Written Answers. - Public Health Doctors Dispute.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:
325
Mr. Durkan
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reason the underlying causes of the dispute which has culminated in industrial action by public health providers, were not dealt with in the recent partnership discussions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[14436/03]
John Deasy
Question:
340
Mr. Deasy
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the efforts being made to resolve the present dispute with public health doctors; and the reason the recommendations of the Brennan review carried out in 1994 have not been implemented.
[14514/03]
John Deasy
Question:
342
Mr. Deasy
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
when it is proposed to pay salary arrears due to public health doctors which are being withheld since 1994; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[14516/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 325, 340 and 342 together.
I wish to clarify that the public health review, also known as the Brennan review, commenced in 1999 and published its recommendations in April 2002, not in 1994 as the Deputy stated. The Brennan review was charged with reviewing the operations of the public health departments and community public health medical services of the health boards in the context of the 1994 memorandum of agreement between the Department and the Irish Medical Organisation and with considering future developments for these services. The group consisted of representatives of the Department of Health and Children, the health boards and the IMO. There was agreement on many of the matters considered by the group, including the need for a formally structured out-of-hours arrangement. There was one main area of disagreement, however. The IMO held the view that public health directors and specialists should have parity with hospital consultants, while management felt that this was outside the terms of reference of the group. The report did not make a recommendation on the matter and the chairman recognised that any such issues as referred to by the official side would have to be the subject of industrial relations negotiations.
The report also acknowledged that there might be a need to revisit the recommendations in relation to public health following the implementation of proposed changes recommended by the health strategy and the primary care strategy. Formal and informal talks have been held with the IMO on these issues since the publication of the Brennan report. The issues central to the public health doctors' dispute have been the subject of negotiations between the IMO and management, comprising officials from the Health Service Employers Agency, the Department of Health and Children and the health boards over the last 12 months, initially through joint discussions and in more recent times under the aegis of the Labour Relations Commission.
Efforts have been made at the highest level to reach a satisfactory conclusion since the IMO commenced strike action. In this regard, I wish to state that management has made a substantial offer to the IMO. On 14 March at informal talks at the LRC, management made an offer of 10.5%, excluding benchmarking, through the independent chair. This offer was confirmed in writing by the HSEA on 18 March. The application of such an increase, as well as the increases awarded to public health doctors under benchmarking and the national agreement, Sustaining Progress, would result in increases of between €11,000 and €29,000 for public health doctors between now and 2005. The HSEA also asked the IMO to agree to have all outstanding issues referred to the Labour Court. Unfortunately, the IMO did not agree to this request and a strike started on 14 April. I have asked the IMO to return to the negotiating table on at least three occasions since then. In addition, the national implementation body has urged the IMO to suspend its strike and to avail of the industrial relations mechanisms in accordance with the conditions of the national pay agreement, Sustaining Progress.
Exploratory talks took place at the LRC with the HSEA and officials from my Department earlier this month. At these talks, management indicated its willingness to discuss the implementation of the recommendations of the Brennan report, including the development of a structured out-of-hours system. In addition, the above mentioned increase of 10.5% was again offered. During these talks, management stressed that the issue of the granting of consultant status to directors and specialists was not the subject of a recommendation by the review group on public health. The 30% pay increase called for by the public health doctors is in addition to the provisions of Sustaining Progress. The IMO was not only involved in the discussions leading to the recent social partnership agreement but, in its role as a member of ICTU, was also a signatory, indicating its acceptance of the agreement. By their acceptance, the parties involved have agreed to preclude strikes or other forms of industrial action and when local negotiations prove to be unsuccessful they have agreed to refer to the LRC or the Labour Court.
The signatories of Sustaining Progress have committed themselves to stable industrial relations and the maintenance of a well-managed industrial relations environment to minimise disputes affecting the level of service to the public. The national implementation body emphasised this when, in its press release of 24 April, it called on the IMO to suspend its strike action and to agree to a referral of the matter to the Labour Court. Across the health system, different levels of staff enter claims about a variety of issues related to their terms and conditions of employment. If each of these claims was to be conceded without challenge, the resources available would not be used effectively. There are general frameworks – such as the various pay agreements – within which any such claims have to be examined and considered. There is also the formal industrial relations machinery through which valid claims must be processed. It is not within my power, nor that of my Department, the HSEA or any other agent of management, simply to concede major pay claims just because they have been demanded. Such a concession is not given to any group in the health system or the wider public services.
The national implementation body has urged the IMO to suspend its strike and to avail of the industrial relations mechanisms in accordance with the conditions of the Sustaining Progress. Efforts are currently being made under the aegis of this body to identify a basis on which negotiations can be resumed, leading to a resolution of the issues in dispute.
