allowed to happen.
I have queries relating to the other questions answered by the Taoiseach. On this issue I invite the Taoiseach to consider my suggestion, that is, by his own words he is implying that notwithstanding the substantial amounts of money voted in this House and allocated by the present Government to the health services, the vast majority of people who have direct contact with the health services believe there is a crisis. That is what I am told on the street, in the context of my public encounters, and I suspect this is true also for other Deputies. Let me give specific examples.
The Deputy should ask the Taoiseach a question.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the ordinary public is bemused that there are operating theatres in the most expensive hospital the country has ever built lying vacant for lack of staff, that beds and wards have been closed for lack of staff, that the waiting list is still 33,000 or 34,000, a figure which is possibly understated, and that there is something seriously wrong with our health system? Because of this, will the Taoiseach consider my proposal for a forum on the health service and health system we should have, not just a commission on nurses, because quite clearly this problem goes beyond the problems of the nurses, deep and grave though they clearly are?
I noted the Deputy's proposal and no doubt he will raise it again with my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children. However, there are more people being treated today in in-patient, out-patient and elective and emergency services than ever before. There has been an extension of services and an upgrading of equipment. As long as there is somebody on the waiting lists we can say it is a problem or a crisis, but the enormous level of resources that has been put into dealing with waiting lists in terms of initiatives and in dealing with new specialities is growing every year and will continue to grow. We have increased the staffing levels and the professionalism of the service like never before. Funding of £800 million, with 10 per cent this year, in a short period of time is a huge sum of money. The capital programme is enormous. Of course there are still difficulties and members of the public will say this as long as there is someone on any waiting list. However, enormous improvements have been made in the quality, type and standards of our hospitals and I am sure any other question can be directed to the Minister for Health and Children.
(Dublin West): Has the Taoiseach seen figures and statistics which clearly show that since 1987 the process of national agreements has been used to keep wage increases for ordinary workers to minimum levels while at the same time profits, dividends and rentals for private landlords have been allowed free reign to go through the roof? Has the Taoiseach seen figures which show that in terms of percentages there has been a huge transfer in the section of national production going from workers to the business sector and the landlord class? Does the Taoiseach accept that the calls of Government and employers for workers to again set aside demands for realistic pay increases which might make up for what I have outlined carry no authority whatever in view of these facts – and they are facts? Does he further accept that the Government and employers have no credibility whatever with ordinary workers given that while they were being taken for a ride in this way, while PAYE workers were being tax compliant, some big businesses and senior politicians involved in the Ansbacher conspiracy were further robbing them blind since 1987 through tax fraud and other means, above and beyond the super profits they made as a result of the national deals? Does the Taoiseach seriously believe that workers will take his sermons and those of employers seriously when they talk about tightening their belts further in view of the sad history since 1987?
I hope I am not engaged in sermons – it is not in my profession and I would not like to do it. However, the lessons of the 1980s should not be forgotten. I remember the days when there were wage increases of 20 per cent with inflation running at 21 per cent and 22 per cent, but there was nothing in it for workers. The Deputy seems to be again calling for high nominal wage increases. I haven't heard that mentioned by organised labour in Ireland since the 1970s. High nominal wage increases between 1980 and 1987 produced a reduction of about 5 per cent in take home pay for the average worker and employment fell by 6 per cent. The more moderate wage increases since 1987, the period taken by the Deputy, have produced an increase in take home pay of more than 25 per cent for the average worker, while the number employed is more than 500,000. The consensus approach supported by the trade unions and all the political parties in this House during that period led to those successful policies in contrast to the failed policies of the past, none of which I would advocate. I strongly urge people, therefore, to concentrate on what has been achieved in the last decade in considering a post-partnership agreement.
Will the Taoiseach reflect on what he would think about a private employer who allowed such a wide communications gap to develop between what the employer and the employees saw as the reality, as wide as the gap that has developed between the Government and the nursing profession? Does the Taoiseach agree that whatever about the details – he has given many details, none of which I dispute, about the various awards and so on – the gap in perception indicates that genuine partnership may be working in the private sector but it is certainly not working as between the Government and the nursing profession so far as the health service is concerned and that there is something wrong with the system of communication between Government and nurses in hospitals and elsewhere that there is such a radically different point of view between the two sides?
I cannot disagree with the Deputy, there is clearly a difference of view but that is what arbitration and the Labour Court system are about. In this case we had our view and the nurses had theirs—
Where are the Taoiseach's famous hands-on communications skills, his ability to fix things?
Does the Deputy remember that when I used to do that he used to say I was interfering with the Labour Court?
I did not say that. The Taoiseach was happy to trumpet his achievements when he had any.
The Deputy did not believe in social partnership at that time.
I do not want to be sidetracked but that is what the Labour Court is about. In this case the Government and the nurses held a different view. All the nurses asked was that there be due process. We were reluctant to go to the Labour Court to hear the case for a third time, which it decided on its merits. It came down very much on the side of the nurses and we agreed to pay. There was no other issue or claim. I accept the point on the wider health service issues in respect of which the Minister, Deputy Cowen, has paid out £50 million. The Health Service Employers Agency attempted to discuss non-pay issues with the Nursing Alliance. The union side, however, refused to engage until such time as the pay issues were resolved. I can only come to the sad conclusion therefore that it is not, as some Deputies are saying, about the wider health service issues but about pay. This is based on three of the recommendations of the substantive report of the nursing commission. I urge the nursing unions to examine and work through its 1999 recommendations. If connected pay issues arise they can make the claim again, but I cannot defend a situation where all organised workers across the entire public service have been asked to live within the terms of the PCW, some of whom accepted very low increases at the beginning, while another group receives enormous increases. I would readily resolve something that needed to be resolved, but I do not believe paying out more in this instance would be fair to the remainder of the organised community who sup port the social partnership agreement, and I do not have any intention of trying.
In his reply, the Taoiseach talked about the prospect for a new agreement and referred to the NESC. It is generally conceded that the four agreements we have witnessed since 1987 were coming from a position where we had to solve problems that had arisen. The Taoiseach referred to them earlier. The draft of the NESC report that was published in The Irish Times suggests that a new approach will be needed to reconstruct social partnership. Will the Government put a proposal for a new form of social partnership – for a new set of priorities that might put together social partnership – following discussions which might lead to an agreement? If so, when does the Taoiseach propose to outline that? Second, does the Taoiseach think comments from a senior Minister such as “Everybody with any half brain” or “You would want to be a half-wit” in relation to industrial relations, is the kind of constructive dialogue that will enhance the quality of the debate, ensuring the arrival of consensus agreement?
In industrial relations matters language is very important and I agree that people should be careful.
The Taoiseach will have to stop it happening.
We will make suggestions. A number of issues are being looked at, including social cohesion, cost, technology, skills and training. I propose that we include those in discussions, after what I hope will be a successful outcome in early November. There are many new concepts that we can look at and many initiatives have been suggested. I am open to discussing them with the social partners. As the Deputy suggested, we should put some of them forward. Some suggestions are coming already from the competitiveness council report which I mentioned in my reply. Others came from the meetings I had with the social partners on 13 September and from meetings I had last week – and earlier in the summer – on the national development plan. Agreeing a new social partnership programme, and the need to ensure that it is widely understood, is very important. Looking at initiatives as part of that process, as the Deputy has mentioned, is also important, and I support that.
There is a haemorrhaging of nursing staff from our health services so, clearly, something vital is missing from the nursing profession. Yesterday, members of the North-Eastern Health Board, the joint committees of the North-Eastern Health Board—
Ceist, le do thoil, a Theachta.
I am moving to my question.
Deputy Ó Caoláin, a question please.
Yesterday, the members of the North-Eastern Health Board unanimously endorsed a last minute appeal to the Minister for Health and Children to re-engage with the representatives of the nursing organisations. Recognising that that included representatives of his own party in four of the counties in the north east, will the Taoiseach seek to ensure that the Minister for Health and Children will respond positively to this last minute appeal, in the face of a dangerous situation for everybody?
I would refer the Deputy to the extremely positive statement made by the Minister last night. If that statement was taken up, much progress could be made in the next few years in assisting the nursing profession on the basis that I outlined earlier.
Would the Taoiseach agree that the nurses' organisation is a responsible body that will not go headlong into a national strike without a just cause? The Taoiseach should urge his Minister to enter dialogue—
A question please, Deputy.
—with the nurses' organisation to find out the roots of this strike. The Taoiseach has said it is chiefly a financial question but I know it is not. Even at this late hour, both the Taoiseach and the Minister should use their influence and good offices to meet the nurses' organisation to find a just remedy to this grievance.
If it is not a financial issue, the Minister has not ruled out talking further about the nursing commission report and all the outstanding issues. I have no reason to doubt that the nursing groups are responsible; I am sure they are. They would convince me of that if tomorrow, when they meet the Health Service Employers Agency, they agree the proposals put by that responsible body on the emergency service for next week in the event of the strike going ahead. I hope they will do that and, if they do, they would prove to us that they are responsible.
I will take a final brief supplementary from Deputy Joe Higgins and Deputy Bruton.
(Dublin West): I ask the Taoiseach to reflect on his error in blaming inflation in the 1970s on workers' wage demands when wage demands were chasing massive price increases, for which workers were not responsible, given that many of the influences were imported. Will he address the issue of credibility of Government and employers, which he signally failed to do in my previous question? Does he accept that in the minds of the nurses there are bitter memories of the major cuts in the late 1980s and of the tax amnesty, which the Taoiseach awarded to the millionaire tax dodgers, which were responsible for severe cuts in the health services? Does he also accept there is a major question over the Government's credibility in that he is trying to hold back the nurses? Will he address the disparity of national income going to big business as opposed to workers as a result of agreements? Will he agree, in particular, that when the Government is seeking a new agreement, the level of private rented accommodation and house prices should be frozen if workers are to be asked to make further sacrifices on wage increases? What does he say to low paid workers about this? Does he think that home helps on £3 an hour should be restricted for the next ten years while employers massively increase their profits?
Acting Chairman
I will call on Deputy Bruton to put a final supplementary and the Taoiseach can then respond to the two Deputies.
Is the Taoiseach aware that public representatives in Galway were contacted by senior authorities in Portiuncula Hospital today and told that that hospital, effectively, will be closed down if the strike goes ahead at the weekend and virtually all the current patients will be removed from the hospital? If that happens in Portiuncula Hospital, which is an advanced hospital, it will happen elsewhere. The results of this will be truly devastating for families. I do not say this in a critical way. I know the Taoiseach is as concerned as everybody else, perhaps more than most, about the crisis we are facing, but I wonder does the House really appreciate the seriousness of the crisis we will face in the next week, a crisis that will be lasting in its effects. Surely something can be done to find a breakthrough in this before a strike starts. If nurses appear on the picket line outside hospitals, it will be harder to get them back in.
I accept Deputy Bruton was being constructive in the way he put his point. It is of major concern to the Government that nurses would withdraw their excellent services. We do not wish them to do that. For months during this year we have endeavoured to assist them in every way we could. The only way we could do that was pay them practically everything that was requested and we did that. We have honoured every agreement and arbitration, but we have come to the bottom line. I am repeating myself on this. We accepted the Labour Court's award, but it was thrown out with the click of a finger and considered to be of no use. Some said that the £37.5 million and the £1,250 was an insult. It certainly was not meant that way. All we did was accepted the Labour Court award and agreed to pay the £150 million in a very short period. The elderly and those who are not well will suffer as a result of a strike, and we do not want that to happen. It does not matter what I believe, the way around it is for the nurses to accept the Labour Court award and continue to follow what they believe are their legitimate claims – not to do as they are doing at present. There are well tried and tested ways of dealing with industrial relations, but they are not being followed in this dispute.
As regards the point made by Deputy Joe Higgins, I said the lessons of the 1980s should not be forgotten when high nominal wage increases between 1980 and 1987 caused a reduction of 5 per cent in take home pay for the average worker and employment fell by 6 per cent. Against that, when moderation was practised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, affiliated unions and employers, take home pay went up by 25 per cent and employment rose to more than 560,000. Services increased, taxes at 65 per cent, which were penal 12 or 14 years ago, came down to 46 per cent and 26 per cent. The bands have widened and services have improved. Things are better for workers and employers are making money. The Deputy and I will not agree on this, but I do not have a problem with an employer making money if he employs somebody. I would rather see him using his money to create employment than hiding it away in an Ansbacher account.
(Dublin West): What about exploitation?
We are bringing in a minimum wage.
(Dublin West): £4.40 an hour.
Young people are getting further education so things have improved. Sometimes I believe the Deputy's clock stopped in the 1970s.
In the 18th century.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach's clock stopped then.
Things have moved on and will continue to move. I know everything is not perfect but things have improved.
The luxury of the soapbox.