Barry Cowen (Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the House prior to strike action taking place, if only to allow those involved to bring forward solutions which can be explored and could bring about a successful conclusion. I hear the Government, the Taoiseach among them, talking about the public service stability agreement being sacrosanct and saying it is the only show in town and that there will be no side deals with the potential of a knock-on effect on other sectors, should there be a successful conclusion in regard to a pay claim on these issues. However, if one investigates and analyses that agreement, and seeks to preserve its integrity and work within it in order to bring about a resolution, one will see it goes beyond the 7.4% for a three-year deal, beyond restorative pay in regard to FEMPI and beyond restorative pay and parity for new entrants.

There were two avenues within that agreement that were open to the unions representing nurses. There was clause 3, and the Minister was put on ample notice some time ago of the unions' interpretation of that clause. Other unions might not agree with that interpretation, and be that as it may, but the Government has also rejected their contention in regard to their interpretation of that. That is part of the reason we believe it is necessary to have a new nursing commission to look specifically at these details and to adjudicate on that issue alone.

The Government cannot have it two ways. It cannot take credit for putting an agreement in place and putting a pathway in place to deal with reservations that might be contained within it and then, when those reservations are enacted or sought to be addressed, it plays dumb. There was also the pay commission itself, which was a mechanism by which the Government could put this issue at arm's length and allow independent assessment of career advancement or issues within the health service restraining the recruitment or retention of staff. It made various recommendations and drew conclusions, which Deputy Donnelly outlined. Ministers have been quick to say over the last week that they agreed with all the recommendations contained within it, restrictive as they were, but they failed to acknowledge or inform the public in any of those briefings that it is not the pay commission's duty to take the place of direct negotiations in regard to issues that need to be resolved because of its findings.

The Ministers also failed to inform the public that the foreword to that report issued by the commission chairman outlined in some detail the lack of available analytics within the HSE to allow it to make a substantive recommendation. That leaves the entirety of the report somewhat flawed and lacking in credibility. It is because of this that a specific commission should be charged with that responsibility. However, the fact the Government and its members say they had set that in train, and that they agreed with its recommendations and provided for the costs associated with it, is an acknowledgement that they would have worked with its recommendations. Nonetheless, if its recommendations are flawed, then they have to stand up and account for that and allow a process to evolve.

See this speech in context