Mr. Paul Bell:

I did not say 2,000. Over recent years there were serious staffing cuts as part of FEMPI and this is very hard to recover. Sometimes it is very easy to say that if we did not have one group of staff we could pay another group of staff. That is certainly not the conversation we have been having nor is it one we would encourage. We do not believe that employers - be they the Health Service Executive, a section 38 organisation or a 39 organisation - hire people they do not need.

A good point was made on the process of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court. We would have seen that for what it is. We believe it is an abuse of process and that we are being funnelled into this process on the basis that it will occupy a group for a period - be it the employer or the unions. We say it is an abuse of process because the Health Service Executive, obviously having discussions with the Department of Health and with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, would have adopted that strategy. The problem is that at the end of that process parties are expected to abide by the result. I understand that in one of the Labour Court recommendations it made very clear its frustration at continually hearing the same case from different organisations.

Deputy Kelleher made reference to the softness of the sector. This softness is well acknowledged. Our members are extremely anxious about the fact that they are in this space. The staff members, not alone the organisations, have the feeling that they are basically being taken advantage of. When it comes to the crunch or if a dispute goes ahead there will be no big fallout or big issue. The Government does not understand that the goodwill of our members has literally been sucked dry and is no longer there. Members have a choice now in whether to leave the employment or stand and fight for the service and for their families. Deputy Kelleher knows of many such people in Cork and he is supportive of many such organisations in that area.

The issue of complexity was raised. If officials from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform spoke with me today - which is not going to be possible, not even possible for the members - I would explain to them there is no complexity. The Department had no issue with complexity when it issued the letter via the Health Service Executive in 2010, appendix A of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions submission to the committee. This correspondence blatantly outlined the list of organisations and the actions the organisations were to take in order to reduce numbers. Some organisations may have done various things, but with due respect to all Government Departments, they knew this was coming and they had from mid-2017 to start the process, if they were in earnest. This is why there is no trust in the so-called "process" that is being floated. It would become a neverending story for our members. There would be no supervision of the process, no confidence in it and no beginning, middle or end.

Our members mentioned in the Labour Court recommendations believe that they have gone through a process and that the wisdom of the Labour Court has said: "Yes, there are moneys owed there". If there are difficulties in providing money, which there are, that is the kind of engagement to be had at local level, for example asking if the cost is too high and if organisations can afford to pay retrospectively. The union has been very clear that if these are the issues then we would have conversations about phased payments to let the budget catch up. We have always said that.

This is as honest I can be about the issue. We do understand that this needs to be moved on. People make things complex when they do not wish to resolve them. Appendix A of the submission points out how uncomplicated that communication was from the Health Service Executive at the beginning of the situation in 2010.