It is proposed to answer Questions Nos. 947, 966, 967 and 973 together.
The Department currently has 58 Branch Offices at various locations throughout the country. Each Branch Office is operated and managed, under a contract for services, by a Branch Manager who is required to act as an agent for the Department in the area served by the office. Branch Office managers operate on a contract for service and are independent contractors.
Services are provided through the Branch Offices network in areas which are not directly served by a Department operated Intreo centre. The Department wishes to ensure that the services provided by the Department’s Intreo Centres and Branch Offices are aligned so that all customers nationwide are provided with broadly similar services.
On foot of this, officials from my Department have been engaged in ongoing discussions with the Branch Managers Association (BMA), a representative group of Branch Managers, regarding the Department’s proposals for a new service delivery model. The main elements of the service delivery model relate to quality of accommodation, information provision, full use of all Department IT systems and support to activation and control activities. In tandem with the new service delivery model an improved remuneration model was proposed which would entail a positive shift from the traditional payment method, where payment was based on claim load, to a model based on delivery of an agreed service level. This is particularly significant in an environment where the Live Register is expected to continue to decline. It was also considered desirable that new contract arrangements would be put in place to copper fasten matters.
Most recently, talks with the BMA included facilitated discussions under the chairmanship of Mr Kevin Duffy, a former Chair of the Labour Court. The facilitation process chaired by Mr Duffy provides a forum where the concerns of the Branch Managers and the Department can be discussed. In December 2017, Mr Duffy made a series of recommendations in relation to remuneration. The financial provisions recommended by Mr Duffy were inextricably linked to the operation of the new service model and were to commence as soon as practicable following the acceptance of his recommendations. The amounts available under the new remuneration model represent an annualised increase of approximately 28% when compared to the payments under the existing model in 2017.
In his recommendation, Mr Duffy also stated that issues remained to be finalised in relation to the framework within which service contracts will be concluded with individual service providers and that on acceptance of these recommendations the parties should enter into a technical exercise to address the contractual terms and conditions in the contract on which the service will be provided. It was also recommended that that process commence as soon as practicable and conclude within an agreed timeframe.
Both the Department and the BMA accepted Mr Duffy’s recommendations and arrangements were made to meet in January 2018 to engage in the technical exercise outlined by him and to bring matters to a conclusion. In effect, substantive agreement had been reached in relation to both remuneration and service delivery issues.
During the course of the discussions in January 2018, the legal advice to my Department indicated that potential issues around competition law and procurement law needed to be considered and talks were adjourned to February 2018.
When my officials subsequently met the BMA in February 2018, they advised the BMA that the manner in which the Department and BMA have engaged in negotiations potentially infringes the Competition Act. As a result, the Department could no longer formally negotiate with the BMA. However, the Department acknowledged that the BMA has a representative role in respect of its members, including the right to present the views of its members to the Department. While the Department cannot negotiate with the BMA, the Department may take account of the views presented. In addition, the BMA was advised that were the Department to change the terms of the contracts the new contracts must, given their value, be subject to an open competition.
My officials also advised the BMA that it considered that the enhanced services envisaged for Branch Offices can be achieved under the current contract arrangements with Branch Managers and that there is therefore no requirement to conclude new contracts with existing branch managers.
The technical discussions recommended by Mr Duffy in December 2017 were not intended to reopen substantive discussions in relation to the financial remuneration package proposed for Branch Managers. However, on 19 February the BMA indicated, through Mr Duffy, that it required commitments from the Department in relation to (1) an indemnity in respect of any redundancy costs in respect of Branch office employees; (2) compensation for Branch Managers in the event of contract termination. In the absence of these commitments, the BMA would no longer participate in discussions. Talks subsequently adjourned on that basis.
The Department has a Framework Agreement for engagement with the Irish Medical Organisation (IMO) concerning social welfare services involving General Practitioners. This framework provides for a process of engagement between the IMO and the Department. It also commits the IMO not to recommend, organise or facilitate any form of collective action by its members; that the IMO will avoid the promotion or facilitation of collective withdrawal of services; and that the IMO must inform its members that they should decide individually and not collectively whether to participate in service provision. These arrangements are in line with an agreement put in place by the Department of Health with the IMO with the approval of the Competition Authority. In contrast, the BMA has repeatedly threatened to undertake collective action which, by its own admission, would impact on the Department’s customers.
As previously stated, the manner in which the Department and BMA have engaged in negotiations heretofore potentially infringes the Competition Act. As a result, the Department can no longer formally negotiate with the BMA. However, I recognise the representative role of the BMA in respect of its members, including the right to present the views of its members to the Department. My officials are available to meet the BMA on this basis and will take careful note of any views expressed by the BMA. My officials remain available to discuss matters with the BMA. I have also invited its members to contact Mr Duffy and ask him to re-convene the facilitation process to discuss the proposed service delivery model.
