Mr. Liam Herlihy:

I came here to raise this important issue with the committee. I am chairman of the authority but it is not for me to say that the issue can be resolved by doing A, B or C. That is a matter for the director and his team. Once I joined the board and sat down with the key people, namely, Professor Boyle and his team, I became aware that a blind person could have identified the capital requirement as an issue. Teagasc must be a progressive entity. It is no different from other commercial entities and must grow and be fit for purpose. As I see it, the capital requirement is a very clear impediment for the future. Coupled with that is the issue of retaining and recruiting key people. Teagasc is an outstanding organisation but it is no different from any other entity in that it is only as good as the people who lead it at a particular time. Teagasc must recruit really good people because they are the leaders of tomorrow. The pay cap is an impediment. However, it can be tweaked without creating an issue. Often, one recruits a person for a key position who may be a future leader. He or she may have completed his or her PhD or worked in the private sector so the pay cap makes no sense. We simply cannot recruit talented young people at very low pay. A degree of tweaking can be done without involving unions or overstepping the powers of area management. If we are to attract key people for the future then the low entry level of pay is unsustainable and inappropriate for the future.