andMr. Crinion asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the progress he has made to date in settling the dispute with the agricultural advisory officers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Advisory Officers.
12.
I would refer the Deputies to my reply to a similar question by Deputy Gerard Collins on 3rd April. In that reply I spelled out to the house the steps taken by me to meet the grievance of the organisation which represents the Agricultural Advisory Service regarding the provision of promotional opportunity between the recruitment grade and that of Deputy CAO. The organisation did not accept the terms of the offer I made to provide 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. I subsequently asked them again to accept what was offered and get on with the job of providing farmers with a service to which they were entitled under that scheme.
The chairman of the General Council of Committees of Agriculture convened a meeting on 3rd May of representatives of his council, of my Department and of the Irish Agricultural Advisers' Organisation in an effort to secure agreement on the matters at issue. I understand that certain proposals were put forward at this meeting which the IAAO representatives undertook to put to their members.
As I have said before, I do not think there is anything further I can do to prevail on the advisers' organisation to lift their ban. I have gone to the limits in the circumstances and I think it is up to them to make up their minds.
Has that offer now been withdrawn?
Since it was not accepted the Minister withdrew it. The position, as I see it, is that this organisation claims it was working for six years for a proper structure. The National Coalition have been in office for only 14 months——
Blame Fianna Fáil for your stubborn arrogant approach.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is very hard to negotiate on something that does not exist? They could have negotiated while the offer was there but, if it is withdrawn, there can be no negotiations.
A question, please, Deputy.
While the offer is withdrawn there cannot be any negotiations and, until it is reoffered, there cannot be any negotiation.
The Minister offered 70 promotional posts. That offer was open for discussion and it was thrown aside. What other steps could the Minister take? Naturally the Minister is most anxious that this matter should be resolved in a fair and reasonable way——
(Interruptions.)
If Deputies ask supplementary questions they should be gracious enough to listen to the replies.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the dispute is being ignored by virtue of the fact that the Department have taken over the running of the farm modernisation scheme?
The Department have to do that when the organisation is out on strike, so to speak, so far as this particular scheme is concerned. The Minister has asked again and again for the co-operation of the organisation. He was giving 70 promotional posts.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that it is in the best interests of settling this dispute that an offer which was made and withdrawn should remain withdrawn?
The Minister made an offer and nothing was done about that offer and it is up to the organisation now to come along and admit they have obligations to the State as well as the Minister.
That is right. Keep them out because you were not ready for the scheme anyway.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how many new posts have been created to deal with these applications?
Seventy promotional posts were offered and the Minister is in no way to blame for the present position.
13.
andMr. Crinion asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the reason for the delay in the proposed circulation of copies of all the correspondence which has passed between him and his office and the agricultural advisory officers with whom he is in dispute.
In my reply to a question by Deputy Gerard Collins on the subject of the agricultural advisory service on 3rd April I stated that I was prepared to make public the correspondence which had passed between myself and the organisation that represents the agricultural advisory service. This offer was not taken up and there is, accordingly, no question of a delay.
The Parliamentary Secretary has been very glib in quoting certain parts of what was said here that afternoon. I would ask him to look at the supplementary questions and answers which followed.
I have it here. The Minister indicated he was quite prepared to make public the correspondence which passed between him and the organisation. There are two sides to the dispute. There is the Minister and there is the agricultural organisation. If that organisation is anxious that the public should know what happened the Minister indicated he would let the correspondence be published. Did the Deputy expect he himself would get the correspondence?
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Minister told Members here at Question Time that copies of the correspondence which passed between him and the organisation involved would be made available to Members? I thanked him and told him I looked forward to receiving copies of the correspondence. I have not yet got them. Is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying we are going to get them?
What the Parliamentary Secretary is saying is that it was implied in the answer that if the agricultural organisation, the other party to this dispute, wanted this correspondence to be made public, the Minister was quite prepared to publish it.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say quite clearly and categorically today that we are being refused something the Minister already promised us.
The Minister promised he was quite willing to make the correspondence public and, implied in that promise, was that the other party to the dispute should be willing to publish. That is only reasonable and fair. If the agricultural organisation indicates that it wants this correspondence to be made public in order to give the public an opportunity of judging on the issues involved the Minister is quite prepared to do that.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary now saying we can only have copies of correspondence between the Minister and the agricultural advisory officers if the officers agree?
That is, I think, a fair assumption.
You ought to be proud of yourselves. Open Government. Trick-of-the-loopery.