Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:35 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if he has approved the Teagasc investment programme for agricultural colleges for 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28467/00]
Priority Questions. - Agricultural Colleges.
Statutory responsibility for the provision of agricultural education and training rests with Teagasc. Therefore, decisions about the allocation of public funds for this purpose are a matter for the Teagasc authority.
In accordance with public financial procedures, Teagasc is required to submit its proposed capital programme each year for the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
An allocation of £2 million has been provided for Teagasc in the Estimates for 2001, being the second instalment in a £10 million capital investment programme in training facilities over the period 2000-04. Teagasc has not yet submitted its programme for the expenditure of this allocation.
Will the Minister tell us whether in reviewing the Teagasc programme the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will look beyond one single year and will examine the full programme for the expenditure of £10 million by Teagasc over the next four years? If so, will the Minister be expressing a view on the expenditure to be allocated to each of the colleges currently in operation?
Teagasc is an independent body. While it submits its review, once its finances are in order they can spend money in line with their own decision provided this is done in a proper manner. Last year, eight colleges got £180,000 each – Ballyhayes, Clonakilty, Gurteen, Kildalton, Mellowes, Mountbellew, Pallaskenry and Warrenstown – and Rockwell received £100,000. There was a balance of £60,000 for contingencies while another £400,000 was given for IT updating and marketing. This expenditure was approved by the Minister in a formal package which the board decided upon. We would like Teagasc to remain an independent body.
Is the Minister not aware that the chairman, chief executive and other officials of Teagasc have informed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine that they require the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Minister for Finance to their investment programme? Is the Minister not of the view that that requirement for consent gives the Minister a say in determining the programme? Is the Minister content with a situation in which a number of agricultural colleges will simply be starved of capital, thereby cutting off their further development?
As a former Minister, the Deputy is aware that the package is presented to the Minister for approval and consent. Provided there is nothing untoward in it the decisions are normally made by the body. What is the point in appointing a body if it cannot present its own package? The body is representative of all sections of farming, particularly the IFA. Teagasc has presented the package to the Minister and he has approved it in terms of general spending. The specific detail is a matter for the board to decide.
The Minister of State is saying he regards the function of the Minister for Agri culture, Food and Rural Development in relation to Teagasc as being merely a rubber stamp and that if proposals come before the Minister which imply the capital starvation of any number of agricultural colleges, he will not give an opinion on it and will be willing to allow those colleges to be effectively throttled.
Deputy Dukes is not a ventriloquist, and I did not say what he claims I said. I said the Minister—
I am asking if that is the Minister of State's view.
That is not my view. The Minister—
What will the Minister of State do about it?
On talking to the chairman and chief executive, the Minister would have a view on general policy, but not specific detail of day to day running, which a Minister always stays away from in terms of semi-State bodies. What was approved in last year's programme was the updating of technologies and facilities in the colleges. This year's programme has not yet been presented to the Minister. Should there be unfairness or discrimination it is up to the colleges to appeal to the board of Teagasc or directly to the Minister.
If colleges appeal to the Minister on the basis that in their view they are being unfairly deprived of capital resources, will the Minister take action? Is the Minister of State aware that consideration is being given to removing three private colleges from the—
Individual colleges are not a matter for the Minister, they are a matter for Teagasc. The Chair has repeatedly pointed out on questions such as this that the closure or rumoured closure of any college—
I have not mentioned the word closure.
—is not a matter for the Minister.
The Minister of State informed us that the Teagasc investment programme requires the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Minister for Finance. He has informed the House that if a college has a difficulty with the programme it can address its concern to the Minister. If Teagasc produces a proposal, the effect of which would be to starve three colleges of capital funds, three colleges which have not received capital funds for some years—
We must proceed to the next question.
—is the Minister saying that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will agree?
The report mentions four colleges.
Three of the four.
No, four in total. Naturally, the Minister can raise a subject with the board. There are departmental representatives on the board who can explain to him the reasons things are being done.
The Minister of State said the Minister will rubber-stamp board decisions.
I did not say that. I said he would give consent to proper spending.
We have exceeded the time limit on the question. I call Question No. 46.
Will the Minister change decisions?