Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the statement from the representatives of the federation and other bodies that they do not resist the process with third parties, because there certainly was a time when they did. This is a very welcome development. It seems a bit odd that it happened when the workers were trying to resist cuts.

I have questions for both parties. We know the industrial action by workers is due to kick off on St. Valentine's Day, 14 February. Will the representatives outline what efforts are currently being made to avert that and at which stage are the negotiations? What is the level of involvement or interest from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform? The Department has sent a very loud message this morning through its non-attendance. Is it involved, either peripherally or otherwise, in the negotiations? Has it any influence? What is the state of play in that regard? Last night on the radio I heard a process was under way and a deal was offered of some form. My understanding is it is not acceptable to all the parties involved.

If we are to be of any assistance at all, we need to understand the state of play. My question on the cost is for both parties and concerns the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. I find this matter quite ironic because some or most of the delegates may know that when the pay cuts were initiated, I was representing the people at the business end of those cuts. The Department and paymasters were very clear about the need to cut the pay. If they were very clear about the need to cut the pay, they would have been very clear about the money they would be saving in the national interest or whatever other interest required them to take money from people earning a wage pretty close to the minimum wage. Will the delegates give us some sense of the cost? They might tier it for us. Clearly, there will be ongoing costs. There is now a restitution process. We must bear in mind the money required for pay to catch up with that of public service colleagues in addition to money required to fund this in the future. We need to hear confirmation that, if the dispute is settled, the money will find its way to where it is required. We realise there are considerable pressures on the service. In the event that some of money becomes available, pressure will be exerted to have it devoted directly to service delivery. We can fully understand that pressure. Are the delegates in a position to confirm to us that money made available through the pay restitution process, irrespective of how this comes about, will be made available to the workers in the first instance? I understand it is a very hard decision to make. Clearly, we are here to discuss an industrial relations matter and an industrial relations dispute.

Will the delegates outline whether they have to use agency staff to plug the gaps? In the HSE, agency staff are being used. Agency staff are not good value for money. The Minister for Health agreed with me when I said that on a number of occasions. How is the pressure that is being exerted manifesting itself? Do the delegates believe that, if the recruitment and retention crises continue or deepen, they may find themselves in circumstances in which they have to rely on agency staff?

My last question is for the representatives from the various federations and organisations. The finance reform programme of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is under way in some shape or form. Will the representatives bring us up to speed on it?