John Dolan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will start by making a few observations on the statement that has been made by the Department and the HSE. It is just short of four pages. It begins with an expression of appreciation of the work carried out by section 39 staff. From page 2 onwards, it continues with what I would describe as a description and definitions, all of which could be contained in a footnote. I do not know how they substantially add to the crunch issue before us. It goes on with what I would describe as vagueness and an absence of detail. I am quite disappointed with it, and it gives me the sense that the fool is being sent further. This issue is going to go on and on.

On the bottom of page 3, the statement reads:

"As the employer, it is a matter for Section 39 organisations to negotiate salaries with their staff as part of their employment relationship and within the overall funding available for the delivery of agreed services."

Every employer knows that. It is a matter of ordinary common sense and fact. However, the reason that is not mentioned is that the organisations, in their capacity as employers, and the staff representatives have taken this matter to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Workplace Relations Commission's officials are fed up with this repeated traffic, and they cannot bring the people and entities with responsibility for funding into the negotiation. Representatives from the HSE have to be asked to appear at meeting, or have appeared at some.

The question of pay restoration has been discussed. Frankly, I think it is a little bit academic. We are not involved today in a professional training workshop on human resources or industrial relations issue. This is not about continuing professional development points. There is migration of staff, and if the Department of Health or the HSE wish to claim that there is not, let them say that. There is significant migration of staff out of section 39 funded organisations. They take up similar work in either section 38 funded organisations or the HSE.

We all accept that there will be a turnover of staff. There will be a ratio in any sector. It will be more pronounced in some areas. That is often a function of the market. The market is operating here. Given their qualifications and background, people see that they can move. Can I say they should not? Absolutely not. Many of us will move. We have other pressures, from our banks, our building societies, our children, and so on. These are real issues.

What is the witnesses' estimate of the rate of turnover during the last several years? What do they estimate it will be this year if nothing happens? What further attrition, what extraordinary movement of staff from section 39 organisations to either section 38 organisations or the HSE, will we see? That would be a useful piece of information.

Let us consider the first paragraph on page 4 of the presentation. It reads: "This issue has been the subject of detailed consideration by officials in the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Health." The previous paragraph features phrases like "we understand", "while it is understood" and "expected to". This is vague language. We then read that the issue "has been the subject of detailed consideration by officials in the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform". I welcome this. Those officials are obliviously too shy to be here today to tell us about all the work they have been doing, and how long they have been doing it. The statement says that there has also been detailed consideration by the Department of Health. It is good that officials from the Department of Health are here, because they can tell us when these discussions started, and how much discussion and engagement has been going on. That might help us.

The next sentence in that paragraph states: "The urgency around this issue is also heightened as industrial action is threatened for 14 February in a number of these organisations." That is the first and only date mentioned in this document. We will obviously remember 14 February for other reasons. It is the only date in the statement, and it features not because the HSE, the Department of Health or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform have done something. That date is there because representatives of staff have drawn a line in the sand.

I expect the evidence for the assertions made in that paragraph to be made available to us. Just to begin with, when was the first engagement? The witnesses must give us a date, or even a month. When did the Department of Health engage with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on this issue? The organisations, the staff and most important, the people who are not in the room and were not in here this morning, the people who are receiving those services must have some assurance that this is being dealt with.

I do not think that anyone thinks that there is any one simple one-size-fits-all solution. I know that. I have been in and out of area for long enough. I remember when section 38 was section 26 of the Health Act 1974. I remember when section 39 was section 65 of the Health Act 1953. That was invented just a few years before I was born. We all know there are a lot of issues at work here. However, we do not have any comfort that this is actually being progressed.

Was it not on 17 January that the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, announced in the Dáil on a Private Members' motion that the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, had instructed the HSE to enter into a process of engagement? Subject to correction, I presume that happened prior to the tabling of that motion, or had the Minister instructed the HSE months ago? When was that instruction given? If we are to get beyond talk, talk, talk, and I have used the phrase sending the fool further, there is a lot at stake for people with disabilities and for staff and the point was well made by Mr. Bell this morning in that many of these staff work in community settings. They may be involved in activities in the community. There are relationships here. I say that for two reasons. People find it very hard to walk away from that. The other point I would make is that relationships with a key worker are critical for people who have disabilities and various conditions to be able to progress. It is not just somebody turning up every now and again. How does one deal with that and the issue of people with communication needs? I think members are quite clear that I am not pleased. We need to get dates as to when this detailed consideration by officials took place. When did the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Health first sit down?

The final point I will make is that if something goes down in a crisis, such as funding, and there is a pressure on services, I do not think anybody can reasonably not anticipate that when we start to come out of that there are going to be pressures for that to go back up. Officials in either the HSE or the Department cannot have been unaware that what goes down comes back up, or what goes up comes back down. This has not come out of the blue. This was to be anticipated. We had a bit of a lesson about the differences between sections 38 and 39 organisations but the bottom line is that they are all necessary services. I do not think the HSE and the Department of Health are giving money to section 39 organisations because they think they are nice and fluffy. They are giving it because they want the service delivered to a certain standard and to a certain number of people. It is no different from a section 38 organisation. I can give members an example of a section 38 organisation and a section 39 organisation, with one operating on one side of the street and the other operating on the other side with the same cohort of clients. This is going on, but it is unsustainable. I will leave it at that but I am looking for an answer to the question on when the process started. In particular, I want an answer to the question on when the gathering evidence and making sure it is all accurate, etc., will finish.