Madam, - The editorial in today's edition (August 22nd) comments on the impasse in the current talks on the consultants' common contract and the submission by the Irish Medical Organisation to the Review Body on Higher Remuneration on behalf of consultants. I am obliged to correct a number of false assumptions contained in your editorial and to respond to some unfair criticisms contained therein.
Firstly, the IMO has lodged an extensive submission with the review body on behalf of consultants because it has been asked to do so by the review body which is undertaking a review of remuneration for a range of public servants including the judiciary, politicians, higher management grades in the civil and public services, senior officers in the Garda Síochána and defence forces and the chief executives of non-commercial semi-state bodies. On April 21st last, the review body wrote to the IMO explicitly seeking our submission with full knowledge of the ongoing contract talks and having regard to the review body's "proposed work programme and the various steps involved".
You should also be aware that the review body is mandated to review the remuneration of the above-named groups every four years and is not linked to contract negotiations with these groups but is instead intended to review their remuneration while employing job evaluation comparisons with peers in the commercial sector and having regard to the need to continue to recruit and retain the highest calibre of candidate in these posts.
Regarding your comments on the current impasse in the contract negotiations, I should advise you that the IMO has prepared extensively for these talks over many years and is anxious to engage with the HSE at the earliest juncture.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to expect that the HSE will continue to honour the existing contract and conditions of employment relating to consultants for the course of these discussions. Unfortunately, the HSE believes it can seek to predetermine the outcome of these talks by making unilateral decisions regarding the appointment of consultants and is refusing to operate in accordance with standard ground rules for such discussions.
Specifically, the HSE is refusing to rescind the decision it made in secret last January to refuse approval of certain (category two) contract posts.
You might also bear in mind that this decision was made by the board of the HSE, rather than their negotiating team, and was only confirmed in response to a Dáil question after this policy had been uncovered by the IMO.
You will be interested to learn that senior members of the HSE negotiating team were as ignorant of this decision as the IMO until the policy shift was confirmed in the Dáil.
Of course the great irony about this fiasco is that the IMO was the only party to the last review of the consultants' contract which argued for the retention of the public-only consultant contract option, a position which the IMO still holds.
It is to be hoped that a solution can be found to enable discussions to resume without preconditions being set and which respects existing agreements so that all parties can devote their efforts to agreeing revised and enhanced contractual terms which benefit consultants, patients and taxpayers and which ensure the continued provision of the highest standards of medical care.
We expect that such discussions will attract extensive media coverage; we hope that such comment will be fair, reasonable and informed. - Yours, etc,
FINT ANHOURIHAN, Director, Industrial Relations, Irish Medical Organisation, Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2.