On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. Jim Flanagan, Mr. Pat Boyle and Mr. Tom Curley from Teagasc who are here to discuss the closure of a number of Teagasc advisory offices. Before asking Mr. Flanagan to commence his presentation, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. 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 an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Teagasc Advisory Offices: Presentation.
Mr. Jim Flanagan
We have submitted a written opening statement which I assume members have received.
The reorganisation and rationalisation of the Teagasc advisory services were in response to a number of key changes in the agri-food sector, including the rapidly changing policy environment which the agri-food industry faced in 2002, including the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy; and the continued decline in the number of full-time commercial farmers. However, the needs of farmers in terms of specialised advice were increasing and it was clear Teagasc could not meet those needs without restructuring its service. The decision to close smaller offices and operate from approximately 80 locations nationwide was based on the need to have critical mass in terms of staff numbers at each location to allow for the delivery of more specialised services to meet demand. In addition, upgrading the remaining locations in terms of modern information and communication facilities and better administrative backup would improve the quality and efficiency of our programme delivery mechanisms.
Policy decisions on overall staff numbers in the public service necessitated a decrease of the order of 10% in the overall number of Teagasc staff. This has had an inevitable effect on the advisory service.
Approval to dispose of a small number of offices was received in April 2003. The criteria used in selecting offices for closure were: proximity to other Teagasc offices; size in terms of number of staff and services provided; asset value on disposal; and strategic importance. The closures were proceeded with in phases.
In 2003 the advisory office in Corduff, County Dublin was sold together with the head office on Sandymount Avenue and smaller research centres at Clonroche, County Wexford and Lullymore, County Kildare. Rented offices in Buncrana, County Donegal; Cashel, County Tipperary; Kenmare and Castleisland, County Kerry and the advisory office in Ballinamore, County Leitrim were also closed. Teagasc has a programme to sell its offices at Loughrea, County Galway; Bailieboro, County Cavan; Farranlea Road, Cork; Boyle, County Roscommon; Wentworth Place, County Wicklow; Mullinavat, County Kilkenny; Bagenalstown, County Carlow and Gorey, County Wexford as phase 2 of its rationalisation.
The primary purpose of the advisory service is to maximise the income and sustainability of farming families within rural communities. The services of the future must achieve an acceptable balance between the development needs and service demands of farm families. To achieve this balance, the advisory service will be built around four specific programmes: options analysis-rural viability programme; business and technology programme; environmental programme, including good farm practice; and adult training programme.
The options analysis programme is envisaged as the foundation of the advisory service, whereby all clients will, at intervals, be taken through a formal planning process. In the coming years this programme will help clients adjust after decoupling. Major adjustments will be required on both full-time and part-time farms. This process will allow farm families to take stock of their farm business and household position, including family farm income, analyse the options available to them and identify development pathways to sustain viability. The programme will combine group methodologies with one-to-one advice and set the agenda for the advisory and training programme to be delivered to each client. Teagasc will underpin the programme with a rural development and economics research programme which will provide background information on changing trends and a sound analytical base. To help with this adjustment, training will be provided by Teagasc in partnership with other relevant organisations.
On the business and technology programme, maintaining and sharpening the competitive edge of Ireland's commercial farmers will be a major priority in the more open market environment after decoupling. These farmers will be the principal producers of the raw material for the food industry and it will be of major public importance to ensure they can compete with the best and even avail of opportunities to obtain additional milk quota from higher cost countries.
A feature of the delivery mechanisms for the programme will be the use of enhanced information and communication technologies at local offices. These technologies will include texting, e-mail and financial management tools such as profit monitors and business planning programmes.
In the interests of individual farmers and the economy, Teagasc will ensure the competitiveness of the agriculture sector is maintained under the new regime. Specialised enterprise advisers will be freed from scheme work and deliver the business and technology programme. They will need to be more highly specialised and work hand in hand with their programme managers and research colleagues.
The key components of the programme will be: programme objectives developed and agreed with farm clients and industry; participation by clients in technical discussion groups; business and technology based adult training programmes; monitor farms, where benefits of strategic planning, focused objectives and technology adoption are recorded and demonstrated in a way that links closely to ongoing research; the profit monitor, cost control planner and other financial tools will be widely promoted; a strong programme of public events based around monitor farms; and focused farm visits with office based consultancy work.
On the good farm practice programme, as a result of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, farmers will require an advisory service which will assist them to conform to environmental, food quality, animal welfare and occupational safety standards. It seems likely that it will be mandatory for member states to ensure this service is available. It is also proposed that 80% of the cost of the service will be supported by modulation funds.
Teagasc will put in place a good farm practice programme which will provide advice and training to equip farmers to meet the requirements of cross-compliance. The programme will embrace the REPS planning service but will also provide planning services to support the nitrates and water quality directives and other legislative requirements. Clients who successfully participate in the programme will be certified by Teagasc as meeting the various requirements of cross-compliance.
Servicing the growing number of part-time farmers who will continue to account for a significant proportion of agricultural output is a particular challenge for Teagasc. One third of all farmers now have an off-farm job. Farming will continue to be a major source of income on a substantial number of these farms. To ensure they can successfully adapt to the new policy environment, Teagasc will need to deploy flexible and innovative advisory and training methods to meet their particular needs. The restructured advisory service will be delivered across 18 area management units instead of the 28 largely county-managed units currently in place.
I thank Mr. Flanagan. This is a very important meeting. We must try to facilitate the Fine Gael and Labour Party spokespersons. We discussed this issue after the Order of Business this morning and I said I would facilitate them on the grounds that they would have to speak to a Bill in the Dáil in the next half an hour or so. I will call three speakers from each side, including the two spokespersons who must leave, and then ask the delegates to reply. If the two spokespersons want to ask supplementary questions before they leave, they may do so. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I asked at the last meeting if it would be possible to place in front of us the monitor showing the proceedings in the Seanad. It is located behind our backs.
We will try to facilitate the Senator.
I am extremely disappointed about the manner in which the two items of business are clashing. While I thank the Chairman for trying to facilitate us, it is unacceptable that, like the man above, Deputy Upton and I are supposed to be in two places at the one time. This is wholly inadequate.
I thank Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues for attending at such short notice and making their presentation. I have a number of brief points. In the agreement with Commissioner Franz Fischler, to which the Government signed up and which is the subject of considerable discussion, a clear commitment was made regarding the services that needed to be provided for farmers because of the changing nature of agriculture and the decoupled payment which will have major ramifications. In the light of this, do the delegates believe the restructuring taking place and the fact that Teagasc is reducing its number of offices will have a detrimental impact on the commitment made at European level?
In this context, is it not the case that some of the funding will come from the modulation budget, directly from farmers' pockets? In the light of this, farmers will be paying for a service that is actually being withdrawn in some communities. When he appeared before the joint committee in 2003, Dr. O'Dwyer pointed out that 70% of the Teagasc budget was expended on staff costs. This will not change. Issues arose regarding the cost of relocating staff to other offices. Benchmarking costs also have implications, as does the LRC lump sum agreement regarding relocation. What will be the net saving pertaining to the offices that close? Will Mr. Flanagan elaborate on this?
Let me focus on two points made in Mr. Flanagan's presentation, particularly that relating to the Boyle office, with which he is familiar. It serves as an example in respect of the other offices which are under threat. Mr. Flanagan said the decision was taken by the board of Teagasc to close some of the smaller offices. In the light of this, does he believe an office such as that in Boyle which accounts for 33% of the income of the service in County Roscommon, which is visited by 15 farmers and deals with 34 queries per day, is small? Its service to the farming community has grown by 124% in the past seven years. Does this serve to define what is meant by a small office?
Mr. Flanagan outlined the criteria for the evaluation of the offices which were to close. One was proximity to other Teagasc offices. This means some farmers from Arigna will have to make a 100-mile round trip. There are five full-time staff based in Boyle, to which two advisers travel on a regular basis during the week. The decision to close the Boyle office and some of the others was made purely because of the asset value of the properties. Teagasc has not considered their strategic importance. If it had, it would have noted that offices such as that in Boyle have a significant revenue flow, from both rental income on the property and income from Teagasc services.
Is it not the case that no evaluation has been carried out of the individual offices? It was stated by the CEO in Roscommon that he had submitted no evaluation to Teagasc headquarters of the individual offices in the county? How can one make a decision on a particular office when no submission was sought from the CEO in the Teagasc office in Roscommon? Do similar circumstances obtain in regard to other offices in respect of which there were no proper evaluations?
Why did Teagasc decide to keep the Tullow office open and carry out an evaluation of that office? Does it have plans, even at this late stage, to evaluate other offices before any further decisions are taken?
I thank Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues for their presentation. While I am not particularly familiar with the Boyle area of County Roscommon, I do have background information on the statistics for it. It is an unusual decision when I consider the data with which I have been presented. A large number of clients appear to use the office in which a large number of consultations take place annually. Significantly, 33% of the county income target figure is generated in Boyle.
Mr. Flanagan said approval to dispose of a small number of offices was received in April 2003. Did the board of Teagasc make the decision? Will Mr. Flanagan elaborate on its basis?
Criteria are set out, including proximity to other Teagasc offices and so forth. Is there a priority within the order in which they are set out? Is proximity the most significant factor, followed by size, asset value and strategic importance? If not, what is the relative value of each?
Mr. Flanagan has stated Teagasc is moving from 28 area management units to 18 and that this is related to the move towards part-time farming, in which the future of many farmers lies. Accordingly, the need to maintain offices such as that in Boyle should be taken into account rather than cutting back on the number of facilities available within a reasonable geographical distance. There is a round trip of 100 miles for some clients to visit what is described as their local Teagasc office.
I join the Chairman in welcoming the delegation of Mr. Jim Flanagan, Mr. Pat Boyle and Mr. Tom Curley.
The ongoing debate as to whether the Teagasc office in Boyle should close recently reached a new level of local activity when over 500 people attended a meeting last week in the town, the second largest in County Roscommon. Detailed explanations were given of the importance of the office to the area. For politicians and, more importantly, the 400 farmers who use the office, there seems to be a lack of planning regarding its closure.
What is the priority of the four criteria given? It seems someone forgot to look at the map and left north County Roscommon without an office. This does not make sense in geographical terms. It beggars belief that an area stretching from Arigna to Frenchpark to Ballyfarnan can have its office service removed. No one at the recent meeting in Boyle could understand the logic behind this. I want an explanation for this decision.
As a member of the county council and the county committee of agriculture, I was one of those who took the decision to provide an agricultural advisory office in Boyle and watched it develop. However, a new body has now decided to remove this infrastructure, put in place by a conscientious decision of the elected members of Roscommon County Council and supported by the western development package. The facility has developed to the extent that for the single payment alone, 700 herdowners over four weeks received assistance in completing their application forms. Up to three additional staff were deployed from other offices in County Roscommon to service clients. During the same period 1,300 telephone calls were recorded, largely regarding queries on the single payment system. The office has six full-time staff. It is used by approximately 400 clients and there are 3,500 consultations every year. On average 15 farmers visit it every day.
The office is used by two other bodies, Roscommon County Council and Coillte, both of which pay rent. From the information available to me, there is not much expense for Teagasc to run it. The income derived from the use of these two offices meets most of the costs incurred. Some indication needs to be given by the Teagasc delegation on this matter.
If the decision of Teagasc is to be implemented, I can see farmers who use the office being forced to make round trips of 100 miles. The Teagasc service in north County Roscommon will become a thing of the past. We will simply throw open the door for a private service. A service into which we put so much during the years will be destroyed.
This decision cannot be taken without proper analysis. Is there a document available to the joint committee regarding the decision and on what it was based? I want to see it presented to the director, the chairperson and the board of Teagasc and the backup figures and information which are not in the public arena. As public representatives, we are entitled to know on what the decision was based. Was it based on a meeting in Dublin at which people sat around, looking at a map, saying they will close this office and that? At the meeting in Boyle this is what came across. Was there an evaluation of what was involved?
As public representatives, we appreciate that the boards of statutory bodies have a job to do. However, they also have a responsibility to address public concerns. In recent weeks the source of greatest public concern in County Roscommon is the closure of the Teagasc advisory office. The recent public meeting in Boyle was not an event into which people were hauled in on the night. The same people marched into a similar meeting in 2003. They did not stay in the sweaty room in the Royal Hotel without having major concerns about a service to which they believe they are entitled, for which they are paying and which was put in place a long time ago. Now it is being taken away. This is a public service, of which the people of the area are not going to let go too lightly. There is a battle on for what people believe is their rightful entitlement. It is good that Teagasc knows this.
There are people in the Visitors Gallery since 9.30 a.m. because of these concerns. They will meet as many Members as possible from all sides of the House to explain their difficulties. We want answers regarding this matter that are not available to us. If they cannot be given today, I hope they will be later. We want to see the internal documents that explain this important decision that will deprive a section of a county of its Teagasc office.
Mr. Flanagan
Regarding Deputy Naughten's comments, Teagasc strongly believes that the restructured service will be better for farmers than the old system and will better meet farming needs in the future. In particular, the technology and business service will have to be much more specialised in the future. We foresee a commercial farmer having an adviser who is a specialist in that particular farming enterprise. It is no longer good enough to have a local adviser to advise on all the different enterprises. A tillage farmer, for example, needs advice from a tillage specialist and livestock or dairy farmers need similar specialist advice. An office of a certain minimum size is needed to justify such a specialist service and we believe the proposed restructured service will be better.
Modulation was mentioned. While it is possible that modulation funds would be used to provide this advisory service to inform farmers about needs under the cross-compliance measures, we are not aware of any intention to use the modulation funds for that purpose in Ireland.
Would Teagasc want that to happen?
Mr. Flanagan
We are not currently aware of any specific proposal to use modulation funds in that manner in Ireland. Our chairman, Dr. O'Dwyer, stated that 70% of the funds available to Teagasc are spent on staff. There will be some relocation costs but they are relatively small compared with others relating to Teagasc. There were newspaper reports on the large sums of money people were being paid for relocation. To date, Teagasc has paid some €30,000 in such costs to cover all the claims regarding head office relocation. The figure is nothing of the order of magnitude implied in the newspapers and is a relatively small sum.
Teagasc has decided to bring about the rationalisation and I am not aware that it has any plans to reconsider the matter further. Teagasc management is instructed to implement the decision of the authority. The Teagasc authority approved the decision in the first instance but it also needs approval from its parent Department before it sells property. Approval has been given to sell the properties in question.
When we come to sell a property, we must present the Teagasc authority with details of the sale, noting how we plan to sell it — with a reserve if that is relevant — and the Teagasc authority must agree the details of how an office is sold. The Teagasc authority has agreed to close all these offices and thereafter sell them. However, it has not agreed the details of selling. Until they are sold, I presume the Teagasc authority could, in its wisdom, change its mind. However, I am not aware that there is any intention to do so at this time.
Questions were asked about the weighting given. The four criteria were given equal weighting and, in a substantial document that may have run to 80 pages, all the offices were evaluated under these. In deciding which offices to close, the Teagasc authority had information on the size of each office and an estimate of value. Teagasc did not pay valuers to value each office but valued them based on its knowledge of what prices were being paid locally for properties of that kind. We, therefore, had an approximate valuation. When we come to sell an office, we get a detailed valuation from appropriate local auctioneers via our property consultants. We would have had an approximate valuation of all the offices, including the Boyle office. We will get detailed valuations when we come to putting properties on the market.
I would like answers to some of the questions I asked regarding specific valuations of individual offices, although I know it is difficult to obtains such answers. I accept that Mr. Flanagan submitted a substantial document to the board. Two of the four elements were size — in terms of staff numbers and services provided — and strategic importance. I cannot understand how one could arrive at the results of those elements without getting reports from local CEOs or how individual reports were submitted from local CEOs regarding each of the offices around the country. I understand that statistics are submitted to Teagasc on a county, and not an individual office, basis and that this information was provided to us at a public meeting. If that is the case, how could Teagasc carry out an assessment regarding the size — in terms of staff and services provided — and strategic importance?
In the past two years, significant investment has been made in the Boyle office with regard to upgrading the information technology there. It is an important office strategically because it is 30 miles from Boyle to the local district veterinary office, DVO, in Sligo, and 27 miles to the office in Roscommon. The Boyle office can, therefore, provide services to farmers which should properly be provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food, which, however, does not have an outreach service. Will the investment made in the Boyle office be lost?
Knowing the geography of County Roscommon, Mr. Flanagan is aware that there will be significant loss in business to Teagasc in that county if the Boyle office closes. Currently, a third of the budget — of the revenue coming in from the county — comes into that office. If the Boyle office closes, there will a dramatic fall-off in the resources coming into Teagasc in County Roscommon, which will have a direct impact on the provision of services in other parts of the county.
Mr. Flanagan
Information was supplied from the counties on the clients, the business and the distances involved for each Teagasc office. Though the Deputy is implying that we did not have the information, it was supplied from the counties when it was accumulated.
Was that done on an individual office basis?
Mr. Flanagan
Yes. All the information on the size of the offices, the staff numbers, the income and the number of clients was made available to help towards the decision regarding which offices should be closed. As was clearly stated at the meeting in Boyle, to which some members have referred, that Teagasc does not intend to cease to provide a service in Boyle for farmers or clients who want it. I will ask Pat Boyle — no pun intended — to outline the part-time service we intend to provide in Boyle.
Are documents available regarding the four criteria or can they be made available to the committee in order to show members how the decision was taken? Are the relevant documents confidential or can they be made available to us? We would like to know how the decisions were made and, in that regard, we need the documentation. I appreciate Mr. Flanagan's point but I have seen no documents for 2003, 2004 or 2005. It is time that we saw the documents and learned what they contain. Will they be made available to the committee or to the public in general? Surely, as representatives of those in the Visitors Gallery, we are entitled to know on what basis the decision was made.
Are there documents to that effect?
Mr. Flanagan
At the time that the decision was made, two substantial documents giving a great deal of detail about all the offices were made available to the Teagasc authority. They are on the record as part of the information given to it and if the committee wishes to have copies of those, I can ask the authority whether it is appropriate to make them available.
As a committee, we request that they be made available to us.
Mr. Flanagan
I will convey that request to the authority and see if it is willing to do so.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
If there is an issue regarding evaluation and commercial sensitivity, there is no reason that the other three elements of the criteria should not be furnished to the committee.
I have to facilitate the two spokespersons on agriculture because of the Bill and that is why I brought them back on supplementary questions. Mr. Boyle wants to answer a question.
Mr. Pat Boyle
I am delighted to have the opportunity to make the case for where we are coming from. It is important to point out that it is not just a matter of savings. Following our recent client survey, two major issues arose, namely, the quality of our offices and that of our service or, in other words, the demand from clients for our specialised service. I should declare that I was an adviser in north Roscommon for seven years and, for most of that time, I served the area's farmers from the Castlerea office. I never received a complaint that I was not available or that the service was not suitable. I would like to make that point in the first instance.
We have no illusions whatsoever that we will not survive unless we provide an appropriate and relevant service to clients. From that perspective, we intend to provide office facilities for the clients in the area on three mornings per week and by appointment at other times. As director of the advisory service, I am sure that, unless we provide a relevant service to the clients, we will not be around in the long term. We want to listen to customers. As I said, we have already listened to the clients in the survey, and the two issues that arose were the quality of the offices and that of the specialised service. We are setting out to make a great many changes.
To be fair about the Boyle office and put the figures straight, there are two advisers, one on REPS and one on dry stock. Other advisers are brought in and they cover the entire north of the county from Castlerea and other offices. When I came back as CEO several years ago, there was one adviser left. The organisation is under pressure. With the decrease in staffing, the chances of increasing the numbers employed in any office are extremely low. We are setting about creating critical mass so that we can provide a high quality, specialised service consistently throughout the country, something that is not currently the case. In the Boyle area specifically, we intend to have an office manned part-time to service the clients in north Roscommon.
How can Teagasc square the fact that it will continue to provide a service in Boyle with its current plans to sell its office there and rent accommodation in the town to provide some sort of service with the two full-time and two part-time advisers currently in place? Is it not the case that part of the difficulty regarding the Boyle office is that it contributes more than a third of the income from County Roscommon because a fair number of people must be serviced from the Castlerea office rather than that in Boyle? North Roscommon is an even greater contributor to the overall income from the county than those figures suggest. Was that taken into consideration regarding the evaluation that was conducted?
Mr. Flanagan
We in Teagasc provide a highly subsidised service and the amount that we get back from income is relatively small in comparison with the costs that the organisation incurs. Emphasising income from an office is only one side of the equation. One must also consider the staffing and other costs of the office. In our weighting, the income that we get in the office is not a very important factor. It would not be anything like the emphasis put on it here today. We look at the costs and the kind of service that we provide. In County Roscommon, Teagasc probably recovers approximately 15% of the income incurred on the advisory service from clients, so it is a relatively small source.
A significant amount is coming from the State to provide that service. It comes from taxpayers, including farmers, meaning that they are paying for it anyway.
In what year was the evaluation carried out on the Boyle office?
Mr. Flanagan
The evaluation was done at the end of 2002.
I understand that the Boyle office had only 178 clients in 1998. However, owing to the activity of staff there, that number has now risen to over 400. In that light, would it not be valid to conduct a new evaluation of the office?
Mr. Flanagan
If the situation changed significantly, Teagasc would carry out a new evaluation but I am not aware of its having changed that much in Boyle.
In light of the significant level of activity in the past three years, might it not be appropriate that there be a further evaluation of the office at this stage?
I do not want to let every member in because I have a list. I was only facilitating the two spokespersons. This is getting somewhat out of hand.
There is just one issue. We are looking forward to the information that Teagasc will make available to the committee. However, I want to know who conducted the evaluation and from where it came? Was it from a reputable source or one which, if one asks the right questions, will find the right answers? Who carried it out? Was it the CEO in Roscommon or someone in the county?
That is the last of the supplementaries until every other member has had an opportunity to ask questions.
Mr. Flanagan
At that point we asked the regional director to consult the CEO and the staff in the county and produce a reasonable evaluation. It is the consensus view of Teagasc staff in the county.
Surely someone's name is on that document.
The Senator should allow Mr. Flanagan to answer. I have said that there will be no more supplementaries until everyone else has asked a question.
Mr. Flanagan
I have given the answer. I got the details from the regional director, who assured me that he had consulted staff in the county. It contained detailed information on each office, with the best estimate of what the office would make if sold. The regional director said it used the local knowledge available. Our advisers and chief executive officer have a reasonably good knowledge of what properties in the county and the town make when sold.
The issue is the evaluation not the valuation of the service, which is completely different.
Mr. Flanagan
We would have done both. However, the answer I gave is the best I can provide.
I welcome the delegation. The outcry at the closure of offices must be a vote of confidence in Teagasc. It points to the great service it has provided through the years. I say this as a farmer who is aware of the nature of that service.
Single farm payments and improved farming practice are being introduced alongside the growth of part-time farming. This will result in huge changes in farming in the coming years. At the end of this year, farmers will be watching to see if certain products — I refer here to beef, milk or sheepmeat — will pay. If they do not pay, farmers will cut back or decide to enter another area of farming because the single payment is being paid. Teagasc will be increasingly needed in this environment because farmers are crying out for advice. If they want to stay farming or want their sons and daughters to do so, they will want to know how they can survive. Farmers want answers and they want to access them locally.
It was supposed that the offices were closing as a result of financial problems. Does Teagasc have financial problems or have they been resolved?
The staff at the Teagasc office in Loughrea have provided great service. Has that office already been disposed of? I understand negotiations with regard to the office are ongoing with Galway County Council. If that is the case, what kind of services does Teagasc intend to provide from Loughrea? The area west of Loughrea would be fine because it is close to the nearby office at Athenry but the area to the south, namely, Woodford, is approximately 30 miles from the town. Woodford is a CLÁR area and, as such, has disadvantaged status. If the Loughrea office has already been disposed of or is in the process of being disposed of, can Teagasc provide a service there similar to that for Boyle and other areas, namely, one that will operate three mornings per week?
Another important point with regard to all Teagasc offices is that services are required on Saturday, the only day of the week most farmers are at home. This is understood by marts, which are held on Saturdays in most mart towns. Teagasc offices should be open on the same day.
I welcome the delegation. The Chairman will have to call another meeting in light of the list of work ahead of us.
My point relates to the dissatisfaction that exists with the provision of service and the cutting back of frontline staff. I am familiar with the Cork scene. Why has Teagasc advertised for a human resources officer at Moorepark? The Teagasc office at Bandon caters for approximately 2,500 individuals, including dairy, tillage, beef and poultry farmers and horticulturists. All of these are intensive farmers, which I hope is realised by the Teagasc representatives. Some staff at the office have moved and others have retired. There are now just two Teagasc staff at Bandon, both advisers who deal with dairy farmers. Those who advised on dry stock and tillage have left. There is no more intensive farming area in the country, a situation built on the back of advisers and good farmers through the years. This is being thrown aside and I want to know the reason. Why are frontline staff being taken out of the service while Teagasc is empire building? It is building empires on foundations of sand. Once the frontline staff are removed, Teagasc and the service it provides will be of no value.
I want to be clear and categorical. Teagasc should put into the Bandon office what it previously had, namely, a dry stock representative and a tillage representative. I hope I get answers on these issues.
We are all here with the same purpose, namely, to discover what we can do to ensure that the Boyle office is maintained at its current level. If Teagasc proposes to dispose of the office, will it not retain the section it now uses on an extremely long-term lease as part of the sale agreement so that it will have the office, rather than selling it? It would probably be sold to the local authority but, in turn, Teagasc would become the tenant rather than the landlord. The roles would be reversed if that were done. Teagasc would be much better off to retain its section of the premises and sell what it does not want. It would then be in a position to provide a service.
A clear point at the public meeting in Boyle was that over 30% of the income of County Roscommon in this regard comes through the Boyle office. If that is the case, the other three offices in Roscommon are only generating approximately 60% of the total. It is unfair that the farmers paying most into the service, those in north Roscommon, will be penalised by losing their full service. To talk about providing three half-day services by appointment is not acceptable to anybody. Teagasc will have to continue providing a full service.
I repeat that Teagasc should consider retaining the office and the service, which would not greatly affect its budget. However, to decide to sell an office and become a tenant is to go in reverse.
Will the Teagasc representatives give the name of the person who carried out the evaluation on moving the office from Boyle? Will they state categorically that the move to Castlerea is, as most members believe, a temporary arrangement. We believe it will be moved to Castlerea temporarily and then to Roscommon town, where Teagasc wants the headquarters.
This will provide a better service not to farmers but to Teagasc management. Over the years, while politicians thought they were representing the people, unfortunately, the vested interests in the management of the health boards, Teagasc and other bodies took care of themselves. They do not want to move to outposts such as Boyle because they prefer to be in the larger urban areas where the facilities are located.
A service on three mornings a week is not acceptable to farmers in the north Roscommon area. The sale of the office is certainly not acceptable. Boyle is a rural town which does not have its share of Government jobs, be they provided by county councils, health boards or other agencies. There are towns like it throughout the country. This office is one of the few benefits the town enjoys.
Some 33% of the county income is generated in Boyle and two out of the 14 total revenue generating advisers are located there. However, this successful office is being moved back to the county town. This is happening throughout the country and Teagasc, together with other agencies, is implicated. Are we going to put in place a Pale, and perhaps outposts and garrison towns, around Dublin? We seem to be turning back the clock hundreds of years, which is unacceptable. Teagasc did not plan this but it is happening.
I am a business person in Boyle and would like to declare my vested interest. I have seen at first hand the hundreds of farmers who come in each week and who do their business in a small town. Regarding the meeting, Deputies Ellis, Finneran and Naughten and Senator Leyden would agree that farmers came on a Friday night when they had better work to do than trying to stop the closure of an office which provided a good service. It is the committee's view that it would be wise for Teagasc to change its mind. We have to change its mind. The CEO and board members should listen to the feelings of the committee and the farmers of north Roscommon.
I welcome Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues. So far, we can recognise this as a Boyle conference rather than anything else. However, it has much wider implications.
I tabled a question about the financial situation relating to this matter in the Dáil and the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, assured me beyond doubt that Teagasc had oceans of money and that there was no problem. She said that the situation had nothing to do with finance but was rather concerned with delivery of a better service. It is extremely difficult for me to return to my constituency — I refer, in particular, to area of Bailieboro — and tell people that the closure of the office owned by Teagasc has nothing to do with money and everything to do with providing a better service. The office was provided in the interests of the farmers in the area and is now being partially rented to what was originally the North Eastern Health Board, now under the aegis of the HSE.
This is an example of how Teagasc, in taking over the organisation, got a structure at no cost to itself and of minimal cost to the area. Similar to the situation in Boyle, the office represents a very strong wing in County Cavan, covering areas such as Bailieboro, Kingscourt and Shercock, and its closure will leave many farmers at a major disadvantage. The suggested three-day week office service in Boyle and Bailieboro is a long way from the type of service to which farmers became accustomed in the recent past. There were educational and other structures available to them and they could use the office for debating groups and farmer group meetings. Four staff were employed full-time at an advisory level for beef, dairy, education and REPS matters. In addition, there was also a secretarial staff.
Where are we going? Is it right to remove the service and leave the door open for private services which are moving into the area? Many farmers must use private services with regard to REPS and other issues in order to ensure that they have the work done in time. As a farmer who has supported Teagasc over the years, I feel saddened at the situation.
The nitrates directive will have huge implications, especially for the two counties I represent. The area has been highlighted in Brussels in terms of storage problems for the highest number of weeks in the year and advice will obviously be required. There are also issues regarding poultry, pigs and cross-compliance. How will farmers deal with them?
Delegates mentioned the one third of farmers who are part-time. It is difficult to ascertain the number who make their living solely from farming because either they or their spouse have jobs.
Can we get some definite answers? I would rather that matters were clear and open. In its document, Teagasc states that it has a programme to sell the Bailieboro office in County Cavan. The last I heard from a board meeting was that this decision had been put off and that the office had not been sold to the HSE. I was informed that the matter was being re-examined. However, today's document states that the office is for sale. Will Teagasc use the money from the sale to provide a permanent service in Bailieboro for the farmers of east Cavan or will there simply be a stop-gap measure that means all the money will eventually go towards Ballyhaise?
There was a personality clash with regard to this issue and I dread to think that it might be part of the reason for the results we have seen. In my 13 years in the Dáil there has never been such a level of representation, not from people who cry for the sake of it but from genuine hardworking farmers who cannot understand why the service is being removed. They cannot see the matter in any other way.
Quite a number of south Sligo farmers use the Castlrea office. Much has been said and I will not go over matters again. On the face of it, the Boyle office is very successful and is used by many farmers. In the earlier days of Teagasc, it was difficult to get farmers to use the service. Now there is a client base and farmers are queuing up to use the service but we seem to be taking it away.
I second Deputy Finneran's proposal that a decision should not be taken on the Boyle office until a new evaluation has been carried out. The last evaluation took place in 2002. On the figures presented today, the client base for the office has increased by some 200% since that date and inquiries to the office have also increased substantially. Three years have passed and no decision should be taken with regard to the office until a new evaluation is carried out.
Does Mr. Flanagan object to listening to the remaining speakers or would he like to answer questions now?
Mr. Flanagan
I will do whatever the Chairman wishes.
Some speakers must leave.
Mr. Flanagan
I do not mind.
I am grateful to be here because this is a great opportunity for us to put direct questions to the Teagasc executive.
I am sorry Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Boyle were not present at the Royal Hotel in Boyle to hear the contributions of farmers from north Roscommon. It was a well-attended and orderly meeting and we were lucky that Mr. Ruadhri Deasy, a member of Teagasc's board, Mr. Oliver Burke, its chief agricultural officer for Roscommon, and other officers were present. We must have the facts and figures. Teagasc has made it clear that the office in Boyle is for sale. It seems illogical that it is selling an office which was provided by the county council's committee of agriculture, with the support of European Union funds. The grant aid might, for accounting purposes, have to be refunded if the office is sold. It was well designed — by O'Carroll Associates of Roscommon — well built and provides great facilities for the farmers of north Roscommon.
My point is that if the agency sells the Boyle office, there will be no Teagasc services in north Roscommon. The proposal that the agency will operate from Castlerea for a half day per week is illogical and will not happen or it may happen for a few months until Teagasc calculates that farmers have forgotten about it. Teagasc must retain the office in Boyle. Although the witnesses have stated that the board has made a decision, I understand that a final decision on Boyle will be taken at a future board meeting at which that decision may be reversed.
It also appears that Teagasc has not considered the fact that this is a BMW area, which only receives a small portion of the available BMW programme's funding for agriculture. Teagasc was slow to secure additional work under the REP scheme and it allowed, and appeared to encourage, private enterprise to take its work away from it. The Teagasc service is superior to any private service and a great opportunity has been lost.
I commend the IFA and its supporters and friends in north Roscommon because this issue does not simply concern the Teagasc office, it also concerns the town of Boyle. If one goes to that office, one subsequently spends money in the town while availing of other services. This is a death knell for Boyle and I am sorry that Mr. Flanagan, as a fellow native of County Roscommon, can be associated with it. I hope — and I appeal to him in this regard — that he will now be in a position to reverse the decision, retain the office in Boyle and continue to provide the much appreciated services to the people of north Roscommon.
As a division has been called in the Dáil, the committee will hear a contribution from one further member. Senator John Paul Phelan is due to speak next. It must be——
I do not know if I will be as brief——
I will be obliged to stop the Senator when necessary.
Very well. Mr. Flanagan stated that Teagasc secured the approval of its parent Department to proceed with the disposal of the assets. On what date did the Department of Agriculture and Food grant approval for phase two of the rationalisation programme?
I have some issues which are specific to my locality. I cannot understand the closure of the soft fruit research centre in Clonroche, County Wexford, because it was the perfect location for that facility. The great majority of the soft fruit producers are situated in Wexford or its immediate environs and the facility should have been kept open. However, as it has been closed, there is no use in crying over spilt milk. I am disappointed with the entire tenor of this programme because another vital service will be stripped from rural Ireland by a Government agency.
I have another point concerning my locality of Mullinavat, County Kilkenny. I recently engaged in some correspondence with Mr. Flanagan about the area office there which is due to be closed. Economically, I cannot understand how closing the office in Mullinavat, moving people to Kildalton College, paying the associated relocation costs and spending a couple of million euro to renovate a disused part of the college can be justified. How can it be justified and explained to farmers in terms of an improved service? Given the changes which have taken place in agriculture in recent months, particularly the flurry of activity that took place before the arrival of the single payment deadline, we have seen the necessity to have these facilities and centres open in rural areas. The timing of this rationalisation programme at such a crossroads in Irish agriculture is completely wrong. It is simply another example of stripping a vital service from rural Ireland and I urge Teagasc to reconsider it. My final point concerns the proposed closure of the Bagenalstown office in County Carlow. It appears to have been included at the last minute and was not previously due for closure. Is there any explanation for this?
The joint committee will suspend until after the division in the Dáil. In the meantime, the witnesses may get some tea or coffee.
Sitting suspended at 4.15 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.
I apologise for having to suspend the sitting. However, these things must be done because divisions must be taken in the House.
I welcome the delegation from Teagasc. I will not go over ground that has already been covered. Listening to many other members, I feel that there is much misinformation. In particular, Deputies Finneran and Ellis mentioned new statistics and new information. I support the call for a re-evaluation to ensure that everyone is in the clear. This re-evaluation should be independent and the committee should request that it happens. I refer here to Boyle in particular. There has been an unbelievable level of calls from members of the local community in this regard and the matter has been highlighted in the press. To be fair to everybody, when such calls are made and when so many members of this committee have spoken about the matter, a re-evaluation should take place.
I will not repeat much of what has already been said. Just to brief other members of the committee, the Teagasc office in Tullow was slated for closure for almost 17 years. It was then suddenly decided that the office should remain open, which delighted everyone. However, the Teagasc office in Bagenalstown — the closure of which was never on the agenda — was then slated for closure. I, along with two council colleagues in Carlow, had a meeting with Mr. Flanagan about the closure of the Bagenalstown office last week. I will not repeat what was said. However, I would like him to clarify a few points.
There was grave confusion regarding the fact that some board members felt that the decision to close the offices was only a proposal, while Mr. Flanagan is quite categoric that it is a done deal and that all that must be done is to agree a sale price for the different properties. I asked previously for a copy of the minutes of that meeting to be publicised and, at the time, Mr. Flanagan said this it could not be done. However, I again ask for this to be done just to clarify that point because somebody is being disingenuous with the truth about what happened at the meeting in question. If the minutes of that meeting were publicised, we would finally know what was decided at it.
Can Mr. Flanagan clarify whether the sale of any property must be approved by the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food before it can proceed? I hope that the crocodile tears we witnessed from the Government parties here today will not evaporate when it comes to that actual time. The Government parties are able to attack different agencies at length but when it comes to criticising their own people and making a tough decision, they are found wanting. If it is the case that the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture and Food must sign off on any potential deal, I hope the Government members will honour their commitment and match their words today with action.
Did Teagasc have ministerial approval for the sale, or proposed sale, of these properties? It was rumoured last week that Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Curley were summoned to a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture and Food and her Ministers of State. It was also rumoured that the main purpose of this meeting was to allow the Ministers to vent their anger at the decision reached by Teagasc. This suggests that Teagasc did not have ministerial approval for the proposed closures and that it went on a solo run. Could Mr. Flanagan clarify if a meeting took place and, if so, the nature thereof?
At our meeting in Carlow, Mr. Flanagan referred to a sum of €14 million which dates back to the cutbacks introduced by the Government in 2002 and blamed those cutbacks for the closure of Teagasc's offices. I think he would agree that this is a small amount of money. Surely, with the current economic upturn, it is time to revisit that decision. Deputy Crawford mentioned that the Minister said that Teagasc has plenty of money, while Mr. Flanagan indicated that it has a lack of money and that this is the reason behind the closures. There is grave confusion over this issue and it is time to clarify the position.
The enormous turnout at the meeting to which I refer of representatives from all the political parties shows the uproar and upset in every community caused by the potential closures of these offices. Closures should be postponed for the time being at least and a proper decision-making process should be engaged in. It certainly makes no sense to close the Bagenalstown office because the town is the heartland of commercial farming in the area. To expect farmers to travel from Glin to Tullow, which is the nearest Teagasc office, is not feasible and will not work.
I welcome Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Curley. In light of the way in which changes have taken place in agriculture during the past three years — an evaluation has not been carried out since 2002 — Teagasc should go back to the drawing board, carry out another evaluation and endeavour to keep the offices in question open. It does not make economic sense to sell off an office in Boyle that is owned and was refurbished by Teagasc and has taken money in and then proceed to rent another office. Mr. Flanagan said that Teagasc staff would spend three mornings per week in the Boyle office.
I also welcome Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues. With regard to the Teagasc office in Cashel, which is one of the offices slated for closure, could Mr. Flanagan indicate where the farmers who previously used the Cashel office will now be referred? What additional resources have been put in place to continue the service for the farmers in the Cashel area? In the event of forthcoming retirements among Teagasc staff, what is Teagasc's policy with regard to recruitment? I hope it will continue to recruit new staff to replace those who will retire in the coming months.
In view of the changing nature of farming and the enormous uncertainty that exists, there are certain initiatives undertaken by farmers — such as those in the area of biofuels, energy crops and eco-farming — where Teagasc services are needed more than ever. What efforts is Teagasc making in this regard or does it believe it has a role in the future of farming where these changes will take place? Is Teagasc ready to take on that task when the policy relating to energy crops and biofuels is pushed forward?
I wish to address a situation that, unfortunately, will arise when Teagasc examines its situation in Cork. I represent the constituency of Cork North-West and am particularly concerned about the area of western Duhallow. Over the years, Teagasc has contributed immensely to the running of the James O'Keeffe Institute, which was originally set up with the co-operation and goodwill of Teagasc, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the three independent local co-operatives and is supported by all farmers. There is a general consensus in the community that it would be a shame if Teagasc was to withdraw from that facility because it is still a rural development institute. There is a successful Leader group based there and it would be an ideal centre of operation for Teagasc. We accept, however, that there must be rationalisation. Of the three towns in the area, this would be the weakest economically, which means any dilution of services would have a dramatic effect. Will the board and Mr. Flanagan take these points into consideration?
I am sorry but we will have to suspend the sitting again as there is a vote in the Chamber.
Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 4.55 p.m.
I welcome Deputy Aylward, a former Minister of State, who became a MEP but who is still a Deputy. I am glad to see him here today.
I thank the Chairman. I still have to look after my local patch. I welcome Mr. Flanagan and his colleagues. I discussed this idea with Mr. Flanagan when the idea that these offices should be sold was first mooted. I felt that it was a retrograde step and I let him know my views at that stage. Like everyone else, I can be parochial at times.
As the CAP is under threat in Europe, this is a time to be careful in agriculture. Enough threats already exist. We must look at alternative crops, as Deputy Hoctor mentioned. I come from the south east, the strongest tillage area in the country, which comprises counties Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford and Kildare. Many advisory offices are closing in this area, which was affected by the recent closure of the sugar factory in Carlow.
We should send the message to farmers that there are alternative ways of making a living from farming. The tillage area to which I referred needs everyone's support to encourage that change. This is a win-win situation. We need alternative crops because we are under pressure in terms of global warming, standards that must be met and the recent, significant increase in oil prices. There is an urgent need for the Government and the country to find an alternative policy. This must be supported by Teagasc, the chief advisory organisation in the country.
I wish to compliment Teagasc on its history and on the great relationship it has built with farmers. Some years ago, farmers were inclined to use private services but now most use Teagasc services. Farmers pay an average of more than €1,000 per year for the services of Teagasc. Now is the time to reconsider closing Bagenalstown because many things on the agricultural scene have changed since this idea was first floated.
In my area, Carlow-Kilkenny, there are two offices earmarked for closure, namely, those at Mullinavat and Bagenalstown. In the case of the former, the argument is that the Kildalton College centre is nearby. There was an advisory centre at Kildalton College but farmers did not avail of its facilities. Farmers do not like travelling up the long avenue to Kildalton College. For many years, farmers have been associated with the Mullinavat office. Some 700 farmers used that office during the period for completion and submission of single payment forms. It is used by ladies and for adult education classes. It has become a centre of excellence in the area. A clinic service was proposed but that would not be satisfactory. If the premises are sold, it will only be a matter of time before the entire service disappears.
I have read the delegation's submission and noted its reference to information technology. Mr. John Dillon, president of the IFA, coined a new phrase when he asked if we were turning to desktop farming. I do not think that is the way the agriculture industry should go.
I also question the criteria used in making this decision. In the case of the office to which I have referred, it is possible to fulfil the criteria for maintaining the office. The situation in farming is so serious that it is time for reconsideration. Teagasc, as a body that has given leadership over the years, should enter into consultation with the Department of Agriculture and Food and should also include the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. For the reasons I have mentioned, we could find that our need for the offices is greater than ever. I ask Mr. Flanagan to reconsider.
I welcome the members of Teagasc and will join my colleagues in being parochial. I refer to the proposed closure of the office Bagenalstown, County Carlow. At present, there are two offices serving farmers in Carlow, namely, those at Tullow and Bagenalstown. It was initially proposed that the Tullow office would close and, as I understood, Teagasc services would be provided from headquarters at Oak Park. Subsequently, that changed and now it is proposed to close the Bagenalstown office.
Bagenalstown serves central and south Carlow and has a client base of more than 500. I understand that farmers who use the facilities at Bagenalstown, particularly those in the south of the county within a few miles of the New Ross office, will not be able to use the offices in New Ross. It does not make sense to me or to the farmers of Carlow that an office serving more than 500 clients will be closed.
If the Bagenalstown office is closed, many of the farmers who use that facility's excellent services will be lost to Teagasc because they will use private services. Many farmers from south Carlow will not avail of services in Tullow due to the distance they would have to travel. Providing a clinic service in Bagenalstown to replace the office has been suggested but that is not acceptable to the farmers. I am also advised that, nationally, Teagasc is retaining a number of offices that do not have the same client base as Bagenalstown, which is the heart of the south-east tillage area. I ask Teagasc to revisit the issue. We have sufficient business in Carlow for Teagasc to retain its two offices at Tullow and Bagenalstown.
I apologise to Mr. Flanagan for the delay and I hope he is not under too much pressure from having heard all of the questions together. He may take as much time as he requires to answer them.
Mr. Flanagan
Deputy Callanan asked for details on Loughrea. The Teagasc authority has agreed to the sale of the Loughrea office to Galway County Council at an agreed evaluation. That sale is in the process of being finalised and is with the solicitors of both parties.
A suggestion was made that we should provide services on Saturdays. In its recently revised statement of strategy, Teagasc committed to provide advisory services, adult training and part-time farmer training at unsocial hours. We are committed to meeting those needs. That requires some negotiation and agreement with staff but we have a commitment in principle to provide services to our clients on demand.
I will use the opportunity provided by the question on posts not being filled in Cork to provide the following information. In 2002 a downturn in State finances meant Teagasc had its budget reduced. We were told the size of budget we could expect into the future meant that we should reduce our size by approximately 12%. That was implemented through the rationalisation plan. A decision was also made that we must reduce staff by filling only one post in three for a period, as part of a Government decision to reduce the number of public servants by 5,000 in non-priority areas. We were given a quota of that reduction. Many posts were left vacant during that three-year period, which is now ending. That was the context in which the two posts mentioned by Senator Callanan in west Cork were left vacant.
They were in Bandon.
Mr. Flanagan
I apologise, it was the context in which the two posts in Bandon were left vacant. We hope that we can fill all posts. We are prioritising filling posts in areas such as Bandon, where there is strong demand for specialists in certain areas, and we hope to assign people back to those offices. Our implementation of the Government decision to fill only one post in three caused these situations.
Our rationalisation plan means we must live within a budget which is approximately 12% smaller in real terms than what we had in 2002. If we carry out the rationalisation plan, as we are doing in an orderly fashion, we will live within the budget we believe is ours. The Government has given no indication that the budget will be increased to allow Teagasc to expand. To answer the question on whether we have budgetary difficulties, we do not have a problem if we implement the rationalisation plan. If we unravel the rationalisation plan, we will have a distinct financial problem. That is my best attempt at answering that question.
A suggestion was made that the move to Castlerea was temporary. I am not aware of any intention within Teagasc management to make it a temporary move. There is no plan to centralise all of the services in County Roscommon to the town of Roscommon. We will retain three offices in Roscommon, in Athlone, Roscommon town and Castlerea. That is the only plan.
I answered the question as to who carried out the evaluation. The report for the northern half of the country was presented to me by the director of operations for the northern half of the country, and it is well-known that this individual is Mr. Donal Carey. He assured me that while he gave his best evaluation, he had consulted with others. I cannot identify those people here.
With regard to the sale of offices, the authority approved the rationalisation plan, which involved closing named offices and disposing of them. It was also approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food in a general way. Once the Teagasc authority made a decision to close offices, the Department of Agriculture and Food was informed and asked if Teagasc may proceed to effect sales. That was then agreed. To implement an individual sale, the Teagasc authority must agree the method of sale, the reserve price and the details. When a sale is agreed, we must obtain specific approval for each property from the Ministers. Once the initial general approval is given, it is expected that approval for the specific sale will also be given because reservations would be expressed at general approval stage.
Final approval for the sale of the Boyle office has not yet been presented to the authority. It is possible that the authority may decide not to sell it. At this point, management assumes it is agreed that we sell it. The process is that management is told to prepare a proposal to be finalised and agreed by the authority. Thereafter, we need to approach the Departments but we see that as a formality because, essentially, it has already been agreed. A final decision on Boyle has not been made but the decision, in principle, to close and sell has been taken.
On the question of Cashel, there were two advisers providing a service, one from the Tipperary office and the other from the Thurles office.
Regarding the policy on retirement, we have come to the end of the period where we only filled one post in three and we intend to fill every vacancy that arises from now on. Staff numbers are at a level that can be supported by our budget so retirements will result in immediate replacements. However, that does not mean that a retiree will always be replaced directly. When a vacancy arises, we determine which post should be filled as a matter of priority. Sometimes it is the immediate vacancy arising from retirement but at other times another post may be considered more important. Whatever about the replacement system, however, the staff numbers will be maintained at their present level.
Teagasc has a commitment to increase its activity in the biofuels area. We have a small involvement in biofuels research in Oak Park, where we worked on biodiesel, the use of tallow and a plant called camelina, which is similar to rape. With the new emphasis on biofuels, we have started a project this year that is examining the possibility of using agricultural waste, including wood, in stoves or burners. We are analysing the economics of using rape straw, wood chips and wood blocks and also how to treat such materials, for example, by compressing them into pellets, before feeding them into the burner. We are also measuring the effluent gases because if one needs approval for burning these materials from the Environmental Protection Agency, the first question it will ask will be about the gas emissions from rape straw and so forth. We are committed to support whatever development might arise. At present, the problem is not with technology but with the economics. It is not yet clear that it is economically feasible to produce biofuels or biodiesel and tax and excise duties have more of an influence in this regard than other issues.
Teagasc has an organic farm in Athenry, an organic research farm in Wexford and small organic cereal plots in Oak Park. We also co-operate with the Department of Agriculture and Food in operating approximately ten organic demonstration farms in various parts of the country. We will meet the demand for technology and advice on organic farming but the uptake, at less than 1%, is quite small. Again, the issue is economics — if the price is right, farmers will produce organic products.
In response to the question on the west Duhallow region, Teagasc has two or three small, not very satisfactory, offices in that area. In principle, we have decided to build a high quality, new office to serve the Duhallow region. We are still in negotiations regarding the location of the office and a final decision has yet to be made on that matter.
There are few supplementary questions from members.
Will Teagasc provide any service from Loughrea?
Mr. Flanagan
We consider Loughrea to be sufficiently close to Athenry to be served from the offices at the latter location. We will still have at least five offices in County Galway and we believe that they will provide good cover for all parts of the county. We do not intend to have a clinic-type service in Loughrea.
I do not agree with that decision.
It is clear from Mr. Flanagan's comments that the Baillieboro situation is not considered to be important but I understand it was discussed at a board meeting of Teagasc. However, I am more interested in the question of whether the organisation is experiencing financial problems. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has stated that none of the problems with Teagasc have been caused by a lack of funds. The accounts indicate that the current spending is approximately €106 million, with an increase of €6 million for benchmarking awards. Money for the latter obviously had to be obtained by the organisation. The figures that Mr. Flanagan has supplied do not appear to support what the Minister said and I would be grateful if he could clarify the position.
The Chairman, some members and I recently visited Poland, where farmers have their forms filled in, at no cost, by staff at the equivalent of Teagasc offices. That is the type of issue with which we will be obliged to deal in the future, namely, that our competitors will be in receipt of better services from state-run organisations. I am concerned, therefore, about smaller and part-time farmers in areas such as Baillieboro who will have to travel long distances for services.
Mr. Flanagan referred to various types of agricultural waste. In my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, large quantities of poultry manure and pig manure are produced. What research has Teagasc carried out to assist progressive intensive farmers to meet the terms of the nitrate directives, as agreed between it and the Department of Agriculture and Food?
When did the embargo on recruitment end? Mr. Flanagan spoke about west Cork and I made references to Bandon, which is located in that region. The Bandon office now covers an area from Carrigaline to Castletownbere. It is 138 miles from Bandon to Castletownbere and approximately 27 miles to Carrigaline. It is a large territory with a number of offices but the Bandon office is critical in Cork west. There are two vacancies at the Bandon office and another one in the Cork west region. I have already made my point in respect of that and I accept the answer that Mr. Flanagan furnished. However, I would like clarification on the embargo issue.
It seemed the evaluations and valuations were made inhouse. While staff in Teagasc possess a lot of expertise, I am sure they are not qualified when it comes to assessing property prices. Independent valuations and evaluations were not conducted. Mr. Flanagan said matters would be tidied up afterwards, when proper valuations would be carried out. However, if the affair was conducted in this manner, a proper evaluation of the offices involved should now be made. I can only speak for myself but, having listened to the contributions of others with regard to various offices, I see a need for the evaluation of other properties.
How much is spent by Teagasc on consultants? Can this information be made available to the joint committee? What recent contracts have been entered into with consultants? The committee looks for written documentation on evaluations and valuations as well as details of the parties responsible for carrying out this work. I presume this information will be made available. Perhaps the Chairman will ascertain the date by which it will be circulated to members. There is no point in sending us a document without including names. We want to know who carried out the work. We are entitled to this information. We are discussing people's lives and the infrastructure in place in our counties.
Mr. Flanagan
Occasionally, Teagasc meets its parent Department to discuss the agency's programme and budget. Such a meeting was held in recent weeks, at which Teagasc discussed its overall programme of activities with the three Ministers concerned. This discussion included the rationalisation plan, in which context the closure of offices was mentioned. We were not summoned to the meeting because we had taken action without approval. Such meetings are occasionally held to discuss the Teagasc programme and its future plans.
With regard to pig and poultry manure, burning poultry manure, while one option, is not favoured because of emissions and other problems. Combustion is one possible means of disposal but would not be economic as the material in question can be used to produce good fertiliser. This problem does not lend itself to research as there is a limit under the nitrates directive on the amount of organic manure that may be placed on a certain area of land. A challenge arises with regard to the availability of land to spread manure within the new limits under the directive. To resolve this, rather than conducting more research, more land will have to be found.
Teagasc has conducted extensive research on the application of nitrates and phosphate on land in terms of the amounts absorbed by crops, running onto the surface and into groundwaters and volatilised as elemental nitrogen, ammonia or nitrous oxide. While we have a lot of information on this matter, it does not address the problems caused by the nitrates directive for poultry and pig farmers, to which there is not an easy solution. Research conducted by Teagasc does not have the potential to solve it.
Evaluations and valuations have been carried out inhouse. While they may have been carried out externally, as Teagasc has 100 offices and is charged €1,000 or €2,000 for each quotation, it would cost at least €100,000 to value all our offices. We did not believe this represented good value for money and did not need accurate valuations at that stage because our work was sufficient for our purposes.
That is very serious. Mr. Flanagan said he did not consider it important. There are four criteria, one of which is asset value on disposal, which means one of the four listed in his own document was not considered important, yet decisions were made without that information. My proposal concerns this matter. It is time we returned to the drawing board.
Mr. Flanagan
Teagasc employs some consultants and enters into contracts for services. They are slightly different but I would not have a problem in making the figures available to the joint committee.
When was the embargo lifted?
Mr. Flanagan
It terminated in May.
Now that Teagasc has lifted the embargo, must a retiring frontline staff member such as an adviser be replaced by another or may he or she be replaced by an administrator?
What research suggests a biomass plant using poultry waste will create problems? I want to discover the basis of Mr. Flanagan's statement.
Mr. Flanagan
Teagasc has not conducted research on the matter but I have gleaned from discussions with others that questions arise from the burning of poultry manure.
It is a very serious statement to make without possessing definite knowledge. The technique is used in the United Kingdom and other places. If we do not promptly resolve our problems through positive means, they will become more serious. My worries about the results of today's meeting stem from this.
In the light of the serious situation that has arisen and the information given today that neither an independent evaluation nor a valuation was carried out, I ask the joint committee to adopt the proposal that there be a re-evaluation of the offices concerned. This proposal was seconded by Senator Scanlon.
I agree, provided that the office in Bailieboro is included. It was not referred to by Mr. Flanagan.
I formally second the proposal for a re-evaluation. I want the joint committee to hold a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture and Food because it is obvious that there has been a breakdown in communication between Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture and Food. A deputation from the committee should meet the Minister immediately to seek clarification. It is disturbing that the budget is being cut by 12%, given the reasons for the cutbacks outlined by the CEO of Teagasc. I will be parochial and say I hope he will see a reason to retain the Boyle office.
Is the proposal agreed? Agreed.The joint committee has met the Minister from time to time. The Senator has spoken to her about this issue, which is one for Teagasc.
Yes.
The Minister will sign off on what is a serious decision. If the Teagasc board does not agree with it, it is incumbent on the Government representatives on the joint committee to ensure she does not proceed with this draconian measure.
I thank Mr. Flanagan, Mr. Boyle and Mr. Curley for responding to the questions raised by members. It has been a constructive meeting. There are many concerns about this issue, as evidenced by the number of people in the Visitors Gallery. I appeal to them to facilitate any organisations affected among the farming community.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on 20 July 2005.