asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason for the cuts in the Estimate for his Department; and the reason he chose to inflict almost all of them upon those who were actually providing the services.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Departmental Estimate Cuts.
66.
As I mentioned in my speech on my Department's Estimates on 22 October public expenditure cuts were necessary this year to restore order to the public finances so that the economy could be put on the road to expansion and development. The spending cuts in the Agriculture and Food Estimate were made by the Cabinet after detailed examination of all available options. No sector was immune from the cuts but no sector stands to gain more than the farming community from the Government's policy to reduce overall public expenditure.
The position is that there will be a 5 per cent cut only in gross terms in the Agriculture and Food Vote in 1988 with total spending on agriculture being £100 million up in 1988 that is £1,600 million against £1,500 million in 1987.
It is Government policy to be as cost effective as possible in the area of administration and the increasing expenditure by my Department is being administered by decreasing staff numbers.
I think the Minister is misleading the House slightly in discussing percentages of moneys voted from Brussels and which have nothing to do with the internal arrangements of the budget provisions. I am glad to see he has changed his tack a little on the redundancy package offered to people within his own Department and that he has been made to see the reality of what he was proposing to do a month ago. The Minister has spoken about reductions in the region of 800 staff since 1982 in his own Department vis-á-vis the ACOT-AFT proposed cuts. How many of these were redundancies or were they actual transfers to other areas within the Civil Service? I think it is untrue to say they were redundancies in themselves.
I would like to remind the Deputy that if he speaks any longer the Minister will not have time to reply. We must finish the business at 3.45 p.m.
I put it to the Minister — and he tells me he has a plan — that anyone who has a plan must have resources especially where there is some type of repayment involved. If the vast majority of funds for any industry are used in running the office at the expense of doing away with the workers you will produce nothing. How the Minister can assert that that is in the interests of farmers is beyond me.
The Deputy is making a long speech and indulging in recollection. That is not in accordance with what is permitted at Question Time. As I have told you, you have talked yourself out of getting an answer. The order of the House is that this business terminates at 3.45 p.m.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would nearly prefer to speak than to get the expected answer.
Your wish is not provided for in Standing Orders. The order of the House is that we move on to the next business.