The current dispute involving work to rule by 40,000 nurses is an example of the Government's failure creatively to pre-empt a crisis that threatens the delivery of fundamental quality health services in the State. As a consequence, it fails patients, taxpayers and front-line workers. It is more than three years since I proposed that the benchmarking process was not capable of dealing with all of the areas and sectors it was required to deal with so that transparency, clear services and improvements for the public could be brought about in return for these rewards.

The Government has rejected all challenges to reform what is a flawed benchmarking process. With a work to rule involving 40,000 nurses, we now have a situation where nobody — nurses, patients or the public — benefits as a consequence. In reminding the Taoiseach and the Government that nurses have signalled their willingness to change work practices and introduce efficiencies and have indicated their willingness not to be seen as obstructionist in this matter, I suggest that the unwillingness of the Government to consider changes to the criteria and flexibility of the benchmarking process has brought about this impasse where everybody is suffering. The Government has known this for some time. My party and other organisations have made the point that benchmarking does not suit every situation and should be altered to cater for discussion and negotiation of legitimate claims.

Is the Taoiseach prepared to say that the current work to rule is a consequence of a flawed benchmarking process? Furthermore, is he prepared to say on behalf of the Government that a willingness to reform that process might have avoided this dispute?

Is he prepared to apologise on behalf of the Government to taxpayers, patients and nurses for standing over a system that is inherently flawed and incapable of what it was set up to do in the first place?

I will try to explain the issue briefly. The current dispute has nothing to do with the benchmarking process whatever. Effectively, the dispute is about two issues, namely the agreement on a 35-hour week from an early date and the elimination of a pay anomaly as a result of a series of pay adjustments for nurses and midwives who are paid less that assistant house parents despite having higher professional qualifications and responsibility, including responsibility for assistant house parents.

The Labour Court examined the issues in dispute and said the best way of dealing with them was through the benchmarking process. The nurses unions, the INO and the PNA, have given consideration to those issues. On the reduced hours, the management side's position is that a timeframe for a reduction in the hours could not be set without first carrying out a detailed risk assessment which would have to include the involvement of the relevant stakeholders. Management has no objection in principle to reduced hours but cannot give a definitive commitment as to the pace and the scale of reduction without more careful consideration. I have said many times that I acknowledge that the nurses unions are prepared to try to make this cost neutral but the management side or the Government, and the taxpayer, cannot go into that unless the work is done. The Government management side would say let us do the work and see if this can be cost neutral but the union side asked when it would be completed and said they would then enter into it. A reduction to a 35-hour working week effectively means about 30 extra days off for each of the individual 40,000 nurses, which would represent a massive change in working arrangements. It might be possible — I am not saying it is not possible — but the work needs to be done on it. Some work has been done on it but not a lot. It involves a reduction of 7.7 million nursing hours so it cannot be undertaken lightly. It has nothing to do with benchmarking.

While the pay anomaly should be a simpler issue the management side is prepared to regrade the particular nursing personnel who have responsibility for supervising staff with salaries in excess of the staff nurse scale. They contend, however, that the more general issue of the appropriate rate for the staff nurse grade is a matter for the benchmarking body. If that is the case there are 44 or 45 people involved. The argument of the nurse leaders is that anomaly should be reflected for all 40,000 nurses. It is either an anomaly for the nurses midwives grade but it is certainly not an anomaly for 40,000 nurses.

In regard to what is on offer on the nurses side in respect of the reduced working hours, the management position in line with the recommendation of the Labour Court is that it is prepared to address the changes in the organisation, the management and the delivery of health care which it could facilitate and a reduction in the standard working hours for nurses and midwives. That can be negotiated through the benchmarking body or wherever. The issue is not where it should be done, it can be done anywhere. Last week the NIB was trying to find a basis on which to move it on. We are trying to find a basis were it could move it on. We are still prepared to try it or any other mechanism, it does not have to be done through the benchmarking process.

On the issue of the pay anomaly the Labour Court said that issue should be dealt with through benchmarking. The management side is prepared to regrade the particular nursing personnel who have responsibility in excess of the nurse grade so as to remove the particular anomaly. On the more general point of a 10.6% increase for all nurses, this is a matter for the benchmarking body. It is due to start to report later this year. Other nursing trade unions have already made submissions in this regard. I should point out that the 10.6% pay claim is in addition to the 10% currently available in return for signing up to Towards 2016. The last point, one I made earlier to Deputy Kenny, is that the terms of reference and the criteria for the next benchmarking round have already been agreed with the unions, including SIPTU which has a large number of nurses unions. It is not an inflexible system, it is one that has already been negotiated with the trade unions and everyone knows the rules of the process.

The time available to the Taoiseach has expired.

Arising from the Taoiseach's reply, I remind him of the terms of the letter of 9 March 2007 which he sent to the Irish Nurses Organisation indicating that the Government representatives and the Minister for Health and Children would involve themselves in the intensive discussion process and would be as open and creative as possible in achieving outcomes for the benefit of nurses and patients alike. What was the political mandate given to the NIB in those discussions? It appears, and I do not have access to all the information, as if the creativeness and openness was coming from only one side. Will the Taoiseach indicate one or two examples of the openness and the creativity that was coming with the political imperative, through the NIB, to achieve the reductions of which he speaks? In other words, there was a three week process of intensive discussions. In his letter the Taoiseach indicated that the Minister for Health and Children and the NIB would be open and creative in the way in which it went about this. Can he give examples of that openness and creativity, against the background of a dispute which nobody wants to escalate and which, as I said during questions to the Taoiseach, does not help patient, nurse or taxpayer?

That is a very fair question. I will try to keep the issues simple and to the point. Agreement on a 35-hour working week at an early date is what the nurses are seeking. Management is prepared to concede that in principle and to start the first round at a relatively early date. That was discussed at the negotiations but I do not want to breach on something where they had their own walls around the discussions. That was the first issue. They agreed to work intensely to see how on a cost neutral basis this will work out given the loss of 7.7 million hours. That work cannot be done in a week or two, it will take some more time. In fairness to the nurses side, they say they are prepared to engage in that work but want a definite date on completion before they start the process. That is the obvious difficulty. That is creative enough if they agree to do the work. If one agrees to the 35-hour working week, the process will take a few years because every nurse will lose about 30 days per year.

The second issue was the pay anomaly. The management side does not have a difficulty with addressing the pay anomaly for those who suffer the anomaly. That issue was raised in the discussions and should be cleared up. The third issue is that Towards 2016 provides for a 10% increase for nurses. If they sign up to it they are entitled to that 10% increase. We should not forget they are entitled to that increase. The fourth issue is what I think is the impossible one. I do not see this as an imaginative issue. The Labour Court has looked at this at length. The NIB looked at it for three weeks at length. One cannot roll on the anomalous grade of 40 to 45 people and give that to everyone to solve an anomaly and give a 10.6% increase to everybody. Given that an agreement is in place under Towards 2016 it is impossible for a Government to give it.

The Taoiseach had no problem doing it for the barristers and solicitors in the tribunals, but he makes an exception for the nurses. The Taoiseach should show some consistency

Hear, hear.

Please Deputy, it is Deputy Kenny's question.

That would be claimed straight away by the entire 320,000 public servants who have signed up to the agreement. That end of the argument must go into the benchmarking process. The other two or three are possibilities, although I do not know whether that has to continue in NIB or some other one. That aspect of it, however, must go into the benchmarking process because that is what everybody else it in. It is not a question of being difficult with the nurses, but one cannot take any element out of that as it is just not possible to do so, and certainly not for a group with 40,000 members.