(Limerick West): I want to ask the Minister for the Public Service the action he is taking to bring to a speedy end the strike by officers of the Department of Agriculture which is very seriously disrupting the milk and meat industries, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Private Notice Questions. - Agricultural Officers' Dispute.
I want to ask the Minister for the Public Service if, in view of the major difficulties arising from the agricultural industry owing to the industrial dispute by the agricultural officers, he will state the action he is taking to prevent further disruption.
I propose to take both questions together.
I would refer the Deputies to my reply to their Private Notice Questions on 13 May 1986 which raised the same issues. I have already made it clear to the union concerned in this dispute — the Union of Profesional and Technical Civil Servants — that I am prepared to continue negotiations with them with a view to securing an agreement on the same broad lines as that for the teachers, and with a view to exploring the union's contention that there were special features in individual arbitration findings which would merit special treatment. I sincerely hope the union will return to the negotiating table on this basis.
Since we put down these questions this morning — the Minister may be able to confirm it — there has been an escalation of the dispute by both sides. I understand the Minister said the Army would go into the dairies to undertake the testing of milk so that butter could go into intervention. The union have said if that is so, from 5 o'clock this evening not alone will they intensify the dispute — some weeks ago they gave notice that they would withdraw the beef classification officers — but they will also withdraw the inspectors in the two sheep slaughtering areas — Anglo-Irish in Ballymun and El-Al in Ballyhaunis. As I have said several times, there were nine categories of staff involved——
A question please, Deputy.
There are nine categories, members of the UPTCS, involved. The Minister saw fit to pay to three categories the full conciliation and arbitration award. Would he now pay the six remaining categories their full award?
As Minister for the Public Service the operation of the agricultural services is not my responsibility. I am, however, aware that today the Department of Agriculture have taken certain steps and, as indicated by Deputy Ahern, certain courses of action may be taken as a consequence of which there is a further probability of escalation in this unfortunate and, in my view, unnecessary dispute. I have been and remain available to negotiate with representatives of the UPTCS. I want to reiterate formally and solemnly in this House that I believe that we can do serious business together. I know that I have the felexibility within the framework of the overall Government decision to do that business.
We have offered to pay in full three of the nine awards. That payment has not yet been made because the unions in question have not accepted our offer to pay in full three of the nine awards. I make that technical correction to what Deputy Ahern otherwise correctly put on the record of the House.
I want to say, particularly to Deputy Noonan who has responsibility for Agriculture on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, that the damage, existing and potential, to the Irish economy is way in excess of the scale of the justice and legitimacy of the claim on which the members involved are taking industrial action at the moment. Let me reiterate in full the statement of the position that I made in relation to this matter previously dated 23 May:
The Minister
— that is myself —
was quite prepared to accept that the position of each side should be recognised by the other i.e. any settlement should be without prejudice to the rights of UPTCS to pursue their claim for full payment and equally without prejudice to the Government's position that payment of full retrospection or a commitment to such payment was not possible.
Secondly, I indicated that I could offer UPTCS ex gratia payments on the same general basis as other groups had got. Thirdly, I also indicated that I was prepared to explore further the union's contention that there were features in the individual findings which would merit special treatment. Indeed, as far back as January last various offers on the individual findings had been made, including an offer to implement in full the finding in the case of the beef classification officers because of the special features of that finding.
Finally, UPTCS, however, indicated that they could not agree to anything less than virtually full restrospection for all groups and the meeting, which was held on 22 May, ended on the basis that they would report back to their executive committee.
I understand the legitimate concern of every Deputy in this House and in particular the spokesperson for the Opposition. I want to reiterate that the basis of a settlement is available to the individuals involved, that I am prepared and willing to negotiate that settlement and, having regard to the potential and possibly real damage to our agricultural economy, I invite them to come back in and talk to me.
We on this side of the House acknowledge the difficulties regarding the agricultural sector, but right throughout the teachers' dispute the argument was that the Government supported conciliation and arbitration but that the money involved was just too large. In this case the money involved is not too large, and the Minister is making renegotiations impossible by adding in the condition that it is a settlement in line with the ex gratia payment arrangement which was used to half solve the teachers' dispute. If the Minister wishes to have meaningful negotiations and to stop this very dangerous dispute — which nobody wishes to see happen — in just under an hour from now, he must remove the conditions and meet UPTCS without these conditions. I give the Minister an opportunity to remove that precondition in the House now. That would be very helpful.
I appreciate that Deputy Ahern is expressing the concern of his party in a responsible manner. I reiterate that I am not laying down preconditions to any discussions with this union. I am simply stating the factual basis on which we are prepared to negotiate and talk to the unions. We have not exhausted the room for manoeuvre that we possess. That is not a precondition; that is a statement of where we are. I do not want to convey a false position to either the Deputies in this House or to the representatives of the workers involved. That is not a precondition in my language. That is an honest statement of where we are, and I want the public at large and the media to understand that there are no preconditions on our side other than the statement of the position I have already reiterated here today.
As I understand it, the money involved in this case is £3 million or thereabouts on the six claims. The unions have stated that what they wish to have is full payment in line with the three categories of their colleagues who have been offered the full award in conciliation and arbitration. They have stated that they will talk about that payment on the basis of paying it between now and 1991. They have stated also that the arbitrator offered them the award from 1 May and that they would be prepared to delay the implementation day to June, July, August or September. It seems in this case — I have not all the facts or the advisers that the Minister has — that these people — who have no past history of industrial action to this extent — had no intention of going into the area of sheep slaughterhouses until the Army were threatened on them some hours ago. The Minister has very little time and very little flexibility with 55 minutes to go before the escalation around the country of this dispute. He said in his statement in this House today that any arrangements he can enter into and the flexibility he has received from the Cabinet are based on agreement in line with the teachers' dispute on ex gratia payments. He knows that that is unacceptable. He must say categorically that he will negotiate without preconditions, or the dispute goes ahead in 55 minutes.
(Limerick West): In view of what the Minister stated with regard to the importance of this dispute and this threat to the development of the agricultural industry, and in view of the fact that the farmers and the people engaged in agriculture are the innocent victims in this dispute, surely it makes commercial sense to resolve the dispute now rather than later? It must be resolved at some stage.
I am tempted to make a remark, which might not be helpful in the circumstances, about commercial sense. I know that the Deputies opposite are trying to be helpful, responsible and articulate about the real concern felt by all of us. I want to restate my position acting on behalf of the Government. We regret that this dispute is taking place and that it now appears about to be escalated on the other side. I believe that that is unnecessary. We can negotiate a position that is satisfactory to both sides. However, I think the House will agree with me that this is not the place where we negotiate it but it is the place that we express our concern that both sides would resume negotiations. Let me state clearly on behalf of the Government that I am ready to resume those negotiations and I know that those negotiations can be made.
That concludes Question Time.