asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether in view of the disastrous effects on employment and industry resulting from the absence of veterinary services in meat factories and abbatoirs, he will arrange immediately for the re-opening of negotiations with the Veterinary Union with an acceptable independent arbitrator; and, pending the outcome of such negotiations, he will ask that the veterinary services be restored.
Private Notice Questions. - Veterinary Services Dispute.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the immediate steps he is taking in the present dispute affecting veterinary services to prevent loss of employment in meat factories.
I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to take these two questions together.
The difficulties which have arisen derive from the refusal of the Irish Veterinary Union to agree to the introduction of trained lay personnel to take blood samples from cattle under the brucellosis eradication scheme.
My original proposal was to introduce lay personnel in all areas to which the scheme applied but, following prolonged discussions and in an endeavour to meet the union's viewpoint I decided to confine their introduction to the six north-western counties in which brucellosis has been eradicated but where control measures must of course, continue to apply. I have, therefore, already modified very substantially my original proposal, and the only further step open to me would be to withdraw my decision altogether. The union on the other hand have shown themselves unwilling to depart in any way from their original and adamant opposition to the introduction of lay blood samplers although such samplers have been operating in Northern Ireland and Britain for a number of years with the full agreement of the veterinary profession and the Royal Veterinary College.
There is an adequate number of veterinary officers on my Department's staff to service the meat factories so that farmers need not be inconvenienced or the meat trade disrupted during the period of the dispute. While the requisite staff have been instructed to report for duty at meat factories, some staff association problems have arisen. These problems will fall to be dealt with in the context of the Civil Service Regulations Acts and the conditions of employment of the officers concerned.
Would the Minister accept that if the present problems are connected with the brucellosis scheme that was also the position at the beginning of April last when I asked him a parliamentary question alerting him as to the present position and he told me that he was not aware that there was any likelihood of there being unemployment arising out of it? The Minister would accept that on 10th April I tabled a similar question to him alerting him as to the position and he told me that as far as he was aware there was no danger to employment in abattoirs or factories. That was in connection with the slaughter premium scheme. What change has occurred since April to make him attribute everything to the brucellosis scheme?
I feel that there is a misunderstanding and that Deputy Tunney is dealing with a separate matter altogether.
That is the question I asked the Minister.
The trouble in relation to the matter which Deputy Tunney has raised is that it is really a local authority matter. The inspections of meat in the normal way were carried out at these local abattoirs and slaughter houses by the local authority veterinary inspectors. In the normal way there was supposed to be ante-and post-mortem examination. I understand now from the developments that have taken place that ante inspection did not take place by the local authorities although that would be a normal thing for them to do, and the question arises. They then sought additional remuneration for doing this extra inspection but in my view at quite an unreasonable rate, for instance, £2 a head in Dublin county.
Eighty pence in Dublin city.
Eighty pence in Dublin city. There is this sort of discrepancy. I have told the butchers, the people concerned, that the slaughter premium will be paid. So, there should be no disruption.
Is the Minister now telling me and the House that in respect of the administration of a scheme for which money is available to us from the EEC under FEOGA grants, it is the responsibility of the local authority and not the responsibility of the Department to administer that scheme?
Yes. If the local authorities were doing the inspection as it should be done there would be no necessity for an additional inspection and an additional expense.
In the last few sentences of the Minister's reply was there a veiled threat to the employment of members of the Veterinary Association who are working in his Department? Would he be prepared at this stage to accept an independent mediator? Was he offered an independent mediator yesterday?
No.
Was there no contact with his Department?
Not that I am aware of.
Would the Minister accept an independent mediator?
No, not at this stage.
Is the Minister prepared to let 4,000 or 5,000 people out of jobs because he is not prepared to settle the dispute? He is being sold by the civil servants and I am sorry for him.
We must deal with this matter in an orderly fashion.
It is a very serious matter for employees.
I was asked if there was an offer of a mediator and I said no. I have done nothing as of today——
That is obvious.
The practitioners have gone on strike because I have said that at a future date I intend to bring in lay samplers. No lay samplers have been brought in but the practitioners have withdrawn their services. If the Deputy wants to make representations he should make them to his veterinary contacts.
Will the Minister not agree that proposals were put to his officials by the Veterinary Union last March and a copy was delivered to him but some of his officials were so indolent they would not accept it?
There should not be a reflection cast on officials.
The Minister has been continually talking about discussions but he has never negotiated with the union. He presented them with a fait accompli in May and, by that action, he has caused a strike that will escalate.
I want to contradict emphatically what the Deputy has said. I spoke to the practitioners in 1973 and in 1974 and I had two meetings with them in 1975. They have had two additional meetings with officials of the Department. To say I had no discussion or negotiation is completely untrue and the Deputy knows that.
Would the Minister be prepared——
We must proceed with other business. I will allow a final supplementary.
This is something that is affecting our economy——
It affects the economy like every strike.
Every striker was not called irresponsible. The language of the Minister in this House last week was irresponsible——
The Deputy is engaging in an argument.
Will the Minister accept a leader of any of the farming organisations who are affected as a mediator in this case?
There are normal and well-recognised developments in any strike situation. I will deal with this as it arises, not as dictated by Deputy Davern.
Is the Minister denying that a person was offered by independent people——
We cannot debate this matter today. This is Question Time.
I deny what the Deputy has said.
Will the Minister give consideration to them?
I will consider any situation that arises in the course of this development.
When will the Minister do that? Will he let this situation continue?
I will consider it when it is opportune to do so.
Is the Minister aware that the strike will escalate?
We must proceed to the next business.
The Minister will not be able to put in lay practitioners because they will not be trained. The Minister is not helping the economy at a vital time.
Will the Minister tell us if it will be possible in any circumstances to complete the brucellosis eradication programme before 1978 without the assistance of lay staff? Is this not at the heart of the question? Will the Minister not agree that the real danger is that we may find ourselves in 1978 with the brucellosis eradication programme not finished and, as a consequence, we will be unable to export to the continent?
I am glad the Deputy has raised this matter because it is my serious concern that it will not be possible to eradicate the diseases within the limited time available.
I am calling the Capital Gains Tax Bill. Deputy Colley reported progress.
Will the Minister not agree he has not accepted the professional advice of the veterinary surgeons in his Department and that he has ignored the Veterinary Association? He has accepted the views of civil servants.
The Deputy has made the most ridiculous statements.