Austin Deasy
Ceist:7 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if the Government will introduce a supplementary estimate to provide Teagasc with sufficient funds to keep the research institutes which are under threat of closure, open.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Teagase Research Centres.
Liam Kavanagh
Ceist:8 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the intended closure of research centres by Teagasc with the loss of 350 jobs.
Austin Deasy
Ceist:11 Mrs. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the way the number employed in the State research and advisory services in agriculture compare with the situation ten years ago; and the plans he has, if any, to improve this situation.
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:14 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason for the suggested closure of a number of Teagasc research stations throughout the country, having regard to the reference contained in page 70 paragraph 16 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress; his views on whether it is now the time for a reduction in investment in research and development in the industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Nora Owen
Ceist:19 Mrs. Owen asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the budget allocation to Teagasc for the years (1) 1987 (2) 1988 (3) 1989 (4) 1990 and (5) 1991; and if he will further outline the percentage decrease and the number of staff cutbacks in Teagasc in each of these years.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:31 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the anticipated level of Exchequer funding for Teagasc for 1992; if he has received representation from farming organisations regarding the proposed closure of a number of Teagasc centres; if he has discussed these plans or intends to discuss them with the board of Teagasc; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Séamus Cullimore
Ceist:48 Mr. Cullimore asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food (a) the amount of the State grant paid to Teagasc in 1991 (b) the cost of the pension liability included in this grant and (c) the extent of that organisation's income from other sources; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
John Bruton
Ceist:62 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline his policy on the phasing out of research into beef production.
John Connor
Ceist:135 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to the proposal by the management of Teagasc to close the agricultural research station in Belclare, Tuam, County Galway; his views on this proposal; and if he will outline the action he proposes to take to keep this station open.
John Connor
Ceist:136 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if his attention has been drawn to (1) the proposal of Teagasc management to close the Athenry agriculture college in County Galway arising from financial cutbacks insisted upon by his Department and (2) the fact that this college is one of the leading centres of young farmer training and education in the country.
John Connor
Ceist:137 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he intends to discuss with the management of Teagasc the proposal to reduce its staff by 350; and his views on whether this level of staff reduction would effectively destroy the research and advisory role of Teagasc and that, in the present state of Irish agriculture, such a move could only be detrimental.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 11, 14, 19, 31, 48, 62, 135, 136 and 137 together.
Under the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act, 1988, responsibility for agricultural research, training and advisory services rests with Teagasc. I understand that proposals for the reorganisation of these services have been prepared by management and are being considered by the authority. No proposals have so far been presented to me. Until such time as decisions are made by the authority and submitted to me, I am not in a position to comment on them.
I have not received any representations from farming organisations regarding Teagasc management proposals.
Teagasc was established in September 1988 through the amalgamation of AFT and ACOT. Exchequer funding for AFT, ACOT and Teagasc for each of the years 1987 to 1991, inclusive, together with the percentage change each year are included in a tabular statement which I propose to circulate in the Official Report. The 1992 grant-in-aid will be given in the Estimates which are being published this afternoon.
These figures represent the annual grant-in-aid. Teagasc are also in receipt of funds from other sources including substantial and increasing allocations from the European Social Fund. Teagasc's income from other sources in 1991 amounted to about £23 million including about £8.5 million from the ESF.
For years up to and including 1991 the grant-in-aid was paid as a contribution towards the total costs of the organisation and no separate amount was designated for any particular purpose. For the year 1992 a separate grant-in-aid will be designated as a contribution for superannuation purposes.
A Supplementary Estimate for my Department was presented to the House last week. There are no plans for any further Supplementary Estimate.
The combined staff numbers in AFT and ACOT in 1981 were 2,650. The corresponding numbers for 1987 to 1991, inclusive, were 2,367, 1,800, 1,575, 1,576 and 1,578, respectively.
Tabular Statement
|
Year |
Allocation (£'million) |
%change |
|
1987 |
38.9 |
Nil |
|
1988 |
34.2 |
-12.1 |
|
1989 |
36.3 |
+6.1 |
|
1990 |
29.5 |
-18.7 |
|
1991 |
33.0 |
+11.9 |
We should be honest in the House regarding this issue. The Minister's answer constitutes a whole series of evasions. Of course there is a serious crisis in Teagasc and the fact that a decision has not been made by the board of Teagasc does not get away from that. Will the Minister allow Teagasc — and the services provided by them — to be decimated because of the lack of funding by the State? Will he allow 300 or 400 researchers, advisers and complementary workers to be laid off and a whole series of research institutes and agricultural colleges to be closed because of the lack of State funding?
I have answered the questions which I was asked and did not try to evade them. The reality is that these are matters, in the first instance, for the board. I have also covered the question of the board's funding and the increased funding which they receive from outside. I assure the Deputies who put down questions in relation to the work and programme of Teagasc that I see them having a central role in the development of agriculture and I intend to ensure that they maintain that role.
They cannot do that without money.
That is a gross over-simplification.
The Minister said on Friday that he was interested in increasing investment, research and development and marketing in agriculture. There is a low level of research in agriculture — something in the region of .7 per cent of gross national product compared to about 2 per cent in other EC countries. Is the Minister saying he is not aware of all the proposals put to the Teagasc board today and last week which will mean at least 21 offices being closed and a reduction of 360 employees in at least ten different research and development areas? Since this action was taken before he was appointed Minister — and in view of his interest in this area — will he look again at the proposal and increase the subvention to Teagasc so that they can get resources from the EC to make up the difference?
Teagasc have a corporate plan of which I am sure the Deputies are aware. Under it they plan to be 50 per cent self-financing by 1993; by 1991 the grant was 58 per cent and, therefore, Deputies will see that they are close to realising their corporate plan under which they will be able to avail of further funds from the EC. They also plan to raise funds by other means. I regard research, education and technology as essential to the development of agriculture and as essential partners in the market-driven approach which you cannot have without the necessary technology. Teagasc have become more cost effective, efficient and commercially oriented in their operations. I will judge proposals put to me but none has yet been made.
The Minister will not proceed with them.
Management will consider the proposals and look at the possibilities. That is the function of the board and management of Teagasc. From what I understand, they are looking at a variety of possibilities in that regard. As I said, no proposals in that regard have been made to me and when they are submitted I will certainly deal with them. There have been rumours about matters which will be considered. However, I have begun to visit the various centres and I will continue to do that.
Deputy Deasy rose.
I would be grateful for brevity so that I will be able to dispose of the three remaining questions, all in Deputy Deasy's name.
This will be my last supplementary question. We are all trying to be helpful but the Minister is not telling us the true story. We must face up to the fact that there is a massive shortfall in the funding necessary to keep Teagasc going. We know that it runs into several millions. The Book of Estimates will be published today. The Minister knows the exact figure; we do not but we think it is in the region of £2.3 million. Let us not have this charade about there not being a problem, that the board of Teagasc have yet to decide. We know what will happen: a whole series of institutes will be closed. If the Government are not willing to put up the necessary money — the shortfall of approximately £2.3 million — will he endeavour to get it from the EC through the Social Fund or from the structural Funds? If those avenues fail to yield the necessary amount of money, will be suggest to Teagasc that they should take the practical step of selling their headquarters in Sandymount Avenue, the market value of which is in the region of £3 million, and centre their operations in Kinsealy Research Centre? That would be the practical solution to the problem instead of making 300 or 400 scientists, researchers and advisers redundant.
I will make sure that the Deputy's advice is conveyed to the management and board of Teagasc.
The Minister has no ideas of his own.
I will discharge my duties effectively at the appropriate time, and Teagasc are aware of that. I have already taken up the matter of ESF funding. The Deputy is quite right, if we can do more in that regard we will. I made representations about such funding last week.
Please, Deputies, only the Deputies who tabled Priority Questions may ask supplementary questions.
The Minister has taken about 15 minutes.
The crisis in Teagasc has resulted from——
Deputy Owen, you either obey the rules or you do not.
——a reduction from £45 million in 1987 to £26 million at present. As a new Minister he will have to accept the board's decisions of today or whenever they finish their deliberations. If the Minister considers that investment in research and development will be reduced will be reject the proposals of the board?
You will appreciate that all I can do at this stage is take the advice.
The Minister guaranteed the future of research.
I cannot interfere with the management. I said in the first instance that I will be supporting totally research which is effective and well directed. I will also be sitting down with Teagasc to examine the best programme for the future both in relation to research and advice and the other matters which were raised by Deputies last week when we discussed the Supplementary Estimate.
Why was this not done before taking a decision?
Nobody asks for decisions until the matter is complicated further.
Close the door and then discuss.
The Deputy may not intervene.
We will keep the Minister to that.
We will be watching.