Vol. 375 No. 3
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to the information from union surveys that the take-up rate for voluntary redundancies will be substantially below the level of redundancies envisaged in the Estimates for the new body amalgamating An Foras Talúntais and ACOT; and the action he will take to ensure that there are no compulsory redundancies among the staff of An Foras Talúntais and ACOT.
9.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement regarding the proposed redundancies of at least 1,000 persons within the ACOT-AFT merger; in particular if the required level of voluntary redundancies is not attained he will enforce redundancies; and the basis on which these redundancies will be made.
21.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the total number of people employed by ACOT in the administrative research, advisory and educational areas; the numbers employed by the agricultural institute in the same areas; the number of redundancies in each area; the number of people to be made redundant as a result of the merger of ACOT and the agricultural institute; and the total amount of savings envisaged.
29.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food regarding the proposed lay-offs in AFT and ACOT if it is expected that the staff will be relocated in other areas of the public service or if they will be faced with compulsory redundancies.
55.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the way in which, in relation to the newly merged ACOT-AFT body, he will reduce the workforce by 1,000 or 40 per cent by 1 January 1988 when money for payment of salaries runs out and still keep within the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies.
60.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if there is to be redeployment of some ACOT-AFT staff to reduce their numbers in line with his proposals; and if their conditions of employment and pension rights will be preserved.
67.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food what was done by way of preparation of a coherent plan for the merger of AFT-ACOT prior to the publication of the Book of Estimates 1988; whether such a plan has now been prepared and, if so, the details thereof; if an efficient and effective advisory education and research service can be provided for farmers and the food industry, in the light of the proposed reduction of funding from over £35 million to £20 million; in view of the fact that such a reduction is grossly disproportionate as compared to the allocation of a sum of £66.5 million for general administration in his Department, his views on whether the transfer of £7.5 million from the general administration sub-head to provide additional resources for AFT-ACOT is the only reasonable alternative at this stage; and the arrangements which will be made for those members of the staff of AFT-ACOT whose continuing employment cannot be funded and who do not apply for voluntary redundancy.
The amalgamation of An Foras Taluntáis and ACOT was decided by the Government in the context of their overall plans to restore order to the public finances through rationalising State services, controlling Exchequer spending to the essential limits of cost-effectiveness and in particular ensuring co-ordination of the research, advisory and education services in agriculture. The broad lines of the amalgamation will be contained in legislation which I will be introducing in the House during the present session. The plan of operation for the amalgamated services will be a matter for the new authority and I will be asking them to provide me with details of the services they intend to provide taking account of their non-Exchequer resources including financial participation from the industry.
I am satisfied, given the staff reductions which can be achieved through the Government's redundancy scheme, or if necessary through redeployment, that an efficient and effective service can be provided on the basis of Exchequer funding provided in the Estimates. The terms of the Government's voluntary redundancy scheme are currently being offered to all the staff of both bodies and, until that process has been completed, it is not appropriate to speculate on alternative provisions. However, as I indicated to staff representatives when the Minister for Labour and I met them recently, it is not the Government's intention to implement compulsory redundancies in the matter.
The Government recently decided to extend the voluntary redundancy scheme to all personnel over 50 in the Civil Service, health boards and non-commercial State bodies.
Staff numbers in An Foras Talúntais and ACOT are as follows:
|
An Foras |
|
|
Administrative |
22 |
|
Research |
234 |
|
Technical |
374 |
|
Secretarial |
99 |
|
General |
405 |
|
1,134 |
|
ACOT |
|
|
Administrative |
18 |
|
Professional |
663 |
|
Technical |
22 |
|
Clerical |
211 |
|
Farm & Domestic |
112 |
|
1,026 |
In view of the Government's statement that training for young farmers, product development and food research would be their priorities, how does the Minister propose to meet the figures outlined in the Book of Estimates which show a reduction of 1,000 jobs in that area? Would the Minister agree that it will be impossible to meet that objective? I wish to refer to a statement which the Minister made which was published in The Irish Times and the Irish Press last week in which he seemed to have changed his previous position. Can the Minister tell us the number of redundancies that will be required in AFT and ACOT under the Government's redundancy package, and can he also tell us his proposals for effecting other savings within that area? The Minister, his Department, the unions and staff seem to accept that the number of redundancies will not and cannot exceed the figure of 350. Does the Minister also agree that it is economic lunacy to remove staff who are productively engaged at present on behalf of the agricultural sector?
Let me reply to most of the points made by the Deputy in what amounted more to a statement than to a question. The Estimates do not make any reference to a figure of 1,000. It is very important that that be put on the record of the House. I did not make any statement of that kind and the Estimates did not——
You do not know.
If I do not know, those who speculate on the figure do not know either. Secondly, the Deputy does not seem to be prepared to take into account the possibility of redeployment. Until such time as we have obtained a response from those within ACOT, AFT and for that matter within the Department of Agriculture and Food to the voluntary redundancy provisions, it will not be possible to make an estimate of what the total numbers will be. Thirdly, the Deputy is not taking into account that the authority will have a different role, will be self-financing and will give a very satisfactory service to the industry concerned. Let me instance the food industry. My colleague the Minister of State will have specific responsibility to deal with this industry. The ability to raise revenue to provide those services is not being taken into account in the slide rule approach which has been referred to by the Deputy.
A suggestion has been made that there is a risk involved in this but I can assure the Deputy that my colleagues and I will, if there is such a risk, try to minimise it. I want to make it quite clear, as I indicated to the representatives of the union when I met them with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, that there will be no compulsory redundancies. We will have to await the response to the voluntary redundancy scheme. After 1 January each member of the staff of the authority, which will be established following the passage of legislation which will be introduced shortly in this House, will have security of employment. Contrary to what was said in this House and elsewhere ACOT fully realised the amount which it was estimated they would raise through charges. I have no doubt that the new authority will also be able to raise revenue in a balanced, modulated and fair way.
May I ask a supplementary question?
The House has agreed that the Minister would reply to seven questions. Questions have been tabled on this matter by Deputies Stagg, Gibbons, Naughten, J. O'Keeffe, P. O'Malley and Mac Giolla. I propose that if any of those Deputies wish to ask a supplementary question in respect of what the Minister has said, they should be given the opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, I appeal to other Deputies who have questions to ask to wait and, while they are waiting, to give us all the benefit of their silent audience. I now propose to call on Deputy Gibbons.
If the Deputy feels the pressure is too great for him to do as I ask, he knows the option and I hope he will not put me to it.
We are not going to listen to waffle similar to what the Minister——
Deputy Farrelly who has not tabled a question on this matter will have to give way to those who have. If he is not prepared to do that, I ask him to remove himself to some such place where he will not find——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I ask one final supplementary question?
You will have another opportunity. I propose to move on to Deputies who have questions tabled on this matter.
The Minister stated that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Can he tell the House where those employed in ACOT and the AFT will seek employment in the public service?
It would be up to the new authority, which will be set up following the introduction of legislation in this House, to decide on how staff will be allocated having regard to the priorities which will be set out for them in the legislation. As to where they will seek employment in the public service, they will be in exactly the same position as anybody else employed in the public service. They will have security of tenure. As I have indicated, they will not be subjected to compulsory retirement provisions and that is the most important guarantee they can have.
A number of issues are raised in my Priority Question, No. 67, on which I asked the Minister to focus. He has not done so in his broad reply. What kind of planning has been done in relation to this merger? I am aware that these organisations were asked in June of this year to prepare budgets for 1988 on the basis of a 10 per cent reduction. Will the Minister give detailed responses to the questions I have raised in Priority Question No. 67, on the background by way of preparation, when it was done, if it is done yet and what are his plans? In relation to that the question of numbers is highly relevant. Can the Minister even at this stage project how many people be envisages either will be gone from AFT-ACOT or — take it the other way — will be required in AFT-ACOT after 1 January to deliver what he says will be an effective service to this country? It is time there was some certainty on this. If the Minister has put any thought into this issue he must have some idea as to what kind of numbers will be required to implement a reasonable plan in this regard.
When we are talking of planning I assume the Deputy shares with us the most fundamental element of planning, namely that this new authority will be equipped as to its aims, directives, structures and personnel to realise the marvellous potential of the agri-food industry. That is the planning.
The Minister knows nothing about that.
If anyone wants to focus on that in terms of numbers we are not focusing on the planning element.
Not only what has been done so far by this Government but what will continue to be done will be evident. That will be the characteristic difference between us. There is definitely a plan in the Department of Agriculture and Food and we are proceeding to implement it.
The Department officials and Fianna Fáil back benchers know that the Minister has no plan.
It is not accurate to say, as Deputy O'Keeffe has said, that requests were sent on instructions from the Department, much less from me, to the two authorities concerned to prepare themselves for any reduction of the order of 10 per cent. That kind of speculation perhaps has given rise to apprehension. I am very anxious to reassure all concerned, directors and board at local and other levels that I understand the apprehension that occurs at a transitional stage but again I ask the House not to try to aggravate feelings by suggesting figures that were never suggested by me or anyone else.
Deputy Mac Giolla.
Will the Minister reply to the queries? What is the plan? What are the projected numbers? What is the money we are talking about? Are we not operating solely on a crisis management basis from one week to the next?
Resipsa Ioquitur, the old Latin maxim, is the best one to rely on here. The facts speak for themselves.
Indeed they do.
I am getting four or five different questions at the same time. The Deputy called this crisis management. By contrast with the experience of the agriculture and food industry under the responsibility of his own Government——
Answer the question.
——incomes the agriculture will have increased by 20 per cent.
Do not stand there and say that you are the cause of good weather.
I can thank the Deputy for the fact that the incomes were so depressed last year that the 20 per cent increase was very easy to achieve.
Could we have answers to the questions?
Deputy O'Keeffe, please resume your seat. The Chair might say in passing that I have no doubt that the agricultural community will appreciate the delicate manner in which their case is being pleaded by some here.
Or the way questions are being replied to.
The Minister is either unable or unwilling to give a reply.
There is no plan.
This affects not just the agricultural community but the whole community. The two Ministers here recognise that this is a major area of job creation and development. First, it seems that this was a decision imposed on the Minister by the Minister for Finance. How does the Minister intend to provide the excellent service he talks about with a reduction from £35 million to £20 million in the allocation? Is it not correct that that reduction indicates that the job losses must be of the order of 1,000 because the Estimate is only £20 million? The facts speak for themselves as the Minister says. Could he indicate how he can allow a 40 per cent reduction for staff in this area——
This is a long question.
It is another question.
——when there is only a 2 per cent to 3 per cent reduction in the Department as a whole? Finally, if this Estimate is being adhered to, how does the Minister intend to fund the payment of staff there from 1 January 1988, and does he intend to maintain Moorepark and continue it in its present state?
I hope the Deputy will appreciate that two or three of those matters are the subject of separate questions relating to staffing levels in the Department and in Moorepark. As far as the 1,000 are concerned I want to reassure him that that figure was not the focus at any time of a Government decision, as I have conveyed to the staff representatives, and it will not be the focus of a Government decision. In relation to the priorities of the authority, which will be before this House for full discussion shortly, within the overall objective of providing cost effective service, they are geared to meet the future demands of the industry. The following priorities are indentified by the Government for the new authority — perhaps this is what Deputy O'Keeffe is referring to: training for young farmers, particularly new entrants to agriculture to enhance the knowledge base of those available.
What number of redundancies are they required to meet?
The new board and authority will be given a specific remit under legislation to be introduced here very shortly to implement these priorities through the staffing organisations——
How many staff will they be allowed to have?
Will there be further redundancies after 20 November?
That will be a matter for the authorities.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, let me say this as it may help the House. Everybody who will be in place in the new authority will be paid fully and adequately in line with everybody else. That will be a matter in time for the new authority and organisation.
The closing date is 20 November. The Minister will not have his new authority——
I have been asked constantly how many will be in the new authority. Let me indicate as I did initially that until we have the final indication from the staff of both AFT and ACOT — which we have not got at this moment——
May I be allowed to answer?
Deputy Stagg, are you giving information or asking a question?
He is getting none from the Minister.
I did not ask you, Deputy Howlin.
The Minister is making a mockery of Question Time.
It is a little strange if you ask a question to proceed to answer it yourself. I indicated earlier that people whose names appear on questions will get an opportunity of asking a supplementary.
The Minister is answering nobody's questions.
Deputy Howlin did not ask any question himself and he will appreciate——
The spokesperson representing my party has asked a question and he has not got an answer.
Deputy Howlin appreciates that Deputies whose names appear on questions will have some priority over him and he should not be delaying.
They are entitled to answers.
Deputy Howlin is not going to adjudicate on answers. I am calling Deputy Liam Naughten who has a question down.
On a point of information——
There is no point of information.
On a point of order, the Minister was not allowed to complete the list of priority areas. Could he now complete that list?
I am quite prepared——
I have called Deputy Liam Naughten and before discussion on this matter finishes the Minister will have an opportunity to reply.
Will the Minister not accept that investment here in agricultural advice, research and development is probably the lowest in Europe and that as a result of the measures introduced by him it will compare more favourably with the Third World? Will he explain how he could cut the productive side of the Department, namely ACOT and AFT, by 44 per cent while he cut the Department's administrative budget by 2 per cent? What does he intend to do with staff who have worked in ACOT and AFT for ten or 15 years and who know the agricultural scene? Where does he propose to dispose of those members of staff who do not opt for the redundancy scheme? We are entitled to answers, but the Minister has not as yet answered that question. Would he not accept that his proposals were introduced without any planning and would he not be prepared at this late stage to change his position and make additional finance available to ACOT and AFT?
On a point of order, I have been a Member of this House for six and a half years. Has a new rule been introduced whereby a Minister may be accompanied by an official at Question Time? I have never witnessed this before. It proves the point I am making. The Minister is talking waffle and knows nothing about the problems he has caused in the agricultural community.
Deputy Farrelly has given what he indicated to be a point of order. That is not a point of order but nevertheless I will answer it. The experiences of Deputy Farrelly or any other Deputies in this House are not accommodated in Standing Orders and if Deputy Farrelly thinks that Standing Orders should be changed in that regard he has a mechanism by which he can do it. I am now calling on the Minister to reply.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——
I am asking Deputy Farrelly to resume his seat.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about. He is the first Minister any of us has seen to have an official with him at Question Time. There is no point in sitting here to hear questions being answered by someone who knows absolutely nothing.
Will the Deputy do what he is going to do immediately? Thank you.
Deputy Farrelly left the House.
As Deputy Naughten has put questions to the Minister——
I would not have agreed to your allowing the Minister to answer all the questions lumped together if you did not allow me to speak as spokesman for my party on questions tabled by my party.
Resume your seat.
You have disallowed me a chance to speak.
If you were here when I made the initial announcement——
I was here.
Will you resume your seat?
I agreed, thinking the usual situation would prevail.
You are being disorderly, Deputy, Resume your seat.
Your are not allowing me to do what you have allowed everyone else to do.
I indicated that initially we would have replies from the Minister to questions tabled by Deputies and that then we will give an opportunity to Deputies who did not have their names to questions to put a supplementary. What you are talking about has neither sense nor reason and it is obvious you were not listening to what I was saying. The Minister to reply.
I am very anxious to reply to the questions now raised but if Opposition Deputies are to interrupt each other I cannot do it.
On a point of order, there is a danger, if not a certainty, that the spokesman for Fine Gael will lose his priority time because two priority questions are being taken with this bundle and they will not be returned to. In order to preserve fair play the Fine Gael spokesman or any spokesman who has priority questions should be able to deal with them first.
There is one priority question.
I understood Questions Nos. 65 and 67 to have been given priority.
Question No. 67 is a priority question.
I am very anxious to ensure that priority questions, including this, will be taken in time. I will agree with whatever is done in the House. In relation to the questions which have just been addressed to me by Deputy Naughten, I would point out that while the level of R and D investment in this country generally is lower than anywhere in Europe, within the overall level of R and D investment Ireland is unique in spending the highest proportion of Government R and D expenditure on agricultural research and development. It amounts to 30.2 per cent. I am anxious to ensure that this figure is maintained.
That is 30.2 per cent of what?
I said that 30.2 per cent of Government investment in research and development is spent on research and development in agriculture. It is the highest in Europe.
Regarding Deputy Mac Giolla's question, I was in the course of replying when I was interrupted. The priorities of the new authority which the board will be asked to implement, bringing a programme back here within three months, are training for young farmers, particularly new entrants to agriculture and enhancing the knowledge base in agriculture to which the advisory service will be applied. Everyone will agree that this is important. There is also to be concentration on the post-farm stages of food production, food technology and food marketing; development of an integrated agri-food programme through a research centre combining the relevant scientific staff of the new authority and the IIRS to service the food industry particularly and securing greater involvement and participation, including financial, from commercial agriculture and food sectors. The House will recognise that we should approach these things in a measured way. I am quite satisfied that, while everybody agrees that there is a need for a new co-ordinated authority with one central dynamic, we are approaching this in the correct way. I am sure the new authority will do that.
The Minister should now reply to the four questions put to him by Deputy Naughten.
I am entitled to an answer to my questions.
I endeavoured to answer one of the questions put by the Deputy and that is all I could do.
The Chair should insist on the Minister answering the questions put to him.
The Minister has replied to Deputy Mac Giolla and I propose to permit supplementaries from other Deputies. Deputy Naughten is aware that the Chair cannot force Deputies or Ministers to say something. We accept the answer given by the Minister.
Is the Minister prepared to answer my questions?
I will answer each question if I am allowed do so but it is impossible to hear what is being said in the Chamber.
As the Minister has said he will answer the questions put to him, the Chair should given him an opportunity to do so.
There was so much noise in the House that I did not hear the Deputy's other questions.
I do not accept the answer given by the Minister to my question. In my second question I asked the Minister how he could justify reducing the budget of the productive side of his Department by 44 per cent while reducing the budget of the administrative side by 2 per cent? What does the Minister propose to do with the officials who have given ten or 15 years service in ACOT or AFT and who did not opt for the retirement scheme? We are entitled to know what the future holds for those officials.
The Minister is going to sack them.
Will the Minister accept that his decision to reduce the budget by this drastic amount was ill-timed, ill-considered and done without planning? Will the Minister, even at this late stage, adopt the proper course, change his mind and give the two bodies adequate finance to provide services that are so vital?
The first supplementary addressed to me is the subject of a question on the Order Paper and I propose to answer it when we reach it. The Deputy asked what I propose to do with those who have to leave ACOT and AFT, as the Deputy put it, and I should like to make it clear to him, and the House, that nobody will have to leave. It is important that that is made clear. Deputy Stagg asked me how many redundancies will be achieved and I should like to tell him, and the House, that the answer to that question will not be known for at least ten days because the period of response from both authorities will not have expired until ten days time. Until I know the number of officials opting for voluntary retirement I will not speculate as to what is likely to happen. When I have the information I will use it.
How does the Minister propose to pay them?
I am answering the questions addressed to me by Deputy Naughten. I should like to assure Deputy Naughten that because of the co-ordinated and targeted approach of the new authority and the remit and support — financial and otherwise — they will have they will be in a better position to implement the development programme in the agri-food industry. I thought there was agreement in the House about that. I am satisfied that that will be the case. Moaning and groaning is not going to solve anything.
I should like to refer to what the Minister said in relation to taking account of non-Exchequer resources. This year AFT will raise in the region of £7 million non-Exchequer resources but next year their budget will be decreased by 44 per cent with a consequent enormous reduction in the number of staff.
The Deputy is making a statement; she should put a question to the Minister.
I am trying to lead the Minister to answer my question. Will the Minister indicate what he has in mind, given all the planning he said he has done, to raise non-Exchequer resources for the new AFT-ACOT amalgamation next year? The Minister must have a figure in mind because he cannot plan for the new body unless he has. Will the Minister say if the new body which I take it, on the Minister's word, will be in place on 1 January next, will continue to be funded as is the normal practice on the basis of one-twelfth of their Estimates per month, the normal way of funding in the public and Civil Service? If that is the case and we only get the 300 or 400 redundancies, which realistically is the number we are expecting in AFT, will the Minister accept that by 20 January AFT will be bankrupt because there will be no more money to pay the bills? How does the Minister propose to proceed from there? If they get one-twelfth of their funding in January and 300 to 400 redundancies they cannot proceed beyond 20 January. May I assume from the Minister's replies that he has now accepted the principle of transferring money between the different subheads within the overall Estimate for Agriculture? May I assume that with the extension of the voluntary redundancy scheme to all sections of the Civil Service——
I should like to say to the Deputy ——
These are important and serious questions. I am not trying to be deliberately provocative.
The Deputy has been a Member of the House for long enough to know that at Question Time hypothesis, conjecture, presumption and assumption do not always get the satisfaction the Deputy desires from a Minister. If the Deputy puts a direct question she might get an answer.
The Minister has been making assumptions all afternoon.
It will have come to the turning of the last sod if Deputy Shatter is now going to introduce agricultural questions in the House.
He has an agricultural question on the Order Paper.
I expect answers to my specific questions and I do not wish to be distracted with interruptions. May I rephrase my question, following the advice of the Chair?
I wish the Deputy would.
Instead of assuming anything may I take it as fact that the Minister has accepted the principle of the inter-subhead transfer of money particularly as he will be saving more under the administration subhead in the Department with the extension of the voluntary redundancies? May I take it that moneys heretofore earmarked for Kildare Street can now go to the ACOT-AFT subhead?
I have indicated that in common with my colleagues in Government I intend, as part of the Government commitment, to live within the Estimate provision.
I accept that.
I have been asked to address the question of alternative revenue resources. The Deputy will recognise, at least I hope she does, that if I were to attempt to specify from where the sources of revenue for the new authority will be coming I would be pre-empting the role of the board of that authority.
A ball park figure.
In fairness, we are not in that business.
What is the target?
I do not intend to put the new board in that position. In order to reassure the Deputy I should like to tell her that I have had consultations with the directors of the outgoing authorities and that these are proving to be very fruitful. I should like to express my appreciation to those people. It will be their function, when the authority is put in place after the House passes the relevant legislation, to decide the programmes they wish to implement. It will be their function to decide how and from what sources they will raise revenue. Surely the Deputy is not asking me to speculate on that. The House will have an opportunity of reviewing this matter later. I intend to bring the matter before the Dáil very quickly and all Members will have an opportunity to see how the authority will operate. It is not very easy to generate any kind of enlightened replies to supplimentaries when there are seven or eight Members interrupting at the same time.
Does the Minister intend to answer the questions I put to him? Is he accepting the need for transfer within the subheads?
The Minister has said that he has a plan although he cannot reveal it to us now but I should like to know how he can make such a statement if he does not know what the staffing levels will be. The Minister has admitted that he does not know what the staffings levels will be.
It is called "Blankety Blank". In relation to the £20 million which the Minister is taking from the combined ACOT-AFT budget, he is really saying it is not a question of redundancy, that they can all keep their jobs if they can bring in a sum of £20 million? Has the Minister offered the redundancy package made available to ACOT and AFT to non-scientific staff within his own Department?
The answer to the last question is yes. The Deputy asked why I drew up a plan before I knew the precise numbers involved but he must realise that if I waited until I had the final numbers to co-ordinate such a plan, I could be properly accused of not doing any preparatory work. There is no question of an obligation on anyone to find the sum of £20 million——
The Minister said there was a shortfall of £20 million.
The Deputy said that and I hope the figure will not get any credence——
He does not know the amount involved.
In relation to non-Exchequer revenue, does the Minister agree that in regard to the research, advisory and technical assistance programmes, particularly in the west, the staff are very worried that in part of the agricultural sector where there is little capacity for the raising of revenue there will be a retraction of advisory, technical and research functions? The emphasis on non-Exchequer revenue will effectively mean they will be without services and that the staff will be in danger of losing their jobs.
The Deputy is entitled to reassurance on this point. I have no doubt, from consultations I had with the existing directors, that, as I told them at the begining of the year, the application of charges should be implemented in a balanced, modulated and equitable way, taking account particularly of the capacity of the farmers concerned to pay. I am satisfied — I hope the experience of Deputies will also demonstrate it — that that is exactly what ACOT have done. Despite the suggestions in this House, they are on target to reach the revenue this year. I have no doubt that the new Authority will do the same and will have regard for the special socio-economic conditions in the west.
The House will appreciate that we have spent practically three quarters of an hour on seven questions. Other Deputies have also tabled questions and they must be getting rather impatient with the Chair. The Deputies are prolonging this now to a point where it is not likely to serve any propose in the matter of getting new information. It is time we moved on to questions listed by other Deputies.
I have been sitting here for the past 20 minutes.
A number of Deputies have been here much longer than that and they have not got in either.
I should like to ask——
I know you would, so would other Deputies.
What about the 1,000 redundancies the Minister is seeking? Where will farmers get information from now? Will they have to look into a crystal ball or consult a fortune teller?
Questions of that nature have been ably put to his colleague from the constituency.
The Minister did not answer them.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if a similar redundancy package to that offered to ACOT-AFT has been offered to the staff of his Department under the present proposals in the budget Estimates of 1988.
The terms of the voluntary redundancy-early retirement scheme which were offered to employees of ACOT-AFT were also offered to officials in selected areas of my Department. The Government have since decided to extend the scheme to all officials over the age of 50 in the Civil Service, health boards and the non-commercial State-sponsored bodies; steps to give effect to this decision have been taken.
