Alan Shatter
Ceist:1 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Health and Children the action, if any, he will take to resolve the nurses pay dispute and to ensure a nurses strike does not occur. [18424/99]
Priority Questions. - Nurses Dispute.
Liz McManus
Ceist:2 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Health and Children the steps, if any, he will take to avert the threatened industrial action by members of the nursing profession and to resolve the issues leading to the current problems; the contingency action he will take to ensure the continuation of essential medical services in the event of a strike going ahead, and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18427/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Labour Court finding of 31 August 1999, rejected by nurses, includes among other elements: (a) increases of 10 per cent for ward sister and other higher grades; (b) significant improvements in annual leave, namely, an extra three days for staff nurses and an extra four days for promotional grades; and (c) a lump sum of £1,250 for all nurses contingent upon acceptance of the recommendation. When the latest Labour Court finding is implemented, the maximum salary of ward sisters will have increased by more than 37 per cent inclusive of general and special increases since before the 1997 settlement. The maximum pay of staff nurses has increased over the same period by almost 26 per cent. Many staff nurses and a significant number of ward sisters also stand to benefit from substantial increases in location and specialist qualification allowances recommended by the court in February 1999.
The Labour Court's finding represented the culmination of a lengthy negotiating process on nurses pay and conditions that has taken four years to complete. The court itself acknowledged that over the past two years nurses have justifiably improved their position not just financially but in terms of gaining recognition for the enhanced role of the profession.
I am glad to have this opportunity to reiterate that the Government is committed to paying the full terms of the Labour Court finding and as far as the Government is concerned that offer remains on the table. However, there is no possibility of improving upon the terms of the Labour Court finding. The Government also remains fully committed to implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Nursing which are designed to tackle the underlying problems within the profession and develop nursing and midwifery as a key profession within the health services.
Once again, I ask all nurses to reflect and consider the full implications before voting for strike action. Not only would such action be in direct breach of the industrial peace clause of Partnership 2000, it would endanger the entire national partnership approach which has served the country so well and above all it would inflict considerable hardship on patients and their families.
Last week the Taoiseach outlined a credible alternative to confrontation and a way forward that will provide a better outcome for all. That alternative is renewal of our commitment at national level to social partnership and a series of practical steps to a new partnership agreement. That national position must be combined with an approach to public service pay which is imaginative in ensuring that the income of public servants more closely reflects their performance and is not based on so-called traditional relativities. This is the context within which the aims and aspirations of public servants, including nurses, can best be met. However, if nurses vote for industrial action there is no avenue open to me to avert such action. All avenues have in fact been exhausted. In 1997 the Labour Court intervened to avert industrial action but on this occasion nurses have rejected the Labour Court finding.
Experience with regard to the full implications of a national nurses' strike is not available. The full range of health services is likely to be affected, including acute hospital services, community services such as nursing in the home, geriatric and long-stay hospital care. The extent to which the effects could be minimised will depend on agreement on the nature and extent of emergency cover. The Health Service Employers Agency will meet the alliance of nursing unions today to discuss the broad approach to ensuring that emergency and essential services will be maintained for the duration of the threatened strike. Management in all health agencies is currently drawing up detailed contingency plans for its own organisations. These will continue to be refined on the basis of discussions which will be held with local strike committees.
My Department is in direct contact with all the affected agencies and is identifying, in association with the HSEA, all the high risk areas within the health service. Eight regional centres are being established to provide an ongoing flow of information on a daily basis to the Department in relation to service disruption and to deal with communications with patients, impending patients and their families. A co-ordinated media information campaign in relation to the impact of the strike on the provision of services is being prepared.
Does the Minister agree that a nurses' strike would be a disaster for both our hospital services and our community services? Does he agree that it will exacerbate the waiting lists crisis that he is presiding over? Does he accept that nurses' pay should in reality be related to pay scales of other people working in the medical and treatment areas, and that the relativity arrangements between nurses' pay and the pay of others have long since ceased to be relevant to the real skills of nurses; that they are locked into a relativity system which dates back between 20 and 30 years and that a new system is necessary? Will the Minister indicate whether the Government is willing to take any steps to seek to avoid a strike so that nurses are not put in a position they do not wish to be in? Will he acknowledge that the confrontational style he has adopted on this issue to date is making a difficult situation a great deal worse?
I am not involved in any confrontational style. The Government has met its commitments and has entered into the agreed procedures recognised by everybody in industrial relations as the means by which matters can be resolved. We have honoured those commitments and abided by those procedures. We have gone to independent arbitration and accepted the outcome within 24 hours and said we would honour the Labour Court recommendation. Does the Deputy believe in independent arbitration? The Deputy is giving false hope to people by suggesting there is a means by which issues can be resolved without any reference to the pay determination systems in existence. If the Deputy believes that, he is either naive or totally ignorant of the way the system works. Many trade union representatives have stated that this cannot be regarded as a stand alone issue. In fact the trade union movement has shown admirable restraint given that this claim has emerged under a 5.5 per cent restructuring claim under the PCW which has allowed for the special position of nurses to be recognised and, as the Labour Court said, to be justifiably recognised by reason of the fact that a 24 per cent increase is available should the finding of the court be accepted by nurses.
The Deputy will have to face some realities. Is he in favour of independent arbitration? That is the simple question. All other issues are subjective matters. The justification of a claim one way or another can only be resolved in the context of independent arbitration. The Labour Court, under the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, has that authority. The Government is honouring it and committed to it. It is also committed to implementing the report of the commission on nursing and to implementing all of its obligations under the established industrial relations procedures. What more is the Government to do if it wants to maintain – as I presume others Members wish to maintain – the social partnership which has been the cornerstone of some of our economic success? That is the position. Rather than the Deputy facing two ways at the same time I ask him to be straight and honest with people and not suggest a solution can be found under the current pay determination systems when that is clearly not the case. We have traditional relativities and we have an analogue system. For 15 months the Taoiseach has been engaged with the social partners about how we can devise a new system. Given that the Deputy believes we should have a new system, would he not think it more constructive or realistic to ask everybody involved in the public sector to try to devise a new system which will recognise enhanced performance and responsibility? Clearly it cannot be resolved in the context of the current parameters in which we operate in relation to public sector pay.
Does the Minister accept that while he has a duty to maintain current industrial relations structures, his primary concern surely must be to protect patients? Does he accept that when there is a rejection by 95 per cent of nurses, no matter how good the system is, it simply is not good enough when we are now facing a nurses' strike for the first time? Notwithstanding what he says, does he accept that a deal will have to be struck? The only question whether the deal will be struck before the nurses go out on strike or after. Does the Minister accept that there is widespread support for the nurses from their medical colleagues and the public? There is an onus on the Minister to reach beyond the standard answer he has given to the House and produce some for mula which allows for the concerns of nurses to be addressed – we all recognise that for too long nurses were undervalued, and no Government is exonerated on that score. That requires of the Minister an additional effort to ensure that we do not simply have a head to head confrontation. Surely the Minister will accept that his statements so far have been less than helpful in recognising the unprecedented crisis we are facing in our health services.
I would like to ask in what specific case has anything I have said been unhelpful in relation to the situation. The Government is making the position on this matter abundantly clear, before people take certain decisions, and it is incumbent on us to communicate that position to all concerned, including nurses. It will not be a case of making that position clear after a strike ballot has been taken. It is incumbent on Government, given the seriousness of the situation, to make clear the position. Again, I put it to those asking questions, are the other parties in the House in favour of social partnership? Are they in favour of allowing a situation to develop where public service special claims will emerge as a result of handling this matter in a particular way? If that is their position, they should come out and say so. Let us not have the political dishonesty that on the one hand the Deputy claims to hold a brief for the nurses on this matter and on the other remains silent on the question of whether social partnership should be upheld. Those are the facts of the matter.
Do those on the Opposition benches believe in independent arbitration? That is the question. The Government has honoured its commitments in relation to procedures, processes and acceptance of the authority of the Labour Court in this matter. The other parties have not done so. Given, as Deputy McManus indicated, the prospect of services being affected across the board in the event of an all out nurses strike, which has never happened before, is it not the case that people have to face up to the implications of that?
Time allocated for these questions is now completed.
On a point of order, I have not had an opportunity to reply.
The Dáil this morning made an order and the Chair has no option but to comply with it. We must now proceed to Question No. 3.
The Minister is refusing to face up to the issue. He must take responsibility for the nurses as well as for pay policy.
I am not refusing to face up to it.
Bluff and bluster.
The Minister is dodging the issue by castigating the Opposition.
We must proceed now to Question No. 3.
I am not castigating the Opposition, I am asking the Opposition to clarify its position. The Government position is clear.
Will the Minister please proceed to Question No. 3?