It has come to my notice that something very odd is going on in Teagasc. It seems that the current director is to retire at some stage in the next five years. I have been informed it may not necessarily be this year or next year. Apparently, earlier this year, during February or early March, the board of Teagasc made a very curious decision and appointed a director-designate who, apparently, is to become the director when the current director retires. I am not raising any question, Sir, about the director-designate — my purpose is totally different — I want to have a look at the procedures. I should like to ask the Minister whether that appointment has been made in a manner which conforms to the provisions of section 7 of the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988. In particular, I would like to know whether the Minister believes it conforms to the provisions of section 7 (5) which reads:
The first Director shall be appointed, and may be removed from office at any time, by the Minister; each subsequent Director shall be appointed, and may be removed from office at any time, by Teagasc with the consent of the Minister.
I gather there is no question of removing the present director. I would like to know whether the Minister was consulted by the board of Teagasc when they proposed this curious appointment for which no provision, that I can see, is made in the Act, to take up a position at some time within the next five years. I would like to know if the Minister was even more intimately involved than is suggested in the consultation provided for in the Act? For example, did the Minister express a view that this person should be appointed in this manner to a post that does not yet exist? Did the Minister exercise any suasion, moral or otherwise, on the board to make this very curious appointment? Did the Minister consider whether it would not be right and proper and in conformity with the principles of natural justice that if a vacancy was foreseen it should be advertised? Would the Minister consider whether people who are already employed in Teagasc — and there are many excellently qualified people there — might not be given a chance of being considered on the basis of a competitive interview? Would the Minister consider whether people from outside Teagasc might be in line for consideration for this appointment? There are a great many people outside of Teagasc, apart from the current director-designate, who might be considered for this post.
In short, was any consideration given to the normal procedure of a competitive series of interviews for this job rather than, as seems to have been the case in this instance, the designation of a person for a job which is not yet available? Why was the appointment made in this curious way, long in advance of the vacancy? Why was an appointment made to a position for which there appears to be no provision in the Act? I raised these questions in the debate on 12 June on the Agriculture Estimate and the Minister of State on that day chose, for whatever reason, not to give any answer. I am sorry the Minister is not here tonight. I can imagine that for reasons connected with events earlier today he may be feeling a bit sheepish and may not be inclined to come out into the open.
