JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE debate -
Tuesday, 6 Mar 2012

Current Work Priorities: Discussion with Teagasc

Chairman

I welcome from Teagasc Professor Gerry Boyle, director, and Dr. Tom Kelly, director of knowledge transfer. I apologise to the gentlemen for delaying them. We had some private business to attend to. I did not realise it but this is the first time Teagasc has come before this committee. It seems like no time since it was here but it is at least 14 months or a little longer. Teagasc is an integral part of the Irish agriculture scene and it plays an invaluable role in research, trialling, passing on knowledge and education.

Before we begin, I draw to the witnesses' attention to the fact they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I thank the Chairman and the members for extending this invitation to us. I intend to bring the committee up to speed on the staff reductions which have taken place in Teagasc over the past four years or so. I want to talk about how the organisation has adapted to these changes in staff and in budget. I wish to emphasise how we are prioritising the delivery of front line services and, as the Chairman requested, I will look at some priorities for the future.

As far as staff are concerned, the position can be summarised as follows. Between 2008 and the end of 2014, the number of Teagasc staff will have declined in total by 37%. More than 400 staff have gone in the past four years and another 140 are scheduled to go under the employment control framework. The total Teagasc staff number, including contract staff, in 2008 was 1,574. At the end of last month, it stood at 1,158. If we adhere to the employment control framework, the total number of staff will be 993 at the end of 2014. I note that reduction is three times the level in Civil Service Departments for what is a front line organisation.

I also point out that Teagasc is only the second organisation in the State given leave to introduce a voluntary early retirement-voluntary redundancy scheme, which we introduced and implemented before Christmas. The scheme succeeded very well and 59 staff took up that option but, unfortunately, the day after we implemented and closed that scheme, our employment control framework was added to by almost the equivalent amount.

Teagasc has traditionally hired many young bright graduates to work in research, in advisory roles or in education in our colleges. Obviously, with the moratorium on recruitment, that has been virtually impossible. However, we have leave to recruit staff when there is non-Exchequer funding available. For example, we have a number of what we call "joint programmes" with all the major co-operatives. We are also very successful in competitive bidding for international research contracts and national contracts which, in principle, enable us to hire staff but it has proved very difficult and sometimes very frustrating to hire staff even when non-Exchequer funding is available and guaranteed.

I draw members' attention to a couple of graphics which set out in some detail the staffing position in recent years. The first graphic shows the overall staff numbers in Teagasc going back to 2001. Members will see that between 2001 and 2009, there was a slight decline in the number of Teagasc staff. Of course, since then, there has been a very significant reduction.

The point I want to make in regard to the experience up to 2009 is an important one because one of the reasons given that State agencies and front line organisations like Teagasc are shouldering a bigger burden of staff reductions at present is that in overall terms, there was an expansion in staff numbers in the State agencies in the years leading up to 2009 but, as members will see from that graphic, that was not the case in Teagasc. In fact, the opposite was the case but, nonetheless, we are suffering because of the age structure. In particular, in our advisory service, we have suffered substantial staff reductions in recent years.

The next graphic illustrates the operation of the employment control framework. I am sure members are familiar with how it operates in general terms. Basically, it sets out the required reduction in staff across the entire public service. It covers Civil Service Departments and State agencies like Teagasc. It is, if you like, a mandated staff reduction. When this was introduced in 2010, Teagasc was required to reduce its staff by 29% by 2015. The comparable requirement in the Civil Service was set at 15%. The problem that arises in regard to the employment control framework is that it is a very crude instrument and it does not distinguish between specialist and administrative staff or between front line or back office staff, nor does it make any allowance for the fact that in the absence of a voluntary early retirement-voluntary redundancy scheme, the only mechanism to offload surplus staff is by redeployment elsewhere in the public sector. In other words, as is the case with Teagasc, if the 29% cannot be achieved through normal retirements, the only option to go over and above that number is to redeploy the staff to other public sector organisations if possible. That is not always possible - it depends on the skills of staff and the requirements of other front line Departments and agencies.

The next chart in our presentation focuses on the advisory service, which is the single area of the greatest haemorrhage of staff. The chart combines advisers with education officers working in our advisory office and delivering education programmes in our regional education centres. They mainly focus on part-time educational courses. Between 2001 and 2009 there was tremendous stability in our total advisory numbers at 458. From 2009 to last month, we lost one third of our advisory pool. By the end of 2015, if we adhere to the employment control framework, we will have lost 41% from the levels of 2008 and 2009. By any stretch of the imagination, there has been a substantial reduction in advisory staff, which has affected the front line. One significant development was that the suspension of REPS meant we were obliged to serve notice on 100 contract advisers implementing REPS plans. That substantially dented the number of advisers available at the front line.

The final chart focuses on the advisory situation. Of the three lines, the top pink line shows that, as far as paying clients are concerned, we have managed to hold the number at 45,000. I will come back to how we managed to do that. Teagasc does not just serve paying clients, we are there to serve the entire farming industry. Between public events and our client service, we are regularly involved with 80,000 farm families. The graph also shows a substantial reduction in advisory income. The main drop occurred in 2010 and is directly related to the suspension of REPS. This was a substantial income earner for the organisation and enabled us to provide other services. There is a close correlation between the reduction in adviser numbers and the reduction in advisory income.

I will now talk about our change programme. It was evident to the Teagasc authority that, as 2008 rolled on, significant changes were afoot with regard to the fiscal situation. We embarked on a change programme to cope with the stresses on the organisation in terms of delivering services to our stakeholders. Regarding the rationalisation of staff, I draw the distinction between uncontrollable and controllable changes. Uncontrollable changes relate to the employment control framework, which is imposed on the public sector. We have no option but to do our best to adhere to it.

One of the major difficulties with the employment control framework is that it is a blunt instrument and it is not designed for an organisation that relies on expert service delivery. We have tried to minimise the impact on our capability to deliver services by introducing a staffing and efficiency plan, which sets out the posts that we will seek to retain on the basis of programme priorities and the posts that cannot be retained within our existing employment control framework. When we have allowed for normal retirements, we have a surplus under the employment control framework imposed on us. In the plan, we have tried to identify the posts that will be available for external redeployment. We have taken the decision at authority level to prioritise the front line. No advisers, researchers or educators are on the external redeployments panel.

Some 100 posts have been placed on the panel, which is administered by the Public Appointments Service. For the staff concerned and the organisation as a whole, it is a challenging and difficult engagement for staff. Within the limits of the Croke Park agreement, we have managed to redeploy some 50 staff internally. For example, we have moved people into priority areas like education from the general advisory service. Over a long period of time, we managed to negotiate a voluntary early retirement scheme, which gave us some flexibility in dealing with the surplus staff, as they are deemed by the employment control framework.

The second area of rationalisation is of the office network and structure. These changes have been under way since late 2008. We had to close 36 offices out of a complement of 91 and the staff have been transferred. Phase 2 of the office rationalisation programme is scheduled to be completed in the middle of this year. In addition, we have closed a number of research facilities, most notably the Kinsealy centre. We have sold land and ceased a number of prominent leases. We engaged in an extensive internal review of our business processes. This largely focused on centralising various administrative activities. We recently commenced the outsourcing of activities that are not core business, including ancillary services and non-core education modules. We are commencing doing the same in respect of the advisory service with regard to REPS. That will cease to be an activity within the organisation over the next 12 to 18 months.

We have made a severe dent in management posts by reducing the senior management team from six to three and reducing management posts overall by one third. We introduced a new programme structure for research so that we have a more harmonious relationship between our research and advisory efforts. We have reduced our advisory area structure from 28 regional areas to 18 four years ago to 12. This is a significant adjustment by any standard for a service that was traditionally county-based. Some four regional area managers retired at the end of last month so we are now down to eight regional managers. We sought leave to make exceptional recruitment to enable us to fill these, and other, posts.

Our focus is to protect the front line and I will now focus on how we are doing that for the advisory service. Our administrative staff have been retrained to undertake non-technical work to support the advisory services.

We are placing an emphasis on discussion groups. For example, a successful dairy efficiency discussion group programme is now in its third year of operation and we are about to commence a beef technology adoption programme. Teagasc has fewer resources to do one-to-one advisory work. We have engaged in extensive internal redeployment which, under the Croke Park agreement, only permits us to relocate staff within a 45 km radius of their existing place of work. Remote working has been implemented. The most significant policy decision has been to outsource lower priority advisory activities which has been going on for nearly four years. We are at the limit in terms of what is sustainable and our workloads.

Significant pressure has been placed on student places at our agricultural colleges which is very gratifying because it illustrates the interest in the agriculture and food sectors. There has been an 80% increase in students entering our agricultural and horticultural colleges since 2008. This coincided with a 20% decrease in teaching staff. I drew this to the attention of the agriculture committee in the previous Dáil. Unfortunately, agricultural education is treated differently in regard to staffing from other branches of education, namely, teaching staff cannot be replaced when vacancies arise.

To deal with this, we have had to redeploy some advisers into colleges. This is the only strategy that enables us to keep colleges going. We have increased the teacher contact hours by 15% over the period and resorted to using external service providers. Last year, Teagasc was fortunate in that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine agreed to the exceptional recruitment of six teachers on a contract basis which enabled us to stem the problems we had coping with the exceptional number of applicants last year. There was a substantial increase in the student-teacher ratio of 30% which is exceptional by any standards.

Teagasc has refocused and prioritised its research activities to maintain high levels of publications, which is one metric we use to assess our research output. Research areas have been prioritised and the land base has been reduced. Non-essential activities to the research programme have been outsourced. We have trebled the level of external funding that we have won through competitive bids as well as increasing industry funding. We have also engaged in research partnerships and formal joint programmes, most notably with University College Cork and University College Dublin.

Teagasc was given leave to recruit six additional researchers. While it may seem small in number, they were for critical areas which enabled us to continue with our research programmes. The Walsh fellowship programme, which supports PhD students in the agriculture and food sectors, has been extended. There are approximately 170 students studying at PhD level at Irish and international universities with 50 taken on every year. We have also continued with the recruitment of contract researchers. Even when funds are available, there are significant difficulties in making these recruits, difficulties which are not experienced by the universities with which we compete in many areas. The universities are also able to make promotions while Teagasc cannot. We have already lost staff to the university sector because of this embargo.

Over the next several years achieving the ambitious targets set out in Food Harvest 2020 will be top of our agenda, particularly preparation for expansion in the dairy sector after the abolition of the milk quota. Teagasc is making a major push in the beef sector. We plan to set up a suckler demonstration farm in the west. The Teagasc- Irish Farmers’ Journal better farm beef programme will be expanded into a national one. The beef technology adoption programme will be rolled out and it is expected to have 5,000 farmers enrolled in it. A new professional farm managers’ training programme has been developed for dairy farm managers but the plan is to expand it to other sectors. Teagasc will also push the areas of grass breeding and utilisation and bring forward genomic selection in grass breeding. As the Chairman is aware, this has been successful in dairy genetics and we hope to apply the lessons learned from there to the grass sector. In May, we will be bringing forward a food knowledge and technology transfer programme which will be targeted at food companies. We have already engaged in a public private partnership with the Irish Dairy Board focused on the production of new cheeses for international markets. A strategy will be laid out whereby Teagasc can engage to a much greater degree with the food industry.

We have already developed a carbon navigator. Sustainability will be a core concern of agriculture in the future. Accordingly, we have developed a tool that will allow the individual farmer to assess the actions he can take to reduce his carbon footprint and to identify in a quantifiable and simple way the benefits of the adoption of particular practices. Plans are in place to mainstream sustainability as a principle in all Teagasc research.

We are mindful of upcoming legislative developments. The importance of preparing for the next phase of the nitrates action plan has been noted. There are other legislative developments which we will have to gear up for, including the pesticides directive.

Teagasc is actively involved with the Department and stakeholders in developing a variety of policy analyses of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has identified the establishment and support of collaborative farming initiatives which includes partnerships as a priority for his Department and one on which we will be working.

Chairman

I thank Professor Boyle for that comprehensive overview of Teagasc's workings, its involvement with various aspects of farming and ancillary industries and the challenges it faces.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

I join the Chairman in welcoming Professor Boyle and Dr. Kelly to today's committee meeting.

How many Teagasc researchers and advisers are working in the horticultural sector? What are the implications for the horticultural research programme of the closure and sale of the Teagasc Kinsealy centre? Are there sufficient staff numbers to deal with expansion in the dairy sector, farm planning and partnerships and dairy research in Moorepark? Variety development in the potato sector used to be handled at Moorepark. What is happening in that regard? What planning has there been for consolidation within the potato industry? The seed potato sector was traditionally based in County Donegal but production was developed elsewhere as well. The challenges of implementing the 2020 targets have implications for the expansion of the agricultural industry. It is important that there be adequate staff to cater for key advisory and research roles.

What is the position of the colleges? Using the phrase "bursting at the seams" is probably not an exaggeration. In terms of teaching positions, Professor Boyle addressed the question of the need to increase flexibility well. Perhaps he will elaborate on his views of what constitutes a desirable framework of teacher availability.

Across the EU, a relatively small percentage of full-time and part-time farmers are below 35 years of age. Is there a potential for collaboration with development authorities in other member states on the training of young farmers, for example, in green certificate programmes, etc.?

If the moratorium did not exist and people were not retiring, would the authority be recruiting additional staff? Having regard to the targets that have been set for the industry and the potential contained therein for the coming years, would the authority like to be in a position to recruit additional staff?

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I thank Professor Boyle for his presentation, which was well put together, straightforward and somewhat bleak. I compliment Teagasc, given its good research, education, training and advisory work through the years. I represent the Sligo Leitrim North constituency and Teagasc's services are appreciated by the area's farmers and farming families.

Food Harvest 2020 sets ambitious targets but they must be supported by knowledge, research and advice. How can a 37% reduction in the personnel of Teagasc not have a major impact on the achievement of those targets? If Teagasc can get rid of 37% of its staff and still reach the targets set out in its policy documentation, a cynic might believe that those members of staff had been doing nothing for years. Are there staffing levels below which the Teagasc authority believes its ability to help the industry reach the 2020 targets will be damaged?

Almost every Department and organisation would agree that the employment control framework was a crude instrument, in that it does not distinguish between essential staff and those whose absence would necessitate work being done slightly differently. Will Professor Boyle expand on this issue?

I welcome the board's decision to prioritise front line services. For once, an organisation's policy decision is being translated into action. Some public service organisations claim they will protect front line services, yet those services are among the first to be cut.

Professor Boyle referred to the redeployment of staff within the limits imposed by the Croke Park agreement. What types of action would he have liked to have taken had those limitations not existed?

I was surprised to see that the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, has been outsourced as a non-core activity. That it is time-limited is probably the key factor. Is the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, included in this category?

It is difficult to understand how a 30% increase in the pupil-teacher ratio in any sphere, be it agriculture or otherwise, would not damage the quality of the education and the end product provided by that education.

Twice, Professor Boyle mentioned that there were particular difficulties in recruiting researchers and advisers even where the moratorium was not a factor and finance was available. Has Teagasc researched the reasons for these difficulties?

I have two final points. The first strays from the report a little but I wish to raise it because it is an issue about which my party and I are concerned, namely, the licence for genetically modified, GM, potato growth open air trials. I am opposed to GM food production anywhere on the island of Ireland. It is not just a question of the potential damage to our food production industry but the worldwide perception of our green, GM-free food industry. Perception can be every bit as important as actuality. The fact that Teagasc has applied for a licence to trial open air GM potato production will ring alarm bells in some of the countries with which we trade.

There are widespread misconceptions about the so-called benefits of GM food, including the claim that it reduces costs for food producers and consumers. The international experience is that although these benefits are promised, they are not delivered on and the only people or bodies making money out of GM are wealthy GM companies. I call for the decision to be reversed.

If I might be parochial, I will make my second point. There is an excellent Teagasc facility with excellent staff in a place called Manorhamilton in County Leitrim where I live. The office has served and serves farmers in north County Sligo, north County Leitrim, south County Donegal and south-west County Cavan. It has a wide catchment area. There were strong and apparently well founded rumours that the Manorhamilton Teagasc office was to be closed and that farmers would need to travel to Ballymote in Sligo or Mohill in south Leitrim. This would entail a 75 minute or 90 minute drive for some people in the Manorhamilton office's catchment area. I understand clarification has been received, which states a decision has not been made but that the matter is "under review". These two words put fear in my heart and in the hearts of many people when they refer to Government services in the current economic situation. I further understand the clarification refers to the service in the Manorhamilton office being under review. I once read there is a caveat attached to that building in Manorhamilton, to the effect it could only be used for agricultural purposes. If my understanding on that point is correct Teagasc needs to be aware of it because it cannot be sold on the open market. Given it is a well used facility and because of the impact this would have on farmers in that catchment area, I ask for a clear commitment today that Teagasc services will not be removed from the office in Manorhamilton.

Deputy Pat Deering

I, too, welcome the delegation from Teagasc. I have a number of points. Education in agriculture is one of the main areas for the future. If I may be a little parochial, with ongoing discussions about the development of a technological university in the south east between Waterford and Carlow Institutes of Technology, and given the headquarters of Teagasc is based in Oakpark in Carlow, do the delegates see further possibilities for developing another strand of education in that area in the future? There is enormous potential there and it is a progressive agricultural area - no disrespect to any other area. The agricultural colleges as such are under severe pressure at present, as the delegates noted.

It is ironic that during the period 2001-09, when agriculture was seen as a no-go area by many people in the country, the staff of Teagasc was at its height. Rightly or wrongly, the perception at the time would have been that Teagasc had become for many a place for form-filling procedures. Another perception was that the eye had been taken off the ball, from a research point of view. With the Food Harvest 2020 targets now only eight years away are we far enough down the road to put structures in place to ensure we reach these targets? There is obviously pressure with staff levels at present.

I note in the report that 36 offices have been closed, saving approximately €684,000. How many of those offices have been sold? It is not a good time to sell any kind of property but what are the plans for the closed offices? Once a building has been closed for a period it becomes a derelict site. Most of these sites are on the outskirts of towns and can become a home for unusual and illegal activities.

I refer again to education and to the fact that the colleges are under severe pressure at present. I am a graduate of Kildalton and was a pupil when Dr. Kelly was there - like me, his hair has become scarcer since then. Is there a possibility of developing online modules? Everybody has access to the Internet now and there is a possibility of doing the green certificate online. Can other courses be developed? There are increasing numbers of people in their late 30s and early 40s who had moved away to the building industry coming back to the land. If they do not receive educational qualifications they will be in trouble when the time comes for the mother or father, or whoever, transferring the land to them. Is it possible that as they work the land some courses might be developed online so that they would be enabled to become high-tech farmers?

Chairman

I call Deputy O'Mahony.

Deputy John O’Mahony

I thank Professor Boyle and Dr. Kelly for their presence and presentation. The last time I was in Professor Boyle's company I tried to convince him not to close a Teagasc office in Crossmolina.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Did the Deputy succeed?

Deputy John O’Mahony

I did not although we got a stay of execution for a while. Although the delegates have articulated well today why they had to take such actions they also stated the importance of front line services. For the farming community that front line service is a Teagasc office as close to them as possible. It is alarming to see that 40% of the Teagasc offices have been closed. Are there to be more closures or has the cull now been made?

The overall picture painted by the delegates is that their role and its importance are increasing and will continue to do so. They state they have suffered more than others in that they lost 553 people in total. How do they see the organisation meeting the challenges ahead if the picture they have painted today is correct? They mentioned outsourcing, for example. Does this save money, or how has it worked? The student-teacher ratio in the colleges has increased by 30%. What effect does that have on the education of farmers? What is the ratio in the colleges?

Deputy Martin Heydon

I thank the delegates for their presentation. I, too, am a past pupil of Kildalton Agricultural College although perhaps more recently than Deputy Deering. I have managed to hold on to my hair.

As a 33 year old farmer, I am very conscious that many of those my age who attended agricultural college did not return immediately to the family farm because their farming parents were young enough at the time. Many of them took up trades in the late 1990s and had a number of successful years working on the building sites. Now that they are in their early 30s their parents are considerably older and are ready to retire. Many of my colleagues from that time are now, for the first time, looking at farming as a viable career option and their parents may be starting to think the same way. There is a large increase in the demand for places in agricultural colleges. What are the figures for those doing the green certificate from home, on a part-time basis? What are the delegates' predictions for those courses and for college places for next September? Do they foresee such a high demand in the coming years? I presume they have such predictions.

The delegates might expand on a few points. Under "future priorities" they mention support policy analysis of CAP reform post 2013. What work is Teagasc doing now in regard to policy analysis for CAP? The negotiations will happen during the coming year. The Minister, Deputy Coveney, and his Department will play a lead role in those negotiations as we head into the EU Presidency next year. Being well informed as to what is in our interest is extremely important and I see Teagasc playing a key role in that area. What areas of policy analysis are being undertaken? Is Teagasc there to assist the Department and what is its role in that regard?

Perhaps Teagasc would expand on the issue of promoting the establishment of collaborative farming initiatives. Partnership is a key goal for the Minister as has been highlighted. What role can Teagasc play in expanding those initiatives?

Professor Gerry Boyle

Many questions have been raised by Members which I will try to deal with comprehensively. I will invite my colleague to reply to some specific matters raised.

Deputy Kirk asked about the horticultural sector and the resources available. As a general point in respect of the comments by many Members on how we can manage to maintain services and focus on Food Harvest 2020 in light of the significant reductions in staff, regrettably the areas that come under most pressure are the minority agricultural enterprises. That is a reality and there is no point in trying to say otherwise. Horticulture is one of those areas. We have a significant number of advisers but, as the committee will be aware, the horticultural service is expensive to service because it covers a variety of vegetables and fruit, all of which require specialists. Even though we have five or six advisers, that number is not sufficient.

The research position motivated us to cease activity at our Kinsealy site. We have only two researchers in horticultural research which is not sufficient. That was the position before the moratorium and post moratorium we have no capability to address the issue. One of those researchers is engaged in an active programme on mushrooms which demands her full time. We work in close collaboration with colleagues in Northern Ireland. The other researcher is engaged in general field research. We also have one other researcher devoted to forestry. The resources are limited.

The Deputy asked about the implications of closing Kinsealy. When I started to work in An Foras Talúntais many years ago, we had a thriving research activity in Kinsealy but regrettably that is no longer the case. Out of a total staff of 62, some 49 were relocated out of the sale of headquarters in Sandymount Avenue, some of whom were rural economy staff. They were more administrative staff rather than staff working on research or advisory, therefore, they could have been located in any office because it would not affect the nature of the work they did.

What are the implications for research? The research organisation thrives by its staff numbers and, clearly, we have a problem in adequately servicing research needs. However, so far as physical resources are concerned, we will avail of the opportunity to upgrade our glasshouse facilities at the new site in Ashtown and our mushroom tunnels and so on. We have state of the art facilities for vegetable and mushroom research at our site in Ashtown, which is a positive outcome.

We have produced a horticultural plan that coincided with the plan to close Kinsealy and we have engaged actively with all branches of the industry in working collectively on delivering the plan. We see a major role for integrating our education service. We have a strong horticulture education service in Botanic Gardens which is an iconic site and we investing there to upgrade that capability and also at Kildalton. We will use our education facilities much more to service the needs of the horticultural sector.

We have also learned a big lesson in recent years, one born out of necessity, that one has to do things differently. There are positive developments that come about as a result of the need for retrenchment and rationalisation. For example, we are doing far more research on farms and commercial farms. The Teagasc- Irish Farmers’ Journal Better Farm Beef programme is an example. We have extended that programme into other sectors, including the nursery sector, and it has provided an unexpected benefit in terms of giving a commercial edge.

Several Members asked how we can manage to fulfil the many requirements of Food Harvest 2020 in the face of staff reductions. One thing we are doing is refocusing. I welcome the opportunity to give our views to the committee because when choices have to be made in these circumstances - no choice is easy - there will be those who will take issue with whatever choice one makes. We have made the choice that our strength is in delivering knowledge and technology into farms and food companies. We draw on our research and design in a tailor-made way for the benefit of farmers. That is our primary skill. It means we will have to scale back on support for schemes, a point raised by Deputy Deering.

We have been extensively involved in REPS. As Deputy Colreavy pointed out, given that REPS has only a year to go in terms of servicing the needs of the final participants, that was the first area identified for outsourcing. Assuming the moratorium continues we will have to consider other scheme support activities and we are mindful of the dilemma that presents. Clearly many farmers, particularly small and lower income farmers, get great benefit from Teagasc being in a position to support their applications for single farm payment and so forth. It is not something the authority will relinquish lightly but it illustrates the dilemma one is faced with at a time of limited resources. We can all agree on the need to target expansion but there is less agreement on the fact that one has to reduce other sectors. Prioritisation is key.

Deputy Kirk raised the issue of the potato sector. Clearly that sector is undergoing severe difficulties. There is an opportunity for the seed potato sector provided the economics stack up, as we stated at recent conferences. We continue to be very successful in the production of varieties. The rooster potato, which was bred in Carlow, now absorbs 54% of the market and perhaps it is a victim of its own success. We continue to produce varieties that are in demand and varieties that are tailored to the needs of the Irish sector.

Several members raised the question of the college student-teacher ratio and Deputy O'Mahony asked about the actual ratio. It is very expensive to produce an agricultural graduate because there are many issues at stake, health and safety being a critical one. I lectured in economics for many years and could have 200 to 250 students at a lecture. However, in the case of an agricultural course, for health and safety reasons and reasons of good pedagogy, the international norm is around 12:1. If one is trying to explain the operation of a tractor or the handling of an animal one can understand why the ratios would be at that level. In 2011-12 we moved from a ratio of 14:1 to 20:1. People outside of the agricultural sector who do not understand the demands on education would probably think that is a modest level but it is not. My colleagues who are engaged in the front line are fearful that is the limit of what is tolerable in terms of quality.

Quality is to the fore in my consideration and this year, partly on foot of the developments in the student-staff ratio, we will introduce an external quality evaluation at two of our colleges. We will bring in an outside group experienced in evaluating educational programmes. We have asked them a basic question, to evaluate what we are doing now given the resources that we can put into education.

A question was raised about the impact of the jobs moratorium. We are realists and I accept the need for it and for fiscal retrenchment. It is clear that the moratorium must be implemented but there needs to be flexibility in the way that it is applied to Teagasc and any organisation that requires specialist skills. If one loses a person from a specialist area it is not just their work that suffers, an entire service can collapse around that person. I will give an example. For about a year we had no permanent plant pathologist but eventually the Minister gave us leave to appoint one. I ask the committee to ponder on the kind of service we would provide grain growers if we did not have the pathologist. That individual's role would not be the only thing affected, it would be advisers that depend on the person's expert knowledge and so on.

A couple of key strategic appointments can make a huge difference to our ability to deliver a service, particularly in the developmental area. If we had a complete free hand we would realistically need about 300 advisers. In other words, we think we are short of about 30 advisers and full-time equivalents, 20 or so researchers and about the same number of teachers. We will make do with current resources to the best of our ability but a couple of strategic appointments would greatly ease things.

Deputy Colreavy asked how we can square a 37% cut in staff numbers with a focus on Food Harvest 2020. It is not easy. We have drastically increased workloads and my colleague, Dr. Tom Kelly, can vouch for that. Four years ago a typical adviser might have had under 100 clients but now it is about 160 clients. As a consequence something suffers. Our ability to engage with farmers on a one-to-one basis has been severely curtailed and we must look at different ways to deliver a service.

The news is not all negative because we can deliver an effective service through discussion groups. Perhaps the traditional model needed to be interrogated and changed but it would be wrong to suggest that we can cope with the substantial loss in staff. We will cut services and in this regard I earlier spoke about the scheme support services that must be reduced.

A question was asked about student intake. Last year was exceptional because we had an unexpected and substantial growth in applications and were faced with a crisis. As I said, we responded to it in a number of ways, including getting special leave to recruit six staff members. Our best assessment at this stage is that the increase will not be repeated this year. We will cope if we get the same number as last year by providing college courses and local courses. We have increased the number of local part-time courses in a number of areas and Deputy Heydon asked a question on them. They are important for some students and we have managed to cope with the demand. The authority is determined to accommodate as many students as it can but I hope that we do not have the same upsurge in demand as last year.

The question was asked on whether staff levels in a particular area have been reduced to a point where they are no longer sufficient or below a minimum critical level. The answer is "Yes" and it arose in what I call "minority enterprises". I do not use that term in a pejorative sense, I mean enterprises that do not have a significant share of the national farm income such as the pig sector. Four years ago we had four researchers and six advisers on the pig sector but now we have two researchers and four advisers.

Late last year I told the pig producers at two conferences that we were at the point that if our numbers fell any further we could not deliver a credible pig advisory service and would be better off shutting it down rather than pretending we had one. Clearly, our authority was not satisfied and asked us to come up with creative solutions. I am glad to say that pig producers came forward. They recognised the recruitment embargo and our budgetary constraints and offered to fund and develop a joint programme that will enable Teagasc hire three advisers and one researcher for which we are seeking sanction. That is an example of how, with the support and partnership from industry, there is a willingness to deal with a serious staff shortage.

Another example arose with the better beef programme. We hope and intend to launch a second phase of the Teagasc- Irish Farmers Journal beef programme over the next three years and have industry support worth €210,000 per annum for three years. We can recruit three advisers. That is another example of industry coming forward and allowing us to deal with a critical staffing situation. There are possible responses.

Solutions are not so easy to find for other areas, particularly for the minority areas. We have limited and insufficient resources for work in the organic farming sector. I would like to be doing far more work in rural development and other areas. It is difficult to get financial support from industry for them.

I do not want to go into detail about recruitment difficulties. External funding allows us to recruit but the process is long and drawn out. There are risks for the State when recruiting, even when it is funded externally. For example, there are pension implications and difficult issues with contracts because there is always a risk that contracts can become indefinite. That is a major concern. These matters are not easy to resolve given the raft of legislation that envelops the area. I have outlined some of the practical difficulties. These issues also arise in the university sector but it has more flexibility. We appeal for similar flexibility in the recruitment of staff that is funded outside of the Exchequer or grant-in-aid. We also appeal for greater flexibility with promotional opportunities because we compete head-on with other sectors.

I can give a commitment on the Manorhamilton office. It will not be as fulsome as the Deputy concerned would like and I hope he will understand the reason, which is that I cannot tell the future. When I took up this job four years ago I never anticipated that we would reduce our office numbers by 41 within two years. It would be wholly irresponsible for me to say that we can keep a particular office open. We are working through what we call phase 2 of our rationalisation plan. The Manorhamilton office is not included and it will not close under phase 2 but all of our office network is reviewed constantly.

I believe it was Deputy O'Mahony who asked whether we will close many more offices and is it the end of closures. I hope that it is. The McCarthy or an bord snip nua report recommended that between Teagasc and the then Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food there would be 25 offices nationally. Teagasc rejected that suggestion and said that the very least that we need, to maintain a national service, are 51 offices or so. We must constantly review. We are losing staff and have budget constraints. We cannot maintain the same office network continuously, and we could not give a long-term commitment for that. However, it is not scheduled as part of phase 2.

I would like to reassure Deputy Deering about the technological university. Just in the last week or so I met the president of Waterford IT and the acting president of Carlow IT and gave them our full commitment to that project. We will stand four-square behind those institutions, and we will do anything we can do to support their bid, not only in the education sphere - as members know, we are heavily involved with Waterford IT in delivering a joint third level degree programme - but also in the area of research, where we see opportunities. We have a major research site in Johnstown Castle in Wexford, as members know, and we also have a research site in Carlow, so we are very supportive of the bid.

The issue of form-filling was mentioned. I can understand the point, but sometimes that work can be dismissed all too lightly. In some parts of the country, helping farmers to maximise their entitlements under the single farm payment or REPS is a significant service, and I would not for one minute say we should walk away from that lightly. However, under the present circumstances that type of activity has a lower priority for Teagasc, and it will have a lower priority in the future than it may have had in the past.

We have an online service, which is delivering very effectively for us. There are limits, however. Much hope was expressed about the ability of online delivery of programmes to replace conventional delivery. I was involved in this myself in a previous career. Those claims were overblown. I am glad to say that human face-to-face contact will be needed as well. We will not replace one with the other, but certainly we can supplement delivery. Perhaps Dr. Kelly will elaborate further on that.

Deputy Colreavy asked about the genetically modified potato trial. For the benefit of the committee I will explain that we have applied to the EPA for a licence to conduct a trial, and the EPA will go through a rigorous process of assessment. We are a knowledge-based organisation and we see it as our duty, without fear or favour, to ascertain the facts about technologies that are used right across the world. We think that is what a scientific organisation should do. Then we have a responsibility to publish those scientific facts in the public domain and let the public be the judge of the validity and implications of that research. It would be remiss of us not to do so. As it happens, we have never sought or received, nor would we in this area, any commercial support for this work. It is funded entirely from Teagasc's own resources and is totally and utterly independent. That is how it has to be.

We are part of an international consortium with 22 other international EU partners involved, representing 15 countries. What we are examining in this trial and on foot of years of work in glasshouses, is the cost, in ecological terms, that might be associated with harvesting a genetically modified late blight-resistant potato. For example, we are considering the impact of cultivating these potatoes on bacterial, fungal, nematode and earthworm diversity in the soil compared with the conventional potato system. We are also considering the potential impact on crop management strategies. The nature of all research is that one can never prejudge the outcome. The outcome could be positive in terms of ecological impact or it could be negative. Either way, the results are published and brought into the public domain. If our licence is approved by the EPA, we plan to conduct an outreach programme with stakeholders and the wider public on the trial we are running, because we believe information is power. The exciting aspect of research is that one can never know where it will take us. Given the environmental challenges faced by the potato industry, including the potentially devastating impact of late blight, we have a responsibility to examine these technologies and understand their costs and benefits. That is where we are coming from. There is a mechanism, through the EPA, for others to determine whether it is appropriate for us to engage in that work.

Committee members who have a special interest in or knowledge of this area will know that the potato is particularly attractive for this type of work because it does not reseed itself very readily, so one knows where the seeds are located. We have also done extensive trials on pollen drift, the results of which suggest that the average drift of pollen is 11 metres, with a maximum drift of 24 metres. The very small experiment we are planning will be located 40 metres from any other potato plants. It is a well contained and carefully drawn up experiment. I must point out that the potato from which this gene has been drawn grows wild in Latin American countries and has been observed in situ to deal with the major challenge of late blight. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life in the crop sector that there is increasing resistance to conventional fungicides. This is an ongoing problem not only for potatoes but for all crops and, given Ireland’s climate, it is something we must be alert to. We see it as our responsibility to supply the knowledge without prejudice as to its potential use.

With regard to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, we have worked extensively with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to develop a capability to analyse policy going back through several rounds of CAP reform. As the Chairman will be aware, we also run the Teagasc national farm survey, which is an invaluable source of information on the economics of farming in Ireland, and we draw on that extensively to analyse the potential impacts of changes that are mooted at EU level on income and production. We work closely with stakeholders, including the Department and the farming organisations. Increasingly, we are working with Irish MEPs in the European Parliament, which has a major role on this occasion in CAP reform, and I am happy to work with this committee at a later stage if that is required. It is always our intention to publish the analyses we produce so that they are available in the public domain. This does not extend only to CAP reform. We do extensive analysis with regard to policy implications for the environment, including water and greenhouse gases, and that information is all published. We also had an important input in the last year or so about proposed changes to the disadvantaged area scheme, which would have serious implications for Irish agriculture. When the Commission officials proposed to change the criteria we were able, through our research, to point out that the replacement criteria were inappropriate.

The reason we are referring to collaborative farming initiatives, I know it is a bit of a mouthful, is that the Minister has indicated to us that he wishes to support a wide variety of relationships among farmers, including highly formalised relationships such as partnerships, shared farming, contract rearing of heifers or fodder, machinery sharing and so on. We have agreed to implement a national programme with three elements. There will be a national promotional campaign, which will be followed by intensive advisory support in six regional areas. We will also establish a research observatory so farmers interested in getting involved in some type of collaborative farming relationship can access a web base and see the experience of others, both in Ireland and elsewhere. That is the plan. We have a draft programme at a very advanced stage and hope to commence the promotional campaign in the near future.

I hope I have addressed most of the questions. Dr. Tom Kelly may address some of the specific questions. I am sure I missed some.

Dr. Tom Kelly

There are approximately four points I want to address. On international co-operation on the education side, we are co-operating actively with similar agencies in Denmark and elsewhere. We have engaged in Leonardo-type funded activities with the relevant countries to benchmark ourselves against best practice and to try to make available in Ireland the kinds of opportunities available in those countries.

Many of our dairy students avail of a placement option and go abroad to New Zealand or the United States, where they gain international experience of commercial farming as opposed to working for their neighbour and obtaining practical experience in Ireland. We welcome that because travel is education in itself.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

On that point, consider the question of UK students seeking a placement in Ireland. We acknowledge there is pressure and that there may be a problem because Warrenstown and other facilities have closed. Is there potential in this area, having regard to the age profile in the industry? I refer to students pursuing green certificate studies, for example.

Dr. Tom Kelly

Is the Deputy referring to students in the United Kingdom coming here? There is potential for that but our numbers are such that-----

Deputy Seamus Kirk

Dr. Kelly is suggesting Teagasc cannot really contemplate it. At a time when we are considering having third level students from abroad come to third level institutions in Ireland, we must contend there is some potential. With the staffing position, it may not be possible to accommodate the students.

Dr. Tom Kelly

That is correct. What the Deputy is referring to works, but on a project-by-project basis. We sometimes take in students from abroad for a week or two on a Leonardo-funded exchange but I presume the Deputy is talking about a bigger recruitment arrangement, as in the university sector. We are a good bit away from that. If we can deal with our own problems and train the Irish students, adults in particular, who want training in farming, we will be satisfied.

Deputy Colreavy referred to the drop in staff in the order of 37%. He asked what we are doing now. Not all the staff were involved in front line advisory business and technology work. Much of the scheme work is no longer in the system. We underestimate the amount of work that has been done on REPS planning in particular and the amount done previously under the farm waste management scheme. Some of the very big schemes were very demanding on staff resources. There was a backlog of other work that had to be addressed. There is a small benefit from the decline in REPS planning requirements.

With regard to the online option, we offer a part-time and an online training option for students in the 30-plus age category, particularly those approaching 35. Approaching 35 was a major issue but it is not so serious now given the reduction in stamp duty. The demand for the courses is significant. The online scheme was advertised and filled within a couple of weeks. Some 200 people were taken on at the start of the year on the online programme. They may not have started yet but are lining up to start shortly.

Approximately four more offices are to close under the programme. The deadline for the closure of the remaining offices is June 2012.

Deputy John O’Mahony

Where are they?

Dr. Tom Kelly

From memory, I believe they include the offices in New Ross and Mullinavat. There is a decision to make in regard to Claremorris and Swinford.

Professor Gerry Boyle

I cannot remember the exact number sold and I will have to revert to the Chairman. It may be 25 because they are not all owned by Teagasc. Some were leased, including that in Wicklow. We have been selling reasonably well and I have been surprised. Some of the offices are attractive as domestic dwellings and are in prominent locations. There has been some interest. We did not get what we believed we would get, however.

Chairman

The question on offices has been covered.

Professor Gerry Boyle

There are a few other points to address. Deputy Colreavy asked about the Croke Park agreement. Since Teagasc is dispersed all over the country, it has offices in every county and there are advisers, researchers and teachers throughout the country. We do not have the flexibility to move people any more than 45 km from where they are located if they do not want to move, even if it makes a lot of sense in terms of work availability and matching work to skills needs. People can volunteer to move. The restriction is in the Croke Park agreement. Obviously, it affects an organisation such as ours. Traditionally, there would have been much more movement of staff. I do not know how many times Dr. Kelly moved but movement used to be the norm. That is no longer the case, for many very good reasons. The housing market has affected people's ability to move. It makes it very difficult for us to optimise the resources we have available.

Deputy O'Mahony raised a very important question on outsourcing. Outsourcing does not save us money because we must pay external providers to supply services. What it does is enable us to do is to continue providing services we would not otherwise be able to provide.

Deputy John O’Mahony

Does it increase costs?

Professor Gerry Boyle

Yes, absolutely. That is a big problem and a difficulty. It is a question of staff and of maintaining service delivery. If we did not outsource REPS, there would be no way in which we would be able to meet the demand under the beef technology adoption programme; that is just the reality. What we have been doing is training REPS planners to be enterprise advisers. Some of them are excellent and good young people. If we did not outsource, we would have to get them to continue in the role they are in. It is an issue that we keep under constant review because we may not have sufficient resources in the future. We would then face the cessation of services, which is much more difficult to deal with.

Deputy Michael McNamara

There is a lot of talk of offices closing down. I commend Professor Boyle on the fact that the one in Scarriff has not closed, notwithstanding the fact that Teagasc has managed to achieve the savings required. It has managed to maintain a service, although not a full-time office, in Scarriff. I have mentioned this on numerous occasions before this committee. I am grateful that it is possible to maintain a service because Teagasc must concentrate on providing a service rather than buildings to farmers and the industry, which offers great potential to get us out of the economic morass we are in.

Chairman

I have a few points to make. One question struck me when the delegates were referring to constraints. It is quite obvious that Teagasc is key to the development of agricultural potential and that the conditions imposed by the Croke Park agreement have a severe impact on an organisation such as it. I know from experience that moving offices to a location 45 km away would not be an issue. I know many people who, not unwillingly, have moved much further because it was considered part of the job.

The key posts must be identified. The four regional managers and others who were engaged in research, in an advisory or education role, where extra staff are required must be replaced. There is a tipping point and when the numbers go below a level, it is impossible to provide an adequate service.

This committee has an all-party collegiate ethos and in order to assist Teagasc, we must feed the relevant information to the Minister or Ministers of State. To be fair to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, he understands the situation. We cannot breach the general terms of the Croke Park agreement, but the needs of Teagasc are not catered for in the specifics of the agreement.

I would not argue with the priorities that have been outlined, as it is fundamental to the development of the sector. I understand that the Walsh fellowship programme covers a three year period. Could those embarking on the Walsh fellowship programme specialise in one of the minority areas and conduct research as part of their PhD? There is bound to be a person who will want to specialise, be it in pigs, potatoes, fruit and vegetables and so on. That would be of assistance to Teagasc.

We would value the knowledge that Teagasc personnel have garnered on the spread of income and its definition of an active farmer, which I think will be more important than some of the issues that are being discussed, especially if we have a rolling reference year. That is the way it will evolve, and the active farmer as opposed to the passive farmer, will be able to trigger the entitlement. We would appreciate if Professor Gerry Boyle and Dr. Tom Kelly would return to discuss the Common Agriculture Policy. We are trying to take the views of the farm organisations' representatives, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Teagasc and feed them back to the Commissioner, Dacian Ciolo?, who attended one of our meetings. He is prepared to listen and we need the data that Teagasc has pulled together over a long number of years to give him a greater understanding of our position.

I thank Professor Boyle and Dr. Kelly for their comprehensive presentation and for responding to questions.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 8 March 2012.