asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food, having regard to the obvious crisis of cash shortage facing Teagasc, the plans he has to alleviate the problem.
47.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Teagasc Funding.
6.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the estimated deficit Teagasc will carry into 1989; and the provisions he is making to resolve it.
61.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the current role and function of Teagasc; if there are sufficient funds available for that body to carry out its functions; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 47, and 61 together.
Teagasc are responsible for the provision of advisory, training and research services in agriculture. Teagasc have intimated to me that they estimate that the likely deficit at the end of this year will be about £11 million.
I am at present considering what extra provision it may be possible to make during the present financial year in order to reduce the deficit and I expect to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in this House very shortly to cover the appropriate provision.
Teagasc are currently engaged in a comprehensive review of all their activities and the chairman has informed me that he expects to have this completed as a matter of urgency and to submit plans for the future of the organisation and their financing to me by 14 December. Any remaining deficit facing Teagasc will be a matter for examination in the context of whatever proposals may be contained in their submission.
I am glad to hear the Minister hopes to introduce a Supplementary Estimate. Who is formulating policy in agriculture? Is it the leather glove and brolly brigade? Here we have an industry worth £3,000 million and the Government are finding it very difficult to come up with the necessary funding to streamline our farmers and prepare them for 1992. We hear a lot of talk about efficiency, but unless we have an adequate service we will not have an efficient and prepared farming organisation.
On a point of clarification, it is not that I hope to introduce a Supplementary Estimate but I will be introducing a substantial Supplementary Estimate and the House will then debate the issue.
When?
As soon as possible.
Deputy Doyle has a priority question and therefore I am calling her.
Could the Minister indicate the ball park figure of the Supplementary Estimate on the figures before us to date, including the deficit to which the Minister has already referred? It would want to be in excess of £20 million. Can we expect the Supplementary Estimate to be around that figure assuming Teagasc will not be carrying forward any deficit into 1989? Secondly, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that the 1989 figure for Teagasc, £27.5 million which is £10 million short of pay roll costs alone, will be met and that the organisation will be able to live within that budget? Will it be by a reduction of a further 600 employees or through rationalisation of the physical resources?
I do not understand the Deputy's calculations. If the deficit is £11 million, I cannot understand how she arrives at a figure of £20 million.
I will explain if I am allowed.
The Deputy may because I do not understand it.
They are getting £5 million, they got £3 million to be added to the 1988 figure, plus £11 million — that comes to around £20 million.
Supplementary questions, please.
As I said, I requested the chairmen and board on their appointment to bring forward a proposal for the remainder of this year and for next year and to submit it to me in the light of the financial arrangements made. That programme will be before me by 14 December. I am very satisfied from consultations with the chairman and the board that there will be adequate funding and effective action.
For the remaining 16 days?
Unless there be any confusion, perhaps we should clarify exactly what we mean when we talk about a Supplementary Estimate. The 1988 estimate for Teagasc was £23.1 million. They have already had indications that they are getting another £5 million, and we need a Supplementary Estimate for that. They have already got an extra £3.4 million for the very early retirement scheme, and that comes to £8.4 million, and there is a deficit of £11 million, if I understand the Minister's answer, or does the Minister's £11 million include these two sums and the Supplementary Estimate coming to the House will be of the order of £11 million or £11½ million?
The Supplementary Estimate will be for £11 million and when it comes before the House the Deputy can say whether she regards it as adequate.
Could I have clarification of the £10 million shortfall on the payroll alone for next year? Can the Minister confirm that there will not be any compulsory retirements in Teagasc?
The Government agreed with the social partners, in the Programme for National Recovery to a programme of voluntary retirements and there has been no change in that policy.
There will be no compulsory retirements.
I am calling Deputy Durkan who has a question tabled on this subject.
Has the Minister had discussions with the chairman of Teagasc? If so, were some indications given to the Minister as to the seriousness of the situation which resulted in the deficit? If allowed to continue, what effect will this have on this infant board?
In reply to the first part of the question, no later than today, not because of the question but because we have regular discussions. If Deputies do not want to take my word for it, they can make their own inquiries, but the morale of the chairman, the board and the staff is very good, a lot better than some would like.
The Minister should visit some of the research centres and offices and find out the truth for himself.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Durkan is on his feet and anxious to ask questions.
Will the Minister confirm that the chairman has indicated he is happy with the current position as regards the deficit?
The chairman is well able to speak for himself.
What further redundancies in Teagasc does the Minister expect? Is it not true that if he were to try to overcome this £11 million deficit there would be an additional lay-off of about 800 people?
I do not think it would reach that number but that would be a matter for the chairman and the board of Teagasc. It will be part of the programme they submit to me in the course of the discussions. There are a number of other options open to them, apart from voluntary redundancies.
Redeployment to the Department of Agriculture?
There are a number of vacancies in the Progressive Democrat's office——
I know nothing about redundancies in the Progressive Democrats office.
I am calling Deputy Stagg to ask a brief supplementary. I want to get on to the next question.
The Minister advised us that morale among the staff in Teagasc is high, but staff members are so scarce on the ground at this stage arising from cuts that they would find if very difficult to contact each other to know if morale is high. Have the 800 staff in Teagasc projected, agreed and sought by the Minister been implemented to date?
No, the Deputy will appreciate that is the reason for introducing a Supplementary Estimate. When the numbers were not achieved——
What number is involved?
When the numbers were not achieved I made it clear that there would be adequate funding to pay for each and every member of the organisation.
What number has the Minister got rid of?
Please, Deputy, I am calling Deputy Doyle for a final and brief supplementary.
I will answer the Deputy. The number of members of Teagasc who applied for voluntary redundancy, as distinct from the Minister getting rid of them, was 480.
I take issue with the Minister——
A question, please.
Is it not a fact that for Teagasc to go into 1989 without a deficit, a Supplementary Estimate in the area of £15 million to £20 million will be necessary? Is the figure represented in the 1989 Book of Estimates for Teagasc a deliberate attempt to destabilise and demoralise Teagasc to such an extent that the Minister, even under the voluntary scheme, will get sufficient redundancies for them to live within that figure and payroll costs alone next year? Otherwise, it is inexplicable and ill-planned.
This is leading to argument.
The answer is no in each case.