Vol. 386 No. 1
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of the proposals regarding redundancies and rationalisations announced by Teagasc before Christmas; the action he intends to take on these proposals; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline his response and that of the Government to the restructuring proposals submitted by the board of Teagasc.
22.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in view of the disastrous consequences which will result from his proposals to close and downgrade a number of agricultural stations in the west, such as Belclare and Creagh, County Galway, he will reconsider his proposals in this regard.
23.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make additional funds available to Teagasc in 1989 to enable them to retain training establishments such as that at Cork Road, Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether he has satisfied himself that the current estimate for Teagasc is sufficient to meet the requirements of that organisation in respect of research, education and development in the agricultural area in 1989; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
45.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will oppose the proposals made by the board of Teagasc to close the Trim office and transfer the staff to Grange Research Station, County Meath; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 18, 22, 23, 24 and 45 together.
When I appointed the new Authority in September, I requested the submission of its programme for 1989 with a view to bringing about the maximum degree of rationalisation. I said the aim in formulating the programme should be to provide those services which are crucial to the development of the agriculture and food industry on the most cost-effective basis and to ensure an integrated research, education and advisory service for the agri-food industry with particular emphasis on expanding market opportunities internationally.
Teagasc, which submitted its programme to me in December, carried out its examination against the background of the following key objectives after detailed consideration over a period of three months. The objectives were the necessity to achieve the maximum integration of research, advisory and training services and ensure the long-term viability of Teagasc is secured; the need to ensure that all services are delivered in the most cost-effective manner and the importance of allocating resources and manpower in a manner which reflects programme priorities.
The main features of Teagasc's programme for 1989 are: the re-organisation and the refocusing of the agricultural advisory training and research services; special emphasis on education and training for young farmers and on food research as required under the legislation; a special advisory service for small producers; the establishment of six regional centres with enhanced capacity to promote special programmes of regional and national importance; concentration of administration in a single headquarters and a review of local advisory-training centres; the funding of capital works such as the new Food Centre through the sale of assets; the transfer of the research being done at present at Creagh and Beclare stations to Athenry with specific provision to set up a reserve fund from the economies achieved for designated western projects; retention of Lullymore and Ballinamore stations for use as transmission farms and advisory centres; more commercial orientation of research at Johnstown Castle; rationalisation of the Rural Economics centre, and recruitment of some additional staff in key areas and a reduction of staff in other areas, to be achieved by voluntary retirement.
The programme represents the first phase of the Authority's plans for rationalisation of existing services over a three-year period so as to achieve maximum integration and delivery of the most relevant services in the most cost-effective manner. The State grant provided for Teagasc for 1989 is £27.5 million. I have indicated to the Authority my acceptance of the broad thrust of the programme for 1989. Some elements such as extra staffing in key areas have to be considered fully and in detail, and the financial implications of the implementation of the programme will be reviewed later in the light of the progress achieved.
The board of Teagasc is representative of all the farming organisations, the Irish Co-operative Organisation Society Limited, the trade union and staff associations, universities and educational institutions and is presided over by Mr. Joe Rea, former President of the IFA and the Director is Dr. P. Ryan, former Director of An Foras Talúntais.
Does the Minister agree that the nub of the problem with which we are dealing is that he left Teagasc £11 million short of the required budget to carry out even the reduced programme he intended them to do? Arising from that, would the Minister not agree that he is getting rid of 200 jobs in key expert areas within Teagasc, and would he further agree that arising from the cutbacks that have already taken place in this area, 60,000 farmers in the deprived areas mostly in the west as far as research and advice is concerned will effectively be abandoned by the Department because the Minister is closing Creagh and Beclare? Will the Minister further agree that the research level now possible in Johnstown Castle will be below the base level necessary for research to be effective?
I do not agree with any of the suggestions.
They are not suggestions, they are questions.
Please, Deputy, let us hear the Minister.
The Deputy has asked me if I would agree, and I am just indicating that I do not agree. In the first instance, the figures represented by the Deputy are incorrect. There is not a shortfall of £11 million in the budget. The Deputy will be aware that at the end of last year this House introduced a Supplementary Estimate of £8 million in respect of 1988 and there could not possibly be a shortfall of the magnitude suggested by the Deputy. The Deputy, in his question, implied that I am getting rid of people. The Deputy misunderstands the position. Any redundancies in accordance with the Government's commitment to the partners in the Programme for National Recovery will be on a voluntary basis only. On that basis there is no justification for the suggestion that the board of Teagasc or the Minister, who is not directly involved, is getting rid of people. The Deputy will be aware that the staff can be reassured of that fact in the light of last year's experience. In relation to the questions as to the capacity of Teagasc to deliver the service, it has long been an aim of successive Governments to have an integrated research and advisory service. I feel privileged that the Government afforded me an opportunity to achieve that. I am particularly satisfied that, for the first time, the board and staff of Teagasc have the capacity to do so. There is no question of their being incapable of discharging a service. The only question that arises is how much they can expand on what they have already done.
Will the Minister tell the House the exact number of job losses that will arise from the programme he has outlined to the House? Would he also inform the House whether he has examined the position in Teagasc arising from health risks, lack of policy co-ordination, staff morale levels, and whether this constitutes the final cut in this area? Is the Minister aware — and will he confirm to the House — that the trade unions representing the workers in that area have stated publicly that the Minister, particularly the Government, and the management of Teagasc are in breach of the national understanding, in that regard as a result of the action they are now taking?
At this point I am bound to remind Members that we are dealing with questions nominated for priority on which there is a strict time limit of 15 minutes. If the Chair is to dispose of the five questions on the Order Paper I will need the co-operation and understanding of the Members who have tabled these priority questions.
In relation to Deputy Stagg's implication that I am in breach of anything contained in the national understanding, or that the trade unions have attacked or criticised me or the Government in respect of that action, I repudiate any such implication. In fact uniquely, with my colleague, the Minister for Labour, I met the trade union representatives across the senior level of ICTU who were fully understanding of what we were doing. We assured them — and they accepted — that everything would be done in accordance with the commitments and obligations, each to the other, under the Programme for National Recovery.
I want to call Question No. 13
The Minister has omitted to answer my specific question, that is the number of jobs that will be affected.
A Cheann Comhairle, my question is coupled with that.
Will the Minister tell the House the number of jobs that will be affected?
I will come to Deputy Doyle's questions, Nos. 14, 15 and 16, but I am bound to inform the Deputy that when an ordinary oral question is taken in conjunction with another nominated for priority, during the time allocated to questions nominated for priority only the Member in whose name the priority question appears may ask supplementary questions.
A Cheann Comhairle, the Minister is about to give me the information.
I have asked for the understanding of the House to deal with the five questions. I shall be concluding Priority Questions after 15 minutes. Members cannot complain if their questions are not reached within that time.
I just want to inform Deputy Stagg — in relation to the last part of his supplementary — that it is not possible at all at this point to know how many voluntary redundancies might arise. One of the priorities of Teagasc is to look to new revenue-raising activities on a commercial basis. That has not been a feature of the service to date. I am satisfied that there will be significant results from that effort and, for that reason, it is not possible to give any estimate as to what——
I am calling Question No. 13.
The chairman says 140 and 60 are to be redeployed.
I am calling Question No. 13.
