Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive review and congratulate him and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, on securing the funding that is very important for the sustainability of rural areas. It is important now to know how the various schemes will be focused to achieve their objectives and to minimise administration costs. Administration includes inspections. The charter of rights of farmers is several years old. Will it be reviewed and renewed? I note that the Minister has to deal with a clearance account for the EU budgets and to ensure that a certain number of inspections are carried out but landing in on people and expecting them to be ready causes significant angst. It is important to take cognisance of the fact that people have to work on farms. Appropriate procedures in respect of the charter should be implemented and reviewed.

The Minister spoke very cogently and clearly about saving money. It is important to save every cent that we can on administration and give it to the areas where it is needed at ground level. That is why I am disappointed by the threatened industrial action at Portlaoise. It would be remiss of me not to avail of this opportunity to raise this issue. The action started yesterday with technical staff reporting in the traditional way and refusing to co-operate with proposed transfers of staff within the grade. Initially it will be mild and will cause administrative inconvenience to management without impacting on farmers and the agricultural and food industries. It has, however, been indicated that if there is no resolution to this dispute it will escalate to include action that will delay grant payments to farmers and disrupt the processing and export of cattle and other agricultural products. This could happen in late February or early March.

I would like to see every effort made to use the normal industrial relations channels to put a stop to this threatened industrial action. There are 600 agricultural staff where a few years ago there were 1,200. Nowhere has there been greater co-operation. There has been a rationalisation from 58 officers to 16, and redeployment of 400 staff. The Minister said that staff members had fallen at the Department. One of the biggest cuts was the 18.6% among the technical staff who co-operated fully with the rationalisation which resulted in tens of millions of euros saved. Along with other public servants they have been subject to two pay cuts since 2009, as well as other changes in their working terms and conditions, applicable under the Haddington Road agreement, which we all saluted as being extremely important. Why did the Department not intervene?

The root cause of this dispute is well known. The management in the Department appears to be refusing to implement official policy, which denies these agricultural officers an opportunity to compete for posts at a time when their traditional role is being diminished. Management persists in allocating inspections to more costly staff. That costs everybody money. We are taxpayers, like the farming community and everybody else. I am confused. There was a policy on cross-stream promotion and redeployment which was always agreed. Why under the Haddington Road agreement have those people not been allowed to participate in competing for those opportunities? Every other Department has implemented the new approach. Why is this policy being blatantly ignored and excluding agricultural officers from competition for assistant principal posts? If there are savings involved in the administration we are entitled to ensure that takes place. Why is that happening? Why was it allowed to reach this impasse? When will it be resolved? Are there not significant savings to be achieved by following Government policy? This is not a new policy. I would appreciate a reply to those questions.