I wish to share my time with Deputy Quinn.
Private Members' Business. - Nurses Dispute: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Shatter on Tuesday, 12 October 1999:
That Dáil Éireann:
–acknowledging the vital role played by nurses in our hospital and community health services;
–aware of the fundamental changes that have occurred in the nursing profession and the varied specialist skills developed by nurses;
–supporting the commitment given to implement the recommendations con tained in the report of the Commission on Nursing;
–knowing the continuing constant and rapid developments in nursing resulting from medical, technological and social changes which are increasing the demands and pressures to which nurses are subject;
–recognising that an overwhelming majority of nurses believe that their skills are undervalued and not properly acknowledged and rewarded;
–greatly concerned by the continued failure of the Minister for Health and Children to comprehensively and effectively address the waiting list crisis and substantially reduce the number of patients awaiting essential in-patient hospital treatment;
–committed to putting patients first and ensuring proper patient care and no further escalation in hospital waiting lists;
–deploring the confrontational and condescending stance taken by the Minister for Health and Children, condemns his vilification of nurses;
–recognises that there is a window of opportunity to engage in discussions to find a solution prior to a nurses strike occurring;
calls on the Government to immediately engage in full consultation and constructive dialogue with the nursing unions to resolve the present dispute and calls on both the Government and the nursing unions to agree a cooling off period following the conclusion of the strike ballot to attempt to find a solution to the current impasse before strike action is taken.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Éireann:
–acknowledging that the Government has accepted Labour Court recommendation No. 16261 of 31 August 1999 on nurses' pay and allowance claims;
–noting that the Labour Court itself has stated that recommendation No. 16261 is "the culmination of many years of discussions and negotiations on nurses' pay and conditions";
–recognising that the Government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the report of the Commission on Nursing which are designed to address the underlying problems within the profession and develop nursing as a key profession within the health services;
calls on the four nursing unions to call off the threatened all-out nurses strike and to pursue their case in the context of forthcoming discussions between the Government and the social partners on a new national programme to succeed Partnership 2000.
–(Minister for Health and Children).
Is that agreed? Agreed.
As Labour Party spokesperson on older people's issues, I believe it is a scandal that, at a time of unparalleled growth and buoyancy in the economy and given that the Minister for Finance will have a surplus at the end of the year in excess of £6 billion, the health service is at crisis point. Since the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, took office waiting lists have risen to nearly 34,000. Patients are waiting for more than three years for heart surgery. On the other hand, if one can afford to pay, one can gain almost immediate admission to private hospitals – so much for equality of treatment. Accident and emergency departments in our hospitals are under constant pressure, with patients having to lie on trolleys for up to 48 hours. This is now the norm or at least it was prior to the first nurses' ballot. This is unacceptable, especially for the elderly who have contributed throughout their working lives for a proper health service. Acute beds in hospitals throughout the country are unoccupied due to the shortage of qualified nursing staff.
These are the facts of life for nearly 30,000 nurses and the public in this so-called Celtic tiger. The public, especially the elderly who are most vulnerable at this time of year and who cannot afford private health care, is living in the real world, but the Minister and his Government colleagues are not.
The role of nurses has changed completely in the past ten to 20 years. These changes involve higher education qualifications and post-graduate education, the cost of which nurses have to meet themselves. This should be adequately recognised and rewarded. Major changes have taken place in the mental handicap and psychiatric nursing sectors which resulted in the transfer of large numbers of patients into the community. Due to understaffing and the closure of wards the workload of nurses has increased, resulting in the imposition of excessive pressure and stress. One has only to attend hospital either as a patient or visitor to witness this at first hand. When did Minister and the Ministers of State last do so? Nurses are rightly held in high esteem by patients and their families. Notwithstanding this, nurses are angry and have clearly stated that they are not prepared to continue to work under such conditions of employment and salary levels.
Where do we go from here? It is well known that most disputes are easier to settle before they begin. The Minister should take note of this. A satisfactory resolution of this dispute has not been made any easier by the antagonistic approach adopted by the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach in recent days, a deliberate act to undermine the position of nurses with the wider community.
If the strike begins on 19 October it will cause hardship, particularly for those waiting years for an operation, the elderly and nurses themselves who would prefer to be at work rather than on strike. This is all the more reason negotiations should take place immediately. Given the expertise in the industrial relations area available to the Taoiseach and the Minister, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a formula can be drawn up to enable meaningful negotiations to take place with the nursing unions before the deadline. Should the Minister reject this conciliatory line before the strike begins, he and the Government must bear responsibility for the crisis which will hit the health service when the nurses take to the picket line.
In my time in the House the situation before us is almost unprecedented. We are heading for a major national strike, already causing chaos in our over-extended public health service, yet the Government seems set on doing nothing to avert it. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, seems to take pride in that fact. Last night he showed that the Department of Health and Children had spent at least as much time researching my previous comments on industrial relations as it has averting this dispute.
I draw the Minister's attention to the one fact that matters – I am sure I speak for Deputy Noonan on this also – the last Government averted a national nurses strike while this Government seems resigned to one. It seems obvious therefore that it is working to a strategy which appears to be: let the strike happen and presumably hope that the nurses cave in, a strategy conceived in the full knowledge that the nursing unions do not have large strike contingency funds.
Yesterday the Taoiseach made a strong defence of his position at Question Time. It is a wonder he is not seeking dialogue with the nurses daily to put this case to them. The reality is that the Taoiseach knows, as we all do, that the existing Labour Court settlement is not the final basis upon which this dispute will be resolved. Surely it would be better to explore other options now rather than wait a further time period in which the frustration evident among nurses and which is only now creeping into the Government side will only get worse.
In some Government circles there seems to be a determination among some Ministers to make an example of the nurses not in dissimilar fashion to the manner in which Mrs. Thatcher's Govern ment took on the miners in the early 1980s in Britain. To be fair, this is not the category in which I would put the Taoiseach, but it is not an unfair description of the contribution of the Minister of Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to this process so far.
In a Sunday newspaper the Secretary General of the Department of Health and Children is quoted as saying that this dispute may last up to three weeks. I am horrified that a Government is even thinking along these lines. A three week dispute would have unimaginable consequences. I ask the Minister of State present in the House to reassure us as a matter of urgency that this scenario is not being contemplated.
It is not true that all avenues have been exhausted and that we have been in this position before. The matter could be referred back to the Labour Court. Industrial relations experts, as recently as this morning on "Morning Ireland", suggested new, novel and different approaches. One proposed avenue worth exploring is a high level group to draw on the existing reports in this area which deal with the full complexity of the dispute.
I am aware that none of these proposals constitutes a magic wand. This is a difficult situation and it will not go away easily, but the public is entitled to expect that a Government led by a Taoiseach who has made his reputation as a negotiator would push itself to more considerable lengths than it is doing. If he adopted this approach to the conflict in Northern Ireland we would never have got the Good Friday Agreement. What is different about the nurses? It is not good enough to sit back and wait until a solution emerges or that the situation deteriorates so much that public pressure forces both sides to the table.
This literally is a life and death situation. Parents are already receiving correspondence requesting them to take their mentally handicapped children from their residential homes and it requires that every avenue possible is explored before this is allowed to happen. So far, the Government is failing on that score.
The news tonight that no agreement has been reached on the provision of emergency cover will instil further fear in the minds of the public. It is imperative that this issue is resolved soon. I call on the Minister to explain the exact position to the House tomorrow.
I wish to share my time with the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am contributing to the debate because I wish to show support for my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, and to repeat the Government's wish not to see the social partnership process wrecked. Deputy Cowen is a fine and dedicated Minister who has brought his considerable intellectual prowess to the job. I will refer later to a few of his many fine achievements in the Department of Health and Children.
The amendment which the Government has tabled to the Opposition motion is a fair and accurate reflection of the current situation. It asks the House to recognise that the Government has done all it can to meet the nurses' demands. It also calls on the nurses to pursue their case through the established procedures and mechanisms agreed by trade unions. The nursing profession is a dedicated and caring one and is appreciated and respected by everyone. It is right and correct that their sterling service is adequately remunerated. I and my colleagues in Government are determined to ensure that every nurse is properly paid for the job they do. I believe in caring and sharing, and I believe in justice. The Government and the nurses agreed to take their case to the independent Labour Court and, in justice, the court decided on a recommendation which will result in a total increase of 23 per cent in nurses' pay since 1997. The Government followed all procedures and accepted all independent verdicts.
Up to now we have all valued this mechanism set up for arbitration, a mechanism that is respected by all the social partners. Disregarding the court's recommendation could spell disaster for this country. It would, no doubt, trigger a spate of demands from other public service workers. In essence, the threatened strike has the capacity to overthrow 12 years of partnership agreements which have transformed this economy. The agreements have resulted in the real take home pay of workers increasing by 35 per cent through wage hikes and income tax cuts, and they have delivered half a million extra jobs.
The Taoiseach has already pointed out that partnership succeeds because of adherence by consensus to the terms of agreements. It is based on a view that no group or sector can isolate itself from the rest of society and that a co-ordinated approach is the best way of improving living standards. Deserting the partnership process now is not in the long-term interests of workers, including nurses. Indeed, I know the main Opposition party agrees, but listening to last night's debate one would not think so. In his contribution, Deputy Shatter made an offensive remark when he said the conduct of the Government was similar to lager louts. One has to ask the question, what on earth was Fine Gael's tipple that brought about such amnesia?
When a nurses strike was threatened in 1997, the then Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, said, on 10 January that year: "Strike action would be an explicit breach of the commitment on the part of the trade unions that no form of industrial action or pressure would be taken in furtherance of claims. Industrial action would also of course be a severe breach of the spirit of partnership which underpins the whole approach to industrial relations in the context of national programmes."
The then Taoiseach, Deputy Bruton, agreed with this view when, speaking four days later at the launch of Partnership 2000, he said:
I believe that Partnership 2000 and the previous programmes are the best approach to sharing out income in our country. Strikes are not the way to remedy grievances.
A fortnight later in the Dáil, Deputy Bruton referred to the nurses dispute and said that Partnership 2000 was "as far as the Government is concerned, the parameters within which a solution must be found". The approach of the Government has not changed from that of the previous Government. The nurses should not bring the house of cards down around our heads now, and this threatened strike could in fact do that. Apart from the difficulties it would cause to people in need of care, it could very well pull the plug on our economy. Do we want to return to the days of high taxes, high inflation, high unemployment, high levels of emigration and no economic growth? Those were the days when we paid ourselves huge wage increases which were only wiped out by higher tax increases. At that time people said that there had to be a better way, and there was. It was called partnership. The Government believes that the vast majority of people want to continue along that path. We want all sectors of society to have a say in shaping our future and for everyone to share in our economic successes.
If there is a ground swell of opinion that the nurses' claim is a special one, will public sector unions representing all other public service workers give an undertaking that they will respect that special position? In deference to that special position, will they guarantee that there will be no knock-on claims of any type? If such guarantees were given, the nurses claim could be considered as part of the negotiations for a new national social partnership agreement.
Not only has the Government shown its commitment to nurses by accepting the Labour Court awards, it is also fully committed to implementing the important recommendations of the Commission on Nursing. This commission justly acknowledges the key role of the nursing profession in modern health care and made recommendations designed to tackle the underlying problems within the profession. Opposition Deputies have sought to put the nurses dispute in the context of a health service which they claim is in crisis.
Given the level of investment over the past two years, it is clear that the Government is committed to providing the best possible health service.
We do not have the hospitals.
An extra £800 million has been provided for the improvement of our health services since the Minister, Deputy Cowen, came to office. He is ensuring that this additional funding is allocated in a structured and planned fashion in partnership with all those interested in improving our health services. In the space of two years the Government has increased health spending by almost 30 per cent. This year in excess of £3.5 billion will be spent on our health services and we will employ an additional 5,000 staff. Last year, 17,000 more patients were treated in our hospitals compared to the previous year. The Minister's strategy for the health services is based on three key elements: substantial increases in the resources provided; proper planning of the use of these resources; and a partnership approach to the resolution of problems, with the interest of the patient the overriding consideration.
One of the major issues facing us is how best to deal with the waiting lists for certain in-patient services. They are an international problem, as we are not alone in grappling with them, but the impression conveyed by some is that they can be solved simply by spending more money. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as has been underlined by the report of the review group on the waiting list initiative, which the Minister commissioned last year. Adequate funding for waiting lists is certainly an important concern but the underlying causes of such lists are considerably more complex. The Government has approached the issue of waiting lists in a far more structured and comprehensive manner than any previous Administration. In summary, we have increased funding for dedicated waiting list procedures from £8 million, provided by the previous Government in 1997, to £20 million in 1999, representing a 150 per cent increase.
The lists have become longer.
We began to address the need to free up acute hospital beds by investing £9 million in services for older people and £2 million in accident and emergency services. In addition, we commenced the implementation of a range of practical recommendations by the review group on the waiting list initiative to help deal with the underlying causes of waiting lists.
In spite of the tone of the Fine Gael motion the number of persons on in-patient waiting lists has fallen by almost 3,000, or some 8 per cent, since the beginning of this year. Those figures are an indication of solid progress and demonstrate that the structured, co-ordinated approach the Government has taken is bearing fruit.
I listened to a debate on health issues last night and tonight for the seventh time since I came into this House. Whenever a problem arises in the health area, whether a 'flu epidemic or a situation such as the one we are discussing, a motion is tabled by the Opposition. To be honest, if we were on the opposite side of the House, we would probably play the same card.
It was, however, a case of déjà vu last night – I had heard it all before. It consisted of pious platitudes from Deputies of the Fine Gael benches anxious to get a soundbite about their local patch or local hospital. That was a summation of their contributions last night. Deputy McManus, of all people, made a patronising effort during which she blatantly played the feminist card and continued hurtling personal abuse across the floor of this House at my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children. We do not want to be intimidatory, abusive, arrogant or to hurtle verbal grenades across the floor of the House.
Just at the nurses.
I hope the day of – as Deputy McManus put it –"talking down" women is long gone. She proceeded in the same patronising tone, using the same colourful adjectives she had used in prevous health debates, changing only the text a little to suit the title of the motion before the House.
This side of the House does not have a monopoly on wisdom, but nothing I heard last night or tonight will improve or better the lot of a single nurse one iota. The political tactic of tabling a motion of this nature contributes nothing towards the serious situation we find ourselves in today, but the lack of understanding of what is happening in this dispute among those on the oppositie benches must have been a serious embarrassment to members of the nursing profession listening to the debate.
I have worked with nurses in medicine, surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, casualty and theatre for many years. I hope no one could ever accuse me of taking a cold, impersonal view of a dispute, which involves many fine, dedicated individuals about whose commitment I have no doubt. The work of the nursing profession is universally admired, especically here. Because we are on this side of the House, the Opposition should not think for one moment that my colleagues in Government and on the backbenches undervalue their work.
It is because I am aware, from my knowledge and experience, of the type of people nurses are and the well merited esteem in which they are held that I, too, ask them to hold back from the misguided strike action that is now threatened. I ask nurses throughout the country to note carefully that the Government's motion does not ask them to forgo or abandon any claim they have to improve their situation. It asks them to call off the threatened all-out nurses' strike and invites them instead to pursue their case in the context of forthcoming discussions between the Government and the social partners on a new national programme to succeed Partnership 2000. Most people will consider that a reasonable request.
No one should underestimate the importance of the exemplary social partnership we have created and nurtured here during the past 12 years. It is the cornerstone of today's prosperity. This eminently sensible way of determining our industrial relations problems and of deciding on issues, such as pay and conditions, in a realistic way, has brought us from near bankruptcy in the late 1980s to the strong and buoyant economy we enjoy and benefit from today. It is an indisputable fact that every Irish person in employment today is considerably better off in terms of lower taxes and better take home pay than at any time in the past. I cannot envisage a set of circumstances that would justify any of us throwing the concept of social partnership overboard and choosing instead the law of the jungle, the economic free for all in which those with the strongest industrial clout would take the lion's share and the weakest would simply go to the wall.
This is not a situation that any body of Irish workers wants to see develop, least of all the nurses. Everyone in this House will acknowledge that in the past our nurses were under-appreciated, undervalued and underpaid, but that situation has changed radically for the better in recent times. My colleagues have mentioned the figures and there is, therefore, little need for me to go into them. The bottom line is that the latest Labour Court findings mean that the maximum salary of a staff nurse will have gone up by £88 a week and that of a ward sister by £144 a week, compared to the rates that applied two years ago. Having regard to those figures, no one can deny that nurses have made very substantial progress in the past two years. Staff nurses' pay at the top of the scale in Ireland is now higher than what obtains in Germany, the UK , the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
It has been suggested that nursing in Ireland is not an attractive career and that young people are not entering the profession, yet this year more than 5,500 young people applied for just over 1,000 student nursing places. The number of applicants was 40 per cent up on last year. Traditionally, we exported many of the nurses we trained, but now the number of foreign trained nurses coming to work here exceeds the number of Irish trained nurses leaving to work aboard. There was a net inflow of 550 foreign trained nurses in 1998 compared to a net outflow of 140 Irish trained nurses in 1996.
The facts I outlined would not, by any stretch of the imagination represent a background against which strike action would be called for. Instead, they present a clear picture of steady improvement being achieved through the recognised industrial relations processes. I appeal to nurses not to turn their backs on a process that has served them well but, in doing that, I must call a spade a spade. Nurses have been led up to the top of the hill, but no plans were made to lead them back down again. They have been led into a cul de sac. They must consider that aspect. We all know this strike will end, but I hope it ends soon before the morale of the profession is badly broken.
I, like all Members present, have the greatest respect for nurses, their work and their integrity, but the uncompromising stance adopted by their leadership threatens that morale, their image as a caring profession and the society in which they have built an international reputation. There is no need for a strike. The blame does not lie with the Government or the Minister for Health and Children. The Minister does not stand indicted before the Dáil and the public. The Government is faced with agonising choices to control expectations in managing our economic success. I, likewise, would, therefore, urge the profession to take account of the national interest, just as they do the interest of the health of the people who made this economy what it is today.
Deputies McManus and Quinn used the analogy of Northern Ireland in their contributions. They asked where would we be today if both sides in Northern Ireland failed to talk to each other.
We would be back in the abyss that was Northern Ireland in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. We talked for months and we came up with the Good Friday Agreement. The British and Irish Governments worked together to implement that agreement and today we have peace on this island. Similarly, we talked for months with the nursing profession and when no agreement was reached, it was decided to send the matter to the Labour Court. We honoured those recommendations and we will continue to honour them and to work to solve this problem.
I remember taking up the cudgels in defence of the nurses when two and a half years ago I wrote an article in a Sunday newspaper contradicting a Deputy from the Opposition benches who put the nurses on a list of groups he accused of seeking to rob the public. I make that point to remind the Opposition Deputies of when they were in Government and that when they come in here, as they did last night and tonight—
What about the comments made by the Minister for Finance?
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
I have not heard such sanctimonious nonsense.
—masquerading as generous friends of the nurses that their credentials are far from credible.
The Government should sit down and talk to them.
I appeal to the nurses to think again and to pull back from a course of action which is not necessary or warranted. Their cause will be better served by making their case in the context of the new discussions on social partnership which I hope will underpin our approach to economic and social progress at the threshold of a new century.
The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, has not caused nursing shortages. This is an issue he inherited as a result of a decision in 1993 or 1994 to move the apprenticeship model of nursing training to a diploma based programme. This led to the need to replace the valuable contribution student nurses made over the years when they were rostered in hospitals. An additional 1,400 posts have been assigned to the hospitals as a result of these changes in the mid-1990s. The nurses who were unemployed at that time were able to get jobs and the access pool for hospitals changed.
The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation mentioned the number of people applying for posts last year. People still want to be nurses. Last year 5,500 people applied for 1,000 posts, which is a 40 per cent increase. A total of 1,222 training places have been filled this year with 821 in general nursing, 245 in psychiatric nursing and 156 in mental handicap nursing. This is the largest number of direct entrants to nursing training for several years, which proves there is considerable interest among young people entering this profession. The annual maintenance grant for nursing students, which is not the subject of a means test, has increased from £2,500 to £3,250 since 1997 and the range of leaving certificate subjects which may be presented by an applicant for admission to the nursing diploma programme has been expanded.
There are more issues than pay, such as those highlighted by the Commission on Nursing, rostering and entry to the profession. Despite the fact there are 200 recommendations, the three on pay have overshadowed the remainder. There are 27,586 whole time equivalent posts, which is an 11 per cent increase since 1990. There are more nurses in the profession and more students are being trained. However, there is a problem in the Dublin area with recruitment and retention of nurses which does not apply throughout the country. This is not just a problem in the nursing profession but in many other professions. Traffic problems, housing costs and lack of car parking facilities are disincentives, so nurses are moving to the country. However, these difficulties are being addressed.
A number of initiatives are being considered. A significantly improved regime of allowances in respect of nurses working in specialised areas, such as operating theatres and intensive care units, is being introduced and more flexible working arrangements are being discussed. Standardised overtime has always been an issue. The issue of term time working for nurses who want to come back into the system is being addressed with a view to maximising uptake. Discussions are ongoing on the provision of specialist nursing courses at centres outside Dublin. An anti-bullying policy has been prepared and the promotional structure, including a clinical career pathway, is being improved. A study of the nursing and midwifery resource commenced last year. However, we are not addressing the broader picture which was the reason the commission was set up.
In February 1987, £85 million was provided, £25 million was provided in February 1999, £30 million was provided in August 1999 and £40 million was provided for lump sums. I am not sure anyone understands what that means in their pay packet. The Minister for Health and Children asked last night if people understood the benefits. In February 1996, £20 million was put forward, but today it is £150 million, excluding the £40 million in specialist payments.
There are outstanding issues to be addressed but why not accept what has been put forward and then discuss the outstanding issues in the new pay round? No Government or person wants to fight with the nurses. The Government is sorry rather than angry about this situation.
That is a change from Luxembourg.
We must try to strike a balance. There is no point ignoring the fact that social partnership has been here for the past 12 years and that it has made a difference to the country. The Government will not walk away from social partnership. We must make decisions for the future because everyone wants the country to continue its current level of development. This is a defining moment in social partnership, particularly in terms of economic growth over the next five years. If social partnership means anything to us, we must not allow the level of anger to dictate the levels of pay for different sectors. As the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, said, it would be all right if every other sector was willing to say this is a special case and not look for parity.
There is another route under social partnership. The Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Deputy McDaid, and the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, said the Government would like the nurses to take the award and discuss the outstanding issues. There are only two months to the end of Partnership 2000. The outstanding issues can be raised in the new pay round. It is still possible to call off the strike and to negotiate these issues in the next pay round in two months' time. Nobody wants to fight with the nursing profession. An award has been put forward which can be accepted. Nobody is closing the door on the outstanding issues which can be debated in two months' time in the new pay round.
Nurses play a key role in delivering health care in hospitals and in the com munity. Their role, function, responsibilities and expertise have changed fundamentally over the years. The State, health boards and the management of health services have failed to recognise this. It is fundamental that the frustrations of the nursing profession are understood and that their changed role is recognised and rewarded. If this is not done, it will compound the difficulties in the nursing profession as their skills will continue to be undervalued, unacknowledged and unrewarded. Nurses are motivated by their responsibility to deliver an efficient and caring health service which responds to the needs of the community. Nurses are deeply affected by and concerned about the continued failure of the Minister for Health and Children to comprehensively and effectively address the waiting list crisis and to substantially reduce the number of patients awaiting elective surgery and other treatment.
In an industrial relations dispute, as the position stands, there must be a calm, carefully managed approach by the leadership on both sides and discussions must not be inflamed. Cool heads are necessary. All conflicts must be resolved eventually. In 99 per cent of cases this is done by endeavouring to accommodate both positions. This motion rightly deplores the confrontational and condescending stance taken by the Minister for Health and Children and condemns his vilification of nurses. It is urgent that the Minister immediately engages in full consultation and constructive dialogue with the nursing unions in order to resolve the dispute.
Throughout history the nursing profession has had a special place in the minds and hearts of the people. They take care of us at a vulnerable time in our lives. They take care of the young, the elderly, the sick and the terminally ill. They are there for relatives at times of bereavement and care for those who suffer psychiatric problems and other disabilities. Nursing has become a very stressful profession. On today's "Six One News" a nurse stated that in the past she came off duty very satisfied but that she now leaves duty stressed and frustrated. Resources are not being provided to give the service expected by the public.
There is extreme pressure on accident and emergency departments. We receive regular complaints from patients who have waited up to six hours to be admitted to hospital from casualty. There is a report in one of today's newspapers of a patient who waited 72 hours to be admitted. How do nurses feel in Limerick Regional Hospital in my constituency where considerable funding was allocated to bring it to a level to enable the staff to provide adequate care? However, the facilities stand idle because the Minister will not provide the finance to commission the extension and bring it into service. There are two main operating theatres in operation out of a total of seven and a one day-theatre operating out of a total of two. In addition, two renal dialysis units which have been available for occupation since 1998 have not been brought into use. Two radiology rooms which have been available since December 1998 also remain unused. At the end of June 1,570 patients were on the waiting list. What effect does this have on the morale of the nursing staff of Limerick Regional Hospital?
Tuesday's strike will send shock waves through the State's public health service and will impact dramatically on the many patients awaiting surgery in the next few weeks. Does the Minister have any idea of the despondency of a person waiting for as much as a year and a half for a cataract operation when he or she is informed the operation is cancelled? Does the Minister realise the pain of a person waiting for a hip operation for almost two years who is told the operation which would bring him or her relief from pain is postponed indefinitely? This is already happening. Patients are being sent home from hospitals, hospital beds are being left vacant, scheduled operations are being cancelled and people with life-threatening illnesses are being told that essential in-patient procedures are being postponed.
Will the Minister stop the confrontation and replace it with consultation with nursing unions? His approach is putting the lives of hundreds of patients at risk. Meaningful dialogue must be engaged in by the Minister. He must immediately address the outstanding concerns of nurses and ensure this potentially disastrous strike does not take place next Tuesday. He must ensure that the fundamental changes which have taken place in the nursing profession are fully recognised. The undervaluing of their skills must be addressed. This strike will be inevitable only if the Minister continues to do nothing and he and his colleagues continue to target and vilify nurses. The Government must immediately enter into constructive dialogue with the nursing unions. Solutions to strikes are always found. Compromise must always be the outcome. Why not discuss the solution to the present impasse? Why must nurses picket in order to be listened to?
The time has come for common sense to prevail. The Government, particularly the Minister for Health and Children, has a responsibility to ensure that nursing care is provided for the unfortunate 30,000 people who are hospitalised, not to mention the 30,000 patients on the waiting lists of health boards throughout the country. Are the Minister and the Taoiseach ignorant of those facts? Do they realise the seriousness of the situation? Do they realise that a huge number of patients awaiting acute surgery will die if this strike is allowed go ahead? Do the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for Finance think that by trying to frighten the nursing organisations into submission they will succeed? Do the Taoiseach and the Minister ever think of the word "dialogue"? Will they adopt the policy of Nero who fiddled while Rome burned? Will they ignore the plight of thousands of patients in hospitals and the thousands awaiting admission for acute surgery?
I appeal to the Independent Deputies, namely, Deputies Blaney, Fox, Gildea and Healy-Rae, to support the Fine Gael motion. This issue will not bring down the Government but it will jolt it back to reality and open the door to constructive dialogue between the Government and the nursing organisations. This will pave the way for an amicable solution to the problem confronting the nation. The problem is not only with wages. Other issues are involved. Pay scales do not reflect the responsibility involved in nurses' work, for example, in the differential between the pay of a ward sister and that of a staff nurse. There should be a reasonable incremental scale for long service so that a nurse with 20 years' service will earn a higher salary than a nurse with five years' service. Special post-graduate qualifications should be acknowledged in proposed allowances. I appeal to the Minister to let commonsense prevail and to put an end to this uncalled for strike as quickly as possible.
As we head towards what appears, at this stage, to be the inevitable, I hope the Minister for Health and Children and the Government will do a quick "about turn". A few important points must be made.
Already hospital admissions and orthopaedic services are being withdrawn in certain areas. In the Minister's constituency, orthopaedic services in Tullamore have already been closed down. There will not be any admissions for orthopaedic treatment this week or next week because of the impending dispute. This is happening in an area where waiting lists for orthopaedic treatment are longer than in most other areas. One must wait for up to two years for a hip operation in the Midland Health Board area. That waiting time will be lengthened by the strike. I hope the Minister will intervene if for no other reason than to help the people in his own constituency.
Whoever heard of a private earning more than the sergeant in an army? This is the situation that pertains in nursing. A ward sister at the end of the week receives less in her pay packet than the staff nurse under her control. She is responsible for the various decisions taken at ward level, treatment, monitoring of treatment and recording of treatment. At the end of the week, however, she has less in her pay packet. Whoever heard of such a thing? The pay scales must be adjusted to reflect the standard of responsibility and qualifications at that level.
My third point relates to public health nurses or, as I prefer to call them, district nurses. They do a tremendous job, particularly in rural areas. They are the caring face of society, meeting people in their homes, looking after them, taking care of the elderly, dressing wounds and so forth. I am aware of their tremendous work, much of it done outside normal working hours. Recently, I met a district nurse who was caring for a terminally ill patient. She spent many hours outside her normal working hours in that man's home taking care of him. However, these nurses are not rewarded. They would be better off going back to work in the hospitals for more money and, probably, working fewer hours under better conditions. It is intolerable that these two sections of the nursing profession should have been treated in this manner and I ask the Minister to deal with it.
In the short time available I will not be able to discuss the details of this dispute. I wish to use my time to make a plea to the Government to find a solution before there is a strike.
If there is a strike, it is inevitable that there will be suffering. There will be the suffering of patients – the old, young, terminally ill and others, the suffering of relatives who will have to watch their loved ones suffer and the suffering of nurses on strike, many of whom will have little or no income because the unions have few funds for strike pay. There will also be suffering on the part of partners and children as the essential financial contribution of the nurses dries up and there is no money for the family or the mortgage. Unfortunately – we must face reality – there could also be deaths as a result of this dispute and, rightly or wrongly, the strike will be blamed. In such circumstances the relatives will be particularly unforgiving and, inevitably, there will be recriminations and bitterness.
For what purpose will these people suffer? Inevitably, whether it is after one day or one week or one month, people will sit around a table and a solution to this problem will be found. Why not do it now before the suffering commences? The Government should try everything in its power to find a solution. Why is it not doing that? Why is there no sense of urgency on the Government benches to find a solution? Why does one have the feeling that the Government has intentionally gone out of its way to stoke up resentment in the nursing profession? Why did the Minister for Finance, in particular, consider it necessary to state his case in such a way as to antagonise the nurses? As I listened to him, I believed he intended to antagonise people and I understand why the nurses felt so strongly about his remarks. The confrontational language was the opposite to what was required.
There is still time to find a solution to the problem. If I were in the Minister's place, I would start tonight. I would put out the feelers and enter negotiations by putting my case and asking the nursing unions to put theirs. This is the only way forward because, sooner or later, it will have to be done. The Minister ought to start tonight. He has time between now and next Tuesday.
Will we start with the Garda this night next week?
I wish to use my time to appeal to the Government and the Minister for Health and Children to talk to the nurses unions and not let the country career headlong towards a strike next week.
We have heard nothing from the Minister in terms of meaningful dialogue with the nurses' unions. There has been plenty of noise over the airwaves and in the newspapers in an effort to blackmail the nurses and make them feel responsible for the health care of the nation. In fact, it is the Taoiseach, his Government and the Minister for Health and Children who are responsible for the nation's health, not the dissatisfied employees of the health services.
I have spoken to many nurses over recent weeks. All of them tell me they do not wish to go on strike but they believe they have no option. They are adamant that they wish to make a strong statement to save their profession. Nursing is a caring profession and involves direct daily contact with patients who are vulnerable. It is noteworthy that 28,000 nurses voted to take strike action. They did not do so lightly. They, above all others, know what the consequences of their actions will be. The strong conviction that this step must be taken if the nursing profession is to have a future has been their motivation.
Nurses have absorbed the crises we are experiencing in the health service. It is they, not the Minister, who face the patients and their relatives each day. They deliver the bad news that the operation has been postponed again or that the elderly patient must vacate the bed by 12 midday regardless of whether there are facilities at home for them. Nurses take on these tasks daily in the Minister's name.
The nursing profession has become more specialised, responsible, technical and demanding. This is not being recognised. Nursing is no longer a profession in which one trains on the job. A nursing qualification requires many years of studying, examinations, training and caring and these issues are not addressed by linking the nursing profession to other sectors in the public service. I appeal to the Minister not to sit back. Do not let the next few days pass without contacting the unions. At some stage the Minister will have to talk with them and I prefer that it happen tonight rather than when the country is in the midst of a worse crisis during the strike.
Two words appear to summarise the attitude of the Government to this issue, "uncaring" and "insensitive". History will record the supreme irony of the public affairs of this country in the autumn of 1999. News breaks daily of scandal, Charvet shirts, Ansbacher accounts and cattle debts in the middle of an unprecedented economic boom while the nursing profession is forced to take to the streets for a grievance that is recognised to be well founded.
Next week, if the strike takes place, the health service will be reduced to a shambles with cancellations, deferrals and postponements resulting in further trauma and discomfort for all involved. For the Government to accuse the nurses of endangering life has served only to add fuel to an already well lit fire. The devastation throughout the State is unthinkable. As previous speakers have said, there is still time to take action to avoid the strike next week.
I do not know of any nurses on the list of 23 that has been leaked of those with Ansbacher accounts. When the balance of 112 names is eventually dragged from the Government I do not suspect there will be too many nurses on that list either. The Government is uncaring and insensitive. It does not appreciate the sense of grievance on the part of the nurses. In half an hour this House will be called to vote on a fairly reasonable motion that does no more than invite the Minister to get people around the table with a view to resolving the problem. I do not expect Fianna Fáil or the Deputies opposite to support the motion but I would like to think that the Independent Deputies would have an opportunity of voting for the motion. I invite them to support the Fine Gael motion.
We hear from Deputy Healy-Rae how he likes to flex his muscles from time to time as far as the Government is concerned. This House had before it earlier this year an intoxicating liquor Bill which did not suit Deputy Healy-Rae and he had it withdrawn by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It has not seen the light of day since. We know now the ordering of priorities of the Independents in this House – intoxicating liquor, yes; nurses, no. Deputy Healy-Rae is not here but he still has half an hour to make his presence felt. He probably was not present last night either.
Talk of social partnership by the Taoiseach and his Ministers rings very hollow with 28,000 nurses threatening to withdraw their services as from next week. That is not social partnership. I say to the Minister and to the Government there is still an opportunity there. Go for it.
History will view the nineties as the decade in which many institutions went through painful revelations and thus their standing was greatly diminished in the eyes of the pub lic. The church, politics, financial institutions and even some sporting icons have been dissected and put under the microscope in a manner that has surprised many and almost always the final result has been more stunning than we could have imagined. The health care profession has not been entirely scrape free as certain sections in the consultancy end have been questioned with respect to their role or otherwise in the waiting list fiasco. Through all this one section has stood aloof from the criticism and that is the nurses. Irrespective of the rights or wrongs of this pay dispute, it is inexcusable and unacceptable that this Government should seek to demonise the profession.
It is not my intention to patronise nurses but, in many respects, they are the unsung heroes of our society. Their work is surely one of vocation and, irrespective of remuneration, only certain people can do the job. This Government appears to be relishing the prospect of the head-on collision that will occur if the proposed strike goes ahead on 19 October.
Nurses work at the most difficult end of the medical profession as they interface with patients on a continuous basis, many of whom are terminally or severely ill. Their clear vote for strike action is an indication that they now believe their skills are no longer recognised or appreciated. If the reaction of the Government is a yardstick, this belief may be well founded. The inability of the Minister's representatives to agree a treatment schedule with the nursing alliance during the proposed strike is a most serious development. In the middle of all this, many elderly and vulnerable people are watching with great unease. Despite the trenchant position taken by the Government there is still an opportunity to avoid the impending strike. However, for this to prevail the Government must first replace its aggressive approach with one of consideration and understanding. At some stage this problem has to be resolved and barking at the Opposition will not advance the case one iota. I call on the Minister to put away his baton and enter into meaningful negotiations so that we can all move from this impasse.
On other Private Members motions I have, on occasion, complimented the Minister for some measures taken but I regret that I can find no merit or grounds for doing so tonight.
On the Opposition benches—
On a point of order, who is the next speaker on the list?
Deputy Belton is next. There are five minutes speaking time left.
The Ceann Comhairle may let me know when my time is up so that equity will be ensured. Equity is at the kernel of this dispute. There is a lack of equity in the health services at many levels. The Minister is putting a lot of money into the health services and everyone approves of that. However, it must be used in the best possible way. The people who make the health services work, who make moral and medical decisions and ensure, on a daily and nightly basis, that value for money is obtained and human life is valued, are the nurses. From a historical perspective, because it was a female dominated profession, it was never properly paid. It was taken for granted. Women were expected to care. They were expected to extend and sacrifice themselves. It was a vocation and therefore money did not enter into it.
I respect Deputy McDaid's medical knowledge and experience but he should be the first to realise and understand that the difference between higher paid people within the health service and nurses has been extraordinary and obscene. This matter cannot be dealt with within the parameters of social partnership alone. I appeal to the Minister and the negotiators to work out boundaries within which this can be considered without incurring demands from other sections. That may be difficult to do but there have been other areas of conflict where that has happened. That is what we are asking the Government to do.
No group should isolate itself from the rest of society. Nurses have been isolated from the rest of the society since they started by being underpaid, undervalued and unrecognised. It is a special case and I ask the Minister to take that on board.
The Deputy's time is up. Deputy Belton.
The Minister took his seal of office as Minister for Health and Children and the health of the citizens of this country is his responsibility, not that of the Minister for Finance or the Taoiseach. The spin doctors tell us the Taoiseach can settle anything and that he is a great negotiator. What has he done in this case? Stirred it up.
The Minister for Finance called the nurses "claim jumpers". He might know about jumpers at Cheltenham, Punchestown and other places but the nurses are not jumpers as far as I am concerned. They have dedicated their lives to doing work of which we can all be proud. I appeal to the Minister to talk to the nurses. The health services are in a shambles already. The Minister spoke about Michael Noonan last night.
Deputy Noonan.
When Deputy Noonan was Minister he dealt with the finances. He gave £85 million and set up the nurses' commission. At that time, the Celtic tiger was only a pup. Now the Minister has the money he should talk to the nurses. He took his seal of office to look after the health of the citizens of this country and he should do that.
The Celtic tiger is fully grown now.
It is clear from the debate over the past two evenings that the issue of nurses' pay and conditions is a complex one which has concentrated the minds of leading authorities in the industrial relations arena for several years. The Labour Court describes its most recent finding as the culmination of many years of discussions and negotiations on nurses' pay and conditions.
The Nursing Alliance sought and obtained independent arbitration on the three outstanding pay claims. They looked for due process and within days of the announcement of the Labour Court package, union leaders recommended rejection and set in train immediate strike action, giving the Government one week's notice. In doing so, they have set aside all industrial relations machinery. They have driven a coach and four through the partnership approach which has been adhered to by all the other unions and has been the hallmark of our economic success. A small number of union leaders have put a gun to the Government's head. It is a case of roll over or we will pull the trigger. How can any Government give in to such an approach? It would be highly irresponsible of any Government to respond to such a threat.
I call into question the responses of the two Opposition leaders to this pending crisis. Are we to take it that Deputy John Bruton and Deputy Quinn now want to create a precedent whereby the final arbitrator, the Labour Court, is to be ignored? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect from them if and when they return to this side of the House?
It will not be too long.
The Government does not have a fallback position between now and next Tuesday. I appeal to nurses across the country, many of whom have been misled by some of their union leaders, to call off this strike and take up the Taoiseach's invitation to a new approach to public sector pay determination which is imaginative in ensuring that the income of public servants should more clearly reflect their performance and not be based on so-called relativities. On work performance, the aspirations of nurses can best be addressed in discussions between the Government and the social partners on a national programme to succeed Partnership 2000. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, is standing by, ready to get down to discussions on the outstanding issues on the implementation of the report on the Commission on Nursing to which the Government is fully committed. He has already put resources in place to implement some of the key recommendations.
I acknowledge that the nurses are coming from a historic deficit and that over the past 20 years they have been neglected, but it is important to reiterate tonight that nurses have done better than any other group under the restructuring clause of the PCW. The combined value of the various Labour Court findings, together with the other improvements given to nurses by way of increased overtime payments and enhanced incremental credit for previous nursing service, is more than £150 million on an ongoing basis and equates to an average increase of about 23 per cent. By any yardstick, this represents a significant improvement in the pay position of nurses.
I ask Liam Doran, chairman of the Nursing Alliance: what useful purpose will be served by this all-out strike? It will not advance the case of nurses. In the past two years, nurses' wages have increased by an average of 23 per cent. I ask the nurses here this evening and those across the country to accept the Labour Court recommendation and go back to the table to negotiate the outstanding issues on which they remain unhappy as part of the new national agreement.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Barrett, Ring, Boylan and Shatter. We heard a lecture tonight, and heard a stronger one last night from the Minister, Deputy Cowen, on the question of social partnership. Everybody encourages and welcomes social partnership but the Minister's words and deeds, taken in conjunction with those of the Taoiseach, Deputy Ahern, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, have done more to destroy social partnership than the words or deeds of any trade unionist or the nursing unions. Deputy Cowen has now left the House, but he should "get real" on this dispute. He should recognise the genuine anger of the entire nursing staff of every hospital throughout the country. I do not know any nurse in my constituency or elsewhere who wanted this strike to go ahead but I know many nurses who feel angry, ignored and insulted by the Government's attitude towards this dispute.
Last night we listened to a lecture, as we did tonight, on who said what in 1996 and 1997. The Minister is missing the point. The context of this debate has changed over the past two years. As my colleague, Deputy Belton, pointed out, we now have a booming economy and there will be genuine demands for some of the benefits of that economy. People get angry when they see one rule for groups such as the nurses and a different set of rules for the golden circle. Against that backdrop, the words of the Government, from the Taoiseach down, are insulting and unhelpful in terms of bringing this dispute to a proper conclusion.
The Minister cannot pretend that everything is the same as it was in 1996 and 1997 because everything has changed both economically and politically. Dáil Éireann must recognise that we are not talking about voluntary Florence Nightingales but trained, expert workers in the health care industry whose roles have changed dramatically in recent years. We got a lecture about relativity also but that itself is relative and changed careers require changed conditions.
I appeal to my missing colleagues on the Independent benches, two of whom gave us a lecture today about Partnership for Peace, to be equally concerned about partnership across the health care industry and vote accordingly tonight.
If ever an old saying was relevant to an issue it is the saying that prevention is better than cure and it applies to the dilemma in which we find ourselves now. The imminent nurses' strike has not come out of the blue. For many years nurses have been unhappy not alone about their pay but also about their conditions of work. The people who believe that the frustration being expressed by nurses is solely about pay are codding themselves. We are dealing with a group of professionals who spend their lives caring for the sick. I do not see the point in having a healthy economy when the people it is supposed to serve are unhealthy. The economy is for the people; the people are not for the economy. When it comes to the point where people's lives are at risk, it is time for the Government to take its responsibility seriously. It is the responsibility of all those on the opposite side of the House to solve this problem.
I reject the accusations that nurses are uncaring and irresponsible in what they are seeking. This is not just about pay; it is also about conditions. I know of a hospital not too far from here which had 25 nurses working in a casualty ward last February. Of that 25, there are eight remaining. A total of 15 nurses have left in the space of eight months. If that is not a problem, I do not know what is. These people are either emigrating to Australia, becoming agency nurses or whatever. It is ridiculous to talk about levels of pay when a staff nurse is being paid the going rate while an agency nurse is paid more for doing the same job. What sort of system allows that to continue?
I also heard the two Independents who have supported the Government over the past two years say they have a crisis of conscious in relation to Partnership for Peace. If their conscience extends to Partnership for Peace, I sincerely hope it will also extend tonight to supporting a justifiable motion in the name of Fine Gael. I hope to see them walking through the lobby to support this reasonable motion, which asks the Government to stop talking to people through the media, to sit down around a table, to ask the nurses to have a cooling off period and to enter into discussions to resolve this difficulty. We all know what will happen if this strike takes place. It will be a very difficult strike to settle.
The Minister must remember that nursing is a vocation to the care of the sick and the elderly. A nurse is born, not made. They are special people who are held in high esteem by society. They give special attention to people in need. Their claim is special and should not be lumped in with the public sector pay claims which the Minister says this will jeopardise. I do not accept that for one moment, the public does not accept that and the Minister's backbenchers do not accept it. However, unfortunately, the whip is applied and they must toe the line.
These people must be treated in the way they deserve. I spoke earlier tonight to a group of young nurses who are in the Public Gallery at present. Their pay and conditions are abominable and unacceptable in this day and age. If we cannot look after our sick and elderly in good times, what will happen if there is a downturn in the economy?
This is a sad night, to see hundreds of nurses in the Public Gallery of the Dáil when they want to be at hospital beds, dealing with people who are waiting in corridors and who come to our constituency clinics looking for hip and heart operations. Nurses are not trained to go on strike but are trained to nurse, which is what they want to do.
The Taoiseach preaches to people in another part of this country on a daily basis about the need to sit down and talk. He should practice what he preaches and sit down with the nurses to try to resolve this problem before next Tuesday. He lectures the people in Northern Ireland, he must now deal with the nurses in the country of which he is Taoiseach. I ask him to sit down tomorrow with the Minister for Health and Children and the nurses to try to prevent this strike. No nurse wants to be on £60 next week. Nurses want to nurse. They want to look after the sick and to deal with the people with whom they were trained to deal.
Over the past two weeks the Minister for Health and Children, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and the Taoiseach have lectured the nurses. They must now talk to the nurses, rather than lecture them. All they want is a fair deal. They have given service over the years. We have all, at some stage, had somebody belonging to us sick and these people have done an excellent job for them.
I will hand over now to my colleague, Deputy Shatter, whom I compliment on bringing this motion before the Dáil. I ask the Independent Deputies to come with us rather than always lecture us. I ask them to vote with us tonight on this important matter.
Last night we listened to the Minister for Health and Children and I was appalled by his contribution. We were confronted with a long lecture on industrial relations. The essence of good industrial relations is one's skills and capacity to resolve disputes. The essence of industrial relations is dispute resolution when confronted by difficulties. The Minister's concept of dispute resolution is to engage in confrontation and bring about dispute escalation.
The gallery is full of nurses this evening. As my colleague, Deputy Ring, said, they have no wish to be here. They have no wish to come to this House to be lectured by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children and to have to listen to a provocative, confrontational speech, the sort of brainless, witless contribution that will exacerbate further this conflict.
We should be hearing from the Government – it is the Minister's responsibility – that the Minister is taking action to guarantee to patients a functioning health service. We should be hearing that he is willing to do what Fine Gael is asking him to do, which is to engage in constructive dialogue and to seek an agreed formula to resolve what will be one of the most damaging industrial strikes in the history of the State if it takes place. However, the Minister is doing nothing. He is sitting there, delegating his responsibilities to the health employers' agency, whose sole role is to try to work out emergency arrangements if the strike happens. Of course, emergency arrangements should be made. However, there should be no need for emergency arrangements. The discussion which should be taking place is to resolve the dispute and it should not be taking place on the basis that it is inevitable the strike will occur.
Hear, hear.
We live in a topsy turvy world. Fianna Fáil, a party that asks a bank to write off a colleague's £250,000 bank debt, is not even willing to enter into dialogue with nurses about the small claim that they believe is justified and about which they believe discussions should take place.
We also live in a very strange political world. I wish to quote a contribution made in the Dáil on 6 February 1997. It was an impressive contribution, which I presumed at the time this person meant. Quite clearly, he was less than sincere in delivering it. It is a contribution we should dwell on for a moment. It states, at column 951 of the Official Report of 6 February 1997:
Fianna Fáil wants to see justice done to the caring profession. Nurses play a vital role in the health services. They are integral to its func tioning and their work is of immense value. In the past, when Fianna Fáil has been in Government, there have been disputes where more rigid national agreements and more difficult fiscal conditions applied in the economy. Amongst these were disputes involving the ESB, radiographers, dental assistants, fire brigade staff and hospital doctors. In each instance the disputes were resolved with political will and imagination despite the limitations of the Programme for National Recovery and the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
That speech was delivered by the Minister, Deputy Cowen, who was then the shadow spokesperson on health, who believed that entering into dialogue to resolve nurses disputes would not bring an end to social partnership or be catastrophic for industrial relations in the State.
Was there a rejection of a Labour Court recommendation at that time?
The same person went on to say:
If a national nursing strike goes ahead, the entire health service will grind to a halt, probably within hours of the strike starting. The chaos that will result is unthinkable.
He went on to say:
The Minister was wrong to remain at arm's length from the dispute for so long. After two rejections of the pay offer, he should have got directly involved and tried one last effort. He should have responded to the request from the unions to hold a direct meeting with them and he certainly should have taken up the offer from the General Secretary of SIPTU for a commission on nurses' pay and conditions. This could and probably will form part of the ultimate solution.
The Labour Court gave that.
Of course, the difference between 1997 and 1999 is that Deputy Noonan, as the then Minister for Health, entered into discussions, resolved the dispute—
He did not.
—established the Commission on Nursing and we did not have a nurses strike and there was no need for nurses to occupy the Public Gallery of this House to try to find out if the Minister might do anything of a constructive nature.
On a point of order, the Deputy is misleading the House.
(Interruptions).
Please allow Deputy Shatter to finish.
I know the Deputy is a part-time spokesperson, but he should try to get his facts right.
In April 1997 the same Deputy made a similar contribution. He was talking about the ambulance service. He said:
I call on the Minister to intervene tonight to resolve this dispute. The Minister must realise the dispute will have to be resolved and it would be better if that were done before a damaging strike began. In the event that the dispute goes ahead, I ask the Minister to outline the contingency plan which should now be in place. When the nurses' dispute was threatened, a situation developed where the contingency plans were left until the very last minute and appeared to unwind at the time.
The Minister has no contingency plans for this dispute.
I am waiting for them.
He concluded by saying of the nurses strike: "Fortunately, the dispute did not go ahead, but had it done so there might have been a problem with cover." Reverting to the ambulance strike, he said: "The Minister must ensure that nothing similar happens in any other dispute involving an essential service such as this one." The Minister has a responsibility to ensure this strike does not take place next Tuesday. He has an obligation to patients to ensure the medical services to which they are entitled are made available to them. He also has a responsibility to the nursing profession, a profession which has never, in its long history, gone on strike. It is the least militant profession in public sector industrial relations. The Minister's responsibility is simple. He should enter constructive dialogue, avert this strike and have a cooling off period during which cool minds can find a resolution to this dispute which, with a better Minister with more foresight, would never have occurred in the first place.
Amendment put.
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel. |
Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán. Aylward, Liam. |
Tá–continued
|
Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan. |
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Lowry, Michael.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
|
Amendment declared carried. |
Question put: “That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.” |
Tá
|
Ahern, Dermot.Ahern, Michael.Ahern, Noel.Andrews, David.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Blaney, Harry.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Matt.Brennan, Séamus.Briscoe, Ben.Browne, John (Wexford).Byrne, Hugh.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Daly, Brendan.Davern, Noel.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Doherty, Seán.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Fleming, Seán.Flood, Chris.Foley, Denis.Gildea, Thomas.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Healy-Rae, Jackie.Jacob, Joe. |
Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy.Kenneally, Brendan.Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Michael.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McGennis, Marian.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moffatt, Thomas.Molloy, Robert.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz.O'Donoghue, John.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Hanlon, Rory.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Kennedy, Michael.O'Malley, Desmond.O'Rourke, Mary.Power, Seán.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Smith, Brendan.Wade, Eddie.Wallace, Dan.Wallace, Mary.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Níl
|
Allen, Bernard.Barnes, Monica.Barrett, Seán.Bell, Michael.Belton, Louis.Bradford, Paul.Broughan, Thomas.Bruton, John.Bruton, Richard.Burke, Ulick.Carey, Donal.Clune, Deirdre.Connaughton, Paul.Cosgrave, Michael.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Creed, Michael.Currie, Austin.D'Arcy, Michael.Deasy, Austin.Deenihan, Jimmy.Dukes, Alan.Durkan, Bernard.Enright, Thomas.Farrelly, John.Finucane, Michael.Fitzgerald, Frances.Flanagan, Charles.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.Higgins, Joe. |
Higgins, Michael.Howlin, Brendan.Kenny, Enda.Lowry, Michael.McCormack, Pádraic.McDowell, Derek.McGahon, Brendan.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Olivia.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Noonan, Michael.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Owen, Nora.Penrose, William.Perry, John.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Reynolds, Gerard.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Shatter, Alan.Sheehan, Patrick.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Barrett and Stagg.
Question declared carried.