I thank the two Deputies for raising this issue. For reasons that will become apparent, I am obliged to stick to the prepared script this evening. I welcome the opportunity to explain the decision of the Government on this issue as there seems to be some misunderstanding on the subject. At the outset, I should say that I am aware from media reports that the individuals affected by the Government's decision obtained leave from the High Court on 25 June last to challenge the decision by way of application for judicial review. As is usual in such proceedings, the application for leave was made ex parte, that is, without the presence in court of any lawyers representing the State's interests. Accordingly I am not aware of the full nature and extent of the reliefs sought by the applicants or of the grounds upon which they seek to rely. Moreover, neither my Department nor the Chief State Solicitor has yet been served with the legal documents. In the circumstances, I am somewhat constrained in the extent to which I can comment on the matter having regard to the well established rules of this House governing the discussions of matters which are sub judice.
The sub-professional grade of estates officer was established in 1969 to carry out some of the more routine duties of the Land Commission inspectorate. As their main duties involved the management of lands acquired by the Land Commission, their work diminished following the Government decision in 1984 to abolish the Land Commission.
By 1987, the residue of work on lands had virtually ceased and arrangements had to be made to redeploy these men to other work. There was no lands work available and as it was considered that this Department had sufficient staff, efforts to find them alternative work were concentrated in other Departments. Following various attempts to assign them to alternative duties, on 1 May 1987 the Department of Finance redeployed all the serving estates officers as court clerks to the Department of Justice. There were 13 officers involved at that stage. This decision was not taken lightly and was the outcome of protracted negotiations with the Union of Professional Civil Servants, which represented the estates officers at the time. These assignments were actively chosen with a view to improving their remuneration, avoiding any geographical inconvenience and facilitating access to promotion posts. This latter point had always been a bone of contention with the estates officers as they had not heretofore enjoyed any promotion outlets. However, as the estates officers preferred to remain as estates officers, they objected to these assignments and sought a judicial review of the assignment decision.
In January 1991, following an out-of-court settlement which was negotiated by the Department of Finance, the officers returned to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
At this stage, the Government had introduced the voluntary early retirement scheme and four of these men availed of the package, one died and one remained with the Department of Justice.
As was to be expected, no appropriate lands functions developed between 1987 and 1991. Thus when these officers returned to this Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, the only viable option for their continuing employment was to redeploy them to alternative duties. This process was long, tedious and subject to voluminous legalistic arguments as the estates officers operated on the premise that the out-of-court settlement gave them an entitlement to continue to function as estates officers for the remainder of their careers. This was not acceptable to my Department. The emphasis of my Department at that time was to resolve the issue by offering the officers involved alternative duties.
On 24 August 1992, these men were assigned to higher agricultural officer duties in meat plants as near as possible to their home locations. This offer was made following full discussions with the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Finance. The officers objected to this offer as they considered these indoor duties as inappropriate. Following advice and discussions with the Office of the Attorney General two further offers were made in 1996 and 1998. These consisted of the option of an early retirement package or the choice of recertification as higher agricultural officers and assignment to outdoor duties on livestock or disease eradication schemes with headquarters near their home.
In 1998, the estates officers were again given a similar choice to that offered in 1996 but with more financially beneficial retirement terms. The offers in 1996 and 1998 indicated that if the choices offered were rejected the Department would have no alternative but to consider seeking the approval of the Government to terminate their services under the appropriate provisions of the Civil Service Regulation Acts.
None of the offers made has been accepted and the net effect is that these seven officers continued to be paid by the State but without being gainfully employed. No lands work appropriate to their qualifications and experience materialised as the Commencement Order for the Irish Land Commission (Dissolution) Act, 1992, was signed on 31 March 1999.
The State found itself in the untenable position of paying salary to these officers who are not gainfully employed and who had refused the reasonable offers of alternative employment offered. In the light of these circumstances, on 20 March 2001, the Government decided that the grade of estates officer should be abolished and the services of the seven remaining officers in the grade should be terminated under sections 5 and 17 of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956.
The terms available under sections 6 and 7 of the Superannuation and Pensions Act, 1963, grant of notional years of established service in consequence of the abolition of an officer's office, should be provided to the remaining officers on the estates officers salary scale. I hope this information, which is fairly comprehensive, is of use to the Deputies in explaining the factual background to this dispute.
