asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the progress to date in settling the dispute between his Department and the advisory service.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Advisory Service.
8.
On 17th January, at their request, I met members of the organisation which represents the agricultural advisory service. At that meeting I had recognised, and so stated, that I felt the organisation had a real grievance in so far as there was no provision for any promotional opportunity between the recruitment grade and that of the Deputy CAO in the service and that I had undertaken to personally examine this situation and see if something could be done to meet this grievance pending the general overhaul of the services. Thirteen days after I had given this undertaking the organisation regrettably advised their members not to co-operate in the operation of the EEC schemes.
Regardless of what I considered to be precipitate action I agreed to again meet them on 15th March when I made the offer of over 70 new posts of senior instructor on the condition that the service would co-operate fully in the implementation of the farm modernisation scheme. The organisation did not accept the terms of the offer. I have now asked them again to accept what was offered and get on with the job of providing farmers with a service to which they are entitled under the farm modernisation scheme.
I am quite prepared to make public the correspondence which has passed between myself and the organisation that represents the agricultural advisory service.
I accept the Minister's offer of making available to me whatever correspondence exists between him and the advisory services in connection with this dispute. Could the Minister tell the House when it is likely that this fog to which he referred earlier is likely to clear up and if there is anything further he can do to blow it away?
I do not think there is anything further I can do. I have gone to the limits in the circumstances, and I think it is now up to the advisory officers to make up their minds.
Would the Minister outline the case that is being made by the advisory services so that this House can fully see and examine the areas of disagreement between the Minister and the advisory services?
I understand that this is not a new case; in fact they claim they have been making it for seven years, so that it is not easy to go back over that period. They say they have been waiting for six years for a proper career structure; they have been waiting since 1970 to get subject matters specialists; they have been waiting for seven years for reorganisation of the service; and they have reservations about formal approval by the Department of applications and plans under the farm modernisation scheme; they have some queries about socio-economic advisers, and are claiming status of first promotion grades and so on. They have a very long list. All I can say is that I have been 12 months in office and I have provided approximately 100 new promotional opportunities, and I have told them that I am doing this pending the general reorganisation of the advisory services, when I expect a much better career structure will be provided. Regardless of that, they have made their decision.
The Minister is quite correct in saying this dispute has been going on a long time, but seeing that stalemate has been reached would the Minister consider setting up some type of arbitration in this case? As it is such a serious matter would he consider continuing negotiations?
On matters of salary they already have arbitration. If they continue in this attitude of nonco-operation, I shall only have to ask the applicants to write direct to the Department.
In view of the fact that it will take some time to deal with applications under the farm modernisation scheme, which will be further delayed due to this dispute, would the Minister consider re-introducing grants under the farm buildings scheme which terminated on 1st February this year, so that farmers who are awaiting the payment of grants can now be paid?
Certainly not. I shall ask the people to send their applications direct to the Department and we shall deal with them. If this organisation does not want to become involved in what is a first-class national development, I regret it very much.
Further arising——
I must bring it to the notice of the House that we are making exceptionally slow progress at questions today, eight questions in 25 minutes.
There are not very many on the Order Paper.
That may be so. That is no reason to create a precedent by bringing debate into the House at Question Time.
This, as the Deputy knows, is a very old question, and the Government which preceded this one did very little to solve it.
The Minister has admitted failure to settle this dispute with the advisory services.
I have not admitted failure.
If he has not, then he should.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister say——
Surely the Deputy is not going to indulge in an argument in the matter.
Would the Minister let us know whether he would consider withdrawing the offer which has been rejected and making an improved offer?
No. I told them it was not open to further negotiation.
Deputy Wilson for a final supplementary?
Did the Minister withdraw the offer?
Yes, I did.
I have called Deputy Wilson.
In the reorganisation mentioned by the Minister, is it envisaged to include the project people and the buildings and the water people as well?
Yes. What reorganisation is the Deputy referring to.
The Minister mentioned reorganisation.
This is pending the overall reorganisation?
Yes.
The Deputy will see that when it comes.