Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 29 March 2007
3 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Health and Children the progress made to date in negotiations with the INO and the psychiatric nurses on pay and conditions; if she expects a successful conclusion to these negotiations before the general election; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12269/07]
View answerThe issues of nurses' pay and working hours have been fully processed through the State's industrial relations structures and procedures, the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. While health service management has accepted the Labour Court recommendation, the Irish Nurses Organisation and Psychiatric Nurses Association state they have neither accepted nor rejected this recommendation and have instead served notice of industrial action.
The INO and PNA had been due to commence industrial action on 12 March. This action would have involved a nationwide work-to-rule and short work stoppages. Following contacts between Government representatives and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, it was agreed to put in place an intensive time bound process of engagement under the aegis of the national implementation body, NIB, to address the issues underpinning the dispute and take account of the relevant Labour Court recommendations. The INO and PNA agreed to postpone their industrial action until 2 April.
The talks commenced on 12 March and are due to conclude tomorrow. In addition to the INO and the PNA, SIPTU, which is not in dispute, is represented at the talks. The negotiations concentrate on two main issues: the claim for a reduction in the working week from 39 to 35 hours and the perceived pay anomaly in the intellectual disability sector. The NIB has requested both sides to refrain from public comment on the discussions while the process is ongoing, and this has been agreed by the parties. At the end of this week, a detailed position statement is due to be prepared by the NIB and presented to both sides for their consideration. I believe this process is the best prospect of finding a satisfactory solution and officials from my Department and the HSE are fully and positively engaged in the process.
I welcome the positive engagement of the Minister's officials and the HSE because that is what the INO wanted. Does the Minister accept the INO is also positively engaged and has made an enormous contribution to our health service? Does she agree nurses are the backbone of the health service in many ways?
I was struck by the Minister's reply to a previous question which impacts on this matter. Did she state nurses in private hospitals will be on the public payroll?
No.
Clarification is needed on this because she cited Sweden as an example in the comments she made yesterday to the Select Committee on Health and Children. Is it correct that some of the nursing facilities in Sweden are provided by the private sector? The INO is not enthusiastic about the proposal to co-locate hospitals. Will the nurses who operate in these hospitals act in a private capacity and will they be members of trade unions? Does the Minister foresee any difficulties in that regard?
I agree that nurses are the backbone of the health system. They represent 35% of those who work in the system and are there 24-hours per day, seven days per week. They spend considerably longer periods with hospital patients than any other group of workers and do a fantastic job. In recent years, we have elevated nursing to a graduate level profession, with eight applicants for every place, and have greatly increased the number of nurses. I am a strong fan of enhancing the role of nurses and that is why I recently provided for nurse prescribing.
With regard to the private hospital initiative, all the nurses who care for patients in private beds in public hospitals are on the public payroll, so we will not have to employ additional nurses or incur further payroll costs. To the best of my knowledge, the nurses who work in the private health system have the same pay and conditions and belong to the same trade unions as public nurses. I am not aware of any issues in that regard. It is not for me to decide whether a facility is unionised but I do not think anyone is suggesting that freedom of association should be curtailed.
I wanted a transcript of Mr. Finn's presentation. Under the Minister's proposal, it is interesting that private operators can provide these services at a cheaper rate. Could they also, therefore, provide public beds at a cheaper rate? Could public beds not be built using private operators?
Building costs are the same but that is not the issue. I visited Sweden where I met the managers of St. Goran's Hospital. It used to be managed by the state until the socialist government transferred its management to the private sector. The private company received the same amount the year it took over as the government had provided the previous year. Not only did the company make a profit but it exceeded all its targets. No issues or difficulties have arisen with the employees. I made a reference yesterday to doing that here and the hullabaloo that would result. I am not even contemplating it but governments all over Europe are doing this. For example, hospitals have been transferred in France, Germany and the Netherlands.
All beds are built by private contractors and, whether they are contracted by the State or privately, the construction costs do not differ. However, the issue is the cost of running the beds and the speed at which they can be delivered. We have an endless public procurement process and projects such as schools take a considerable period from the time the green button is pressed until completion.
