Paul Murphy demands pay parity for medical scientists

Thanks a lot. This is a question about the medical scientists who were on strike last week, who were on strike on Tuesday today and then called off the strike to enter into discussions with the Department of Health and HSE. Obviously we debated this last night with our motion the night before yesterday morning. I suppose the basic question is whether you agree, Minister, that the expert group recommendations should be implemented, that these workers should get equal pay for equal work, that they should have pay parity with the biochemists. Thanks, Deputy. I hope you will accept my bona fides when I say what I want to do now is let all sides engage without interference from government or ministers or whatever it may be. I think what happened yesterday is very welcome and I want to commend the MLSA for agreeing to first of all suspend the industrial action because it was having a very, very significant impact obviously on patient services. And as we said yesterday, I think I might have said to yourself or to your colleague Deputy Boyd Barrett, I know that there isn't a single medical scientist who went on the picket line who wanted to be there. I know that they, more than any of us, are acutely aware of the disruption, sometimes to quite urgent care for patients. And the last place they wanted to be was on a picket line and I think it is noticeable, as several colleagues referenced, that it has been a very, very long time since they felt compelled to take such action. And I want to commend them for suspending the action and for going to the Labour Court yesterday and we now know more than we did when we were debating this yesterday morning. And I think there has been a very positive constructive development. So essentially all sides have agreed to go back now to the WRC for three weeks. All issues will be put on the table, all sides will be represented. They have also agreed that if there, hopefully, that three week process in the WRC is all that is required and an agreement can be reached that all sides, that works for all sides. They have further agreed that if there are still outstanding issues after the WRC, that they will revert then to the Labour Court and they will be bound by the Labour Court decision. So I think it is a very positive move. I think to the Deputy's very reasonable question, this is something that was identified. in 2000. I think the report came in early 2001 and then through a benchmarking exercise in 2002 went in a different direction. It was also noted, though not acted on, in 2007 as well. So what I want to see is a resolution to this that works for all sides. But on top of that, I think Deputy Nocton made a very important contribution yesterday where he made the point that as science and technology and genetics and personalised medicines comes more and more to the fore, actually the role of scientists, the role of medical scientists and the role of other scientific grades and scientific groups within the public health system are going to become more and more to the front of medicines for patients. So not only do we need a resolution to this issue, which is essentially a pay dispute, we also need a very ambitious pathway for medical scientists, laboratory scientists into the future. I know that Dr. Colm Henry, the Chief Clinical Officer, is instigating a review looking at the profession more broadly and where it can go. And one of the things that I'm very pleased to see is that work is being done on advanced practice. So we have advanced practice nurses, we have advanced practice midwives, they're essentially autonomous clinicians. I think it's one of the most important and radical changes we're seeing in healthcare in Ireland. And Ireland is becoming one of the leading countries in this. And work is underway looking at advanced health and social care professional practitioners as well, one of whom would be the medical scientists. So I think we need to resolve the current situation and then be very ambitious about what is possible for this profession into the future. Thanks Minister. Yeah, maybe just start with just the general point. I mean, obviously, a lot of workers were in watching the debate yesterday and the government line, which is the usual government line is, it's kind of like you have nothing to do with it. You know, you say you want to resolve the dispute without interference of the government and so on. But it's as if the government isn't a party to the dispute. The government fundamentally is these people's employer. Like, I don't accept the idea that you just need to have a hands-off approach. I think you can resolve this by a clear statement about pay equality and then by finding the funds for it. Second point, I mean, you responded to Deputy Boyd Barrett yesterday in relation to one of the lines in the counter motion relating to having not enough funds. You make the point that's, you know, a particular point to accept that. But you do accept that in order to resolve this dispute, that it will have to be done outside that framework, outside the framework of building momentum, for example. And the final question is, why in terms of the Colm Henry review, hasn't the MLSA been invited to participate? Thanks, Deputy. So to the first claim around hands-off, no, no, quite the opposite. So officials from my department were in the Labour Court yesterday, and it's officials from public expenditure and reform are in as well. So the people involved in these negotiations, the Department of Health, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, the HSE, and obviously the MLSA. So I'm not for a moment suggesting that this has nothing to do with government. Of course it does. But what I'm saying is that when all parties have agreed to go in now to talks, the appropriate thing to do is to let those talks happen and respect that process. And hopefully that will work well. With regards to the MLSA and the future of the review, there is no question that they will be involved in that. I have no doubt that Dr Henry will be talking to them. It's absolutely essential that they're part of that. And Deputy, I beg your pardon, there was a third part. We might come back on the next round. The third thing was in terms of, do you accept that if this is going to be resolved, it has to be resolved outside of the framework of building momentum? Maybe another question to pick up on a point you were making about, because it was a striking feature, people, it wasn't just about pay equality, obviously that's the dominant issue. But a lack of people coming into the profession and a lack of clear career progression for people forward. And there's basically very few roles beyond the medical scientists. You kind of have to go into management, but it also means you're not getting to be a frontline scientist in the way that many people want to do. And the point was made, and Deputy Barry made it yesterday, about the role of clinical medical scientists in the NHS, which seems to provide quite a natural career progression. So I wonder whether you would be open to that. And the final thing, maybe, because some of the stories that I didn't get a chance to bring yesterday during the motion. I mean, like I was talking to one, well, there were people telling me about a co-worker in Tala, who literally lives in Belfast and drives to Dublin every single day to work, just incredible, because of the low pay, and because of the cost of living crisis that we're experiencing. That's, that's the kind of conditions that unfortunately, some of these people are working and living in. Thanks, Deputy. So there are five grades at the moment for medical scientists. There's basic scientist, senior scientist, chief scientist, specialist scientist, and then laboratory manager. And there's five grades, and they go from 34,429 up to 95,320. So that's the, there are the various grades. There is an anomaly, as we discussed yesterday, where it's only in the first year, but the medical laboratory aid was moved up at a time when the medical scientist was not. And so there is an overlap. The overlap is only 82 euro for the entire year. So it's very small, and it only applies for the first year. But nonetheless, it is an anomaly, and these things, these things need to be looked at. And then to your wider point, there are a lot of people in the country who are facing very serious pressures. We have inflation, we have housing, and there are a lot of wider pieces to this, but certainly within, within the realm of healthcare, we, we, we want to see a resolution of this that does address the various issues that have been raised by the MLSA members. Go ahead, Mark. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.