Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in. In fairness, the way in which they have battled with such great dignity is a credit to them. There is much political support across the board for this plight. We are seeing that ultimately the paymaster is deliberately not engaging. We have see the greatest example of it here today. Colleagues should remember that we are being watched at this committee by the Departments of Health, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Taoiseach. They are watching this to see how to judge the political pendulum. It is the reality and it should be borne in mind as the cameras focus on us. They need to get a clear message based on the information and evidence that will be given today on the matter they will face very soon. It is my objective to get that from the comments today.

We all know the history of this, going back to 2010, and there is no need to go through all of it. We are all very well aware of it. The organisations have engaged by going through the Labour Court and Labour Relations Commission on sleepovers etc. Is it the absolute belief of the witnesses that the principal blockage is the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as it relates to the Department of Health and the HSE? Do the witnesses believe strands relate to the HSE and the Department of Health? A second question relates to the impact this has on service provision. Will the witnesses describe this as it relates to recruitment and retention of workers? How will this multiply as an issue in the coming weeks and months if this continues? What impact will that have on service provision in terms of quantity and quality?

There is also the matter of cost. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has reneged on its responsibilities and jumped from this equation. In this scenario, agency staff have to be brought in. The Department that is supposed to look after public expenditure and the taxpayer would want to keep an eye on this. With the overuse of agency staff, will the witnesses outline what they estimate is the extra cost that arises from the Department's failure to deal with the matter? There are costs on the other side that make the argument even stronger. A strike is inevitable unless the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform engages on this. Will the witnesses outline to the committee, the watching public and the three Departments I mentioned, as well as the HSE, the consequences of a strike? This would give the Department a measure of the impact of its non-engagement.