A number of Deputies have tabled questions on-----

This is a priority question.

Is it dealt with separately?

Yes, unless there is another priority question on the same issue.

Thank you.

I thank Deputy Duncan Smith for raising this issue. We had a good debate on this yesterday. I want to acknowledge the incredibly valuable role that medical scientists play in our healthcare system but on top of that, the fact that they, along with their healthcare colleagues across the system, have put in even longer hours and tougher shifts during the pandemic. I have met a lot of them and am fully aware of the personal and professional cost of this. It has meant very long hours working in even more stressful conditions. It has also meant time away from family and friends and I want to acknowledge that they stepped up, along with the rest of the healthcare community, during Covid.

I also want to acknowledge the long-standing claim for pay parity between medical scientists and clinical biochemists. The current public service pay agreement, Building Momentum, includes sectoral bargaining to address outstanding claims such as this one. This is the method through which claims can be addressed within the lifetime of the agreement. Health management have been engaging with the MLSA for many months to find a way to advance their claim through sectoral bargaining but no resolution to the matter has been reached so far. However, I was very happy to see that the industrial action has been suspended and did not take place yesterday. There was a very constructive engagement at the Labour Court yesterday, with all sides in attendance. It has been agreed that all sides will now convene at the WRC for a three-week period. Hopefully all issues can be dealt with in the WRC but if not, the sides have agreed that any outstanding issues at the end of the three-week period will be reverted back to the Labour Court.

When I submitted this question the industrial action was still live and I am happy that it has been suspended and the parties are back at the WRC. However, we need to use this time wisely. A consistency with this Government when it comes to industrial relations issues, not just in the Department of Health but across all Departments, is a hands-off approach and no sense that the Government wants to get things resolved. This dispute is not just about pay; it is also about retention. We have a massive shortage of medical scientists and we have seen a haemorrhaging of them from the profession over the last number of years. One thing that has come up in parliamentary replies is that the HSE does not conduct exit interviews which means we do not have accurate information as to how many people have left the profession and why. This is something that must be standardised across the HSE and across all parts of our publicly-funded health service if we are serious about tackling the retention crisis.

That makes an awful lot of sense, not just for medical scientists but right across the board. Probably the single biggest challenge we have in terms of the ongoing modernisation of the public health service is recruitment. If we are going to have a challenge, it is the right one to have. The funding has been allocated and the posts have been sanctioned but we are trying to recruit a huge number of people in a very short period of time. In community care, for example, we have sanctioned 3,500 health and social care professional posts. We have around 1,800 in post or about to be deployed now. There has been a huge increase but it does lead to pressures right across the system when we are trying to hire so many people. There has been a net increase since 2019 in medical scientists of around 6% but that said, we do need to understand why people leave, either for other jobs here in the private sector or for jobs abroad. We also need a process through which that can be addressed.

We absolutely do because it is very easy to say that people are leaving various jobs because of the housing crisis or low pay. While they are definitely factors for medical scientists, there are also really important career progression issues and other technical issues which are distinct to this industrial relations dispute. We cannot lose sight of that, which is why we need a keen eye to remain on this. The workers are not out on the picket line and the journalists and politicians are not out with them, getting their news lines and social media posts, but real work and meaningful engagement must begin. Those of us on this side of the House can lose a bit of connection because the issue is with the Government now. It is with the Minister's side. We really need to get this resolved. This is an anomaly and a mistake that dates back 20 years. As I said in the House yesterday, it is a campaign for parity that goes back almost 50 years. I hope that what has happened over the last week will finally lead to a just resolution.

Yes, hopefully through the WRC and then, if necessary, through the Labour Court, we can find a resolution to this that works for everybody. Deputy Naughten made a very salient point in yesterday's debate when he said that we need to respect, grow and develop this workforce because as science and technology become more advanced and linked into care through genetics and so forth, and as we move towards personalised medicine which is opening up incredible opportunities in terms of healthcare in the future, medical scientists are going to play an even more central role.

Dr. Colm Henry, the chief clinical officer of the HSE, is kicking off a review which will look at medical scientists more broadly across the public health system. One thing we are looking at is bringing in an advanced practice role, the equivalent of an advanced nurse practitioner, ANP, or advanced medical practitioner, AMP, in this area which is very exciting.