We must now move to questions nominated for priority.

38.

asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the present position on additional resources from the Exchequer for ACOT-AFT.

The position in regard to Exchequer funding for agricultural research, education and advice is unchanged from that shown in the 1988 Book of Estimates. The immediate priorities in this matter are the completion of the process of securing voluntary redundancies in An Foras Talúntais and ACOT and the enactment of the legislation for the establishment of the new body for research, training and advice. The position with respect to the funds available from all sources to the new body should be clearer when these are completed.

On 10 November on an RTE programme and subsequently to an agricultural correspondent of The Irish Press, Tim Ryan, the Minister indicated that £5 million extra would be available for the new bodies. What did the Minister have in mind when he gave those interviews?

I did not refer to a sum of £5 million on an RTE programme or in an interview with a journalist. I thank the Deputy for bringing it to my notice. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding or a calculation made in good faith by a journalist but I certainly never mentioned that figure.

Will the Minister accept that he gave an indication to Tim Ryan that the severe financial cutbacks were to be reduced and that the position would improve?

It is not appropriate to come to a direct conclusion in relation to the difference between the funding of a new Authority and existing different authorities. Neither is it appropriate to reach conclusions from adding the funding available for the two existing authorities, comparing it with the new Authority and coming to the conclusion that, therefore, you lose £X million and so many jobs. It is not appropriate because the new Authority under the new directorate will have particular priorities and a revenue earning capacity which was not part of the priorities of the two existing Authorities. A whole range of things can and will be done under the new Authority which change the whole funding analysis presented in the Deputy's question.

The farmers will pay again.

Farmers who can pay for professional consultancy services should pay for services instead of the taxpayer paying for them. If they are getting expert advice there is a case in justice and commercially for them to pay. Indeed, they acknowledged that themselves because they have paid much more to ACOT this year for professional services than anyone expected. The choice is that either the people benefiting from the service pay for it, to some extent, or other taxpayers who are not involved will be asked to pay for it. Given that choice, it is reasonable to say that those who benefit should pay for it.

Is there not a further choice along the lines I proposed on behalf of my party that of the £66.5 million available to administration a transfer of portion of those moneys to enable increased funding should be made available to the new body?

That has been trotted out very often. I gave figures here today of the amount of money being transferred to this country under European Community funding in 1986 when my distinguished colleague, Deputy Deasy, was in office. They were considerable sums of money and it involves people negotiating for it and ensuring that it is properly spent. Far too many people are running away with the notion that the money flows through open channels and it is time that idea was nailed. The total amount of money coming from the European Community this year is of the order of £1,500 million and that must be properly implemented. The Deputies should not give the impression that you can cut down on the numbers involved in handling the money.

In the light of the fact that the Minister seems to be totally defending his Department's superstructures and taking no cut in 1988, how does he propose that approximately 1,800 people left in AFT-ACOT after the voluntary redundancies will be paid in 1988 with the very low amount of funding available? Where will the hard cash come from?

It is not necessary to attack the fundamental role of the officials in my Department as a survey of farmers shows that there was a 90 per cent satisfaction rate.

It is a question of balance.

I have made it very clear that the same provisions in relation to voluntary redundancies will apply to the new Authority or the members of the two existing Authorities as apply within the Department of Agriculture and Food. There will be no preference given to one over the other and I am satisfied that with the trend of redundancies that have been voluntarily notified at present, there is a positive and very welcome response.