Vol. 398 No. 9
3 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when the Government decided to reduce the number of CAO posts in the Teagasc structure from 28 to 25; if his attention has been drawn to the effect of this decision on the services available to the farming community; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Under the relevant legislation, my consent, and that of the Minister for Finance is required for the numbers, grades and remuneration of staff employed by Teagasc.
I am satisfied that 25 posts of chief agricultural development officer are adequate for the provision of the present county agricultural advisory and training services and Teagasc management have accepted this.
Under ACOT, local farm advisory and training services were managed through a district system within counties under the Senior Agricultural Development Officer (SADO) grade. Following a review, Teagasc proposed that the management of the services should be identified as the responsibility of one official at Chief Agricultural Development Officer (CADO) level.
In agreeing to the general proposal, approval was given in January last, for 25 posts of CADO in Teagasc on the basis that Counties Cork and Tipperary would require two such posts but that it was possible to amalgamate a number of the smaller counties under one CADO.
This proposal, which would involve 11 upgradings, has not yet been accepted by the staff side which maintains that 28 posts at CADO level should be provided.
Will the Minister confirm that Teagasc did not readily accept the decision — but argued against it — to impose this constraint on them thereby reducing the number of places from 28 to 25 against their advice arising from negotiations over a seven months' period——
I am awaiting a supplementary question; the Deputy is making a statement.
I am asking if the Minister will confirm the situation to which I referred. Arising from that, the chairman of Teagasc described it as an imposed constraint on them in a letter to me——
The Deputy is again making a statement instead of asking a question.
The chairman and the board of Teagasc recognise that we do not impose constraints on them. We are having discussions with them——
They were the words of the person who wrote to me, not mine.
Teagasc proposed the new structure regarding county advisory development officers and I accepted that. I indicated that, in view of the position of smaller counties, there was not adequate justification for having a county agricultural development officer in each county and that, where possible, they should amalgamate. As a consequence of that indication from me they agreed to amalgamate and I have adopted the structure which they proposed.
Arising from what the chairman of Teagasc described as an "externally imposed constraint" on the Authority, will the Minister agree that the merging of the Dublin and Kildare authorities is incompatible as there are no similarities between the two counties regarding the type of agriculture carried on? In Kildare it is mostly cereals and beef and in Dublin mainly horticulture. Therefore, it is inappropriate that these two authorities should be merged. Will the Minister also confirm that a senior member of his party — who is a member of Teagasc — strongly argued within the Teagasc organisation against Louth being amalgamated and that, therefore, the decision in regard to Kildare and Dublin was made precipitately?
These are matters for Teagasc. I am not aware of any senior member of our party being in Teagasc, much less arguing for this. Perhaps a senior member of the Deputy's party is in that organisation?
No, he is in the Minister's party.
The decision on amalgamation and how administrative areas are organised is a matter for Teagasc.
Deputy Stagg rose.
We must move to Question No. 4.
