Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I wish to raise the proposed closure of the Teagasc office in Castlebar. I understand a decision was made last March at a board meeting to close 18 offices around the country and that a decision will be made in a weeks' time to close a further 28 offices. I recognise 40 offices will close and that this rationalisation is necessary for the future of Teagasc and that it must happen given the current economic situation in which we find ourselves.

Having said that, it is important that the correct offices are closed. The reason I raise this is to point out a number of facts. It is Government policy that Teagasc offices should be co-located where possible. This is also the policy of Teagasc and the policy articulated in the McCarthy report, known also as the report by an bord snip nua.

At present there is one co-located office in the country. It has been co-located in Castlebar for 33 years and it is the headquarters of the advisory service in County Mayo. Given that the national policy now supports this idea, it seems extraordinary that there is a proposal to close the only co-located office in the country. It is worth bearing in mind that the Castlebar office has 591 clients and nine staff. It is the third-largest Teagasc office in County Mayo and is centrally located in the county town. Its location, Michael Davitt House, also houses the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food offices, which most farmers have to visit several times throughout the year. It is extremely convenient for farmers and it is illogical to propose its closure at this stage.

We can consider the criteria for closing an office. The first issue is a financial or cost consideration. There is a lease in place currently in Castlebar which is €36,822 per year. It is paid by Teagasc to the Office of Public Works; that is from one State agency to another, although it is a real cost to Teagasc. There has been no attempt whatever to renegotiate this lease. Despite that, a scheme has been put in place between the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Teagasc to co-locate six offices in the country. In return, the Department is availing of a building that Teagasc has in Athenry, which saves the Department €900,000. In return, the Department will house six Teagasc offices in six different locations around the country.

It was possible for Castlebar to be part of that scheme but it was not even considered and was hence excluded. Had it been part of the scheme, like the other six Teagasc offices co-located around the country, the lease cost would have been minimal; it would be zero in practice. The cost of the lease is not a prohibitive measure to keeping the Castlebar office open.

The next point is whether Castlebar is a co-located office. The officials of Teagasc are working side by side with the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They share a meeting room and there is additional space in the office for between three and six more people if required. There was an offer from the Department to share a front desk facility, although this was never explored. This can be contrasted to the position in Athenry, where two separate buildings house the Department and Teagasc officials. That is described as a co-located office but there is no acknowledgement of the reality of Castlebar being a co-located office.

I have already made reference to the fact that the decision to close was made last March at a board meeting. I am concerned about the level of information presented to board members in making this decision. I recognise that Teagasc must operate independently but it is ultimately answerable to the Minister. In recent months we have become aware in this House of State agencies having a right and need to operate independently of Ministers and Departments, although it is also important that a watchful eye is kept to ensure that the best economic decisions are being made in the interests of the Government. Value for money should be maintained and that is why I draw attention to this matter now. I am aware that another board meeting will take place next week and I intend to bring the matter to the attention of board members.

A number of factors have changed since the March meeting. The negotiation on the co-location of the six offices had not taken place at that stage, so this is a new scenario. The report of an bord snip nua had not been published. Circumstances have changed that present an opportunity to revisit the decision of last March.

At that time it was proposed to close 18 offices, Ballymote being one of these. That decision has since been reversed. A precedent has been created to change the decision made on 4 March. I contend that circumstances have very much changed as far as the office in Castlebar is concerned. From a cost perspective and taking into account service to customers, this decision makes no sense. To proceed with closure at this stage would make a laughing stock of the Government policy on co-location.

I will mention the seven criteria used in deciding the viability of an office. The first criterion is financial and cost-saving potential and I have already proven the case for Castlebar on that. The next is maintenance and improvement of client services but how can client services be improved for 591 people who must visit the office of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in any event by moving them to a different office? The next is improvement in the capacity of Teagasc to deliver on its programme but how can it better improve delivery of its programme by inconveniencing so many people?

The next criterion is improvement of working conditions of staff and access. This office is wheelchair-accessible and has a lift, ramp and disabled toilet and parking facilities.

See this speech in context