Dáil debates
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Teagasc Office Closures
11:00 pm
Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
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 â¬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 â¬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.
Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy's time is up.
Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The office in Castlebar meets every one of the criteria used to decide the viability of this office. I ask that the decision be revisited by the Minister and that he speak with officials from Teagasc to try to get the decision reversed.
Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Deputy Flynn for raising this matter. On 15 July 2009, the Government approved a plan for a reorganisation of the Department's local office network. The plan involves reducing from 57 to 16 the number of offices from which the Department will operate district veterinary, forestry and agricultural environment and structures support services in the future. This plan is being implemented in close association with Teagasc and will result in shared services between both organisations wherever practicable.
The reorganisation of the Department over the past four years has yielded significant savings. Since early 2005, the Department has reduced its staff numbers by 700, including the transfer of 400 staff to other Departments, mainly the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the operation of the PULSE system in Castlebar and local offices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and other Departments. In addition, a further 600 staff were redeployed internally to new and expanding work areas, including the single payment scheme and the implementation of new environmental, food safety and animal health controls required by the EU. These savings reflect changes in the Department's work practices, improved business processes, the greater use of computerisation and the wind-up of livestock offices, as well as changes arising from CAP reform.
This plan is an important phase in the ongoing reorganisation of the Department, building on our significant investment in information technology, our success in disease eradication and taking account of the changes arising from CAP reform, the continued implementation of the Department's decentralisation plan, the findings of the organisational review programme and the objectives set out in the Government's Transforming Public Services programme. The new structure is more coherent with national policy for customer service delivery across the public sector and will provide for an enhanced service level to the farming community and the wider agrifood sector, as well as a cost-effective service for the taxpayer.
The aim of this reorganisation is to rationalise the overall number of locations across the country to facilitate the more efficient management of schemes, services and disease levels. In doing so it will provide an improved customer service in each region of the country while at the same time reducing the cost of delivering the services provided for the Department's many customers and stakeholders. In addition, the new regional structure will facilitate the retention of the appropriate number of staff required in each location while at the same time maintaining a very high quality of services across the country.
This decision, when fully implemented, will result in savings in the Department's running costs of some â¬30 million annually and the reduction of over 400 staff. By rationalising our local office network we can improve services to our clients by concentrating the remaining staff resources of approximately 1,000 people at the newly developed centres. This initiative is part of a continuous process of modernisation of the Department. The various staff associations are being consulted on the redeployment of staff within the Department and to other Departments. I express my appreciation to the staff in our local offices for their contribution to the work of the Department over the years.
I understand that Teagasc is currently engaged in a major change programme which encompasses management structures, work practices, research, education and programme prioritisation, administrative efficiencies, technology transfer and service delivery methodologies. The development of this change programme has caused Teagasc to take a detailed look at its infrastructure and in particular at its network of centres and advisory offices. Phase one of this change programme was approved by the Teagasc authority in March 2009 and the closure of 18 advisory offices based on a set of agreed criteria was approved. Castlebar was one of the offices approved for closure in phase one. Teagasc does not have any shared service arrangement, either formal or informal, with the Department in Castlebar.
I understand from Teagasc that the criteria which identified the Castlebar office for closure included the rental fee but, more important, focused on the relative importance of Castlebar as a delivery centre for Teagasc activities in County Mayo. In line with Government policy Teagasc proactively engaged with the Department in identifying suitable locations for shared services which would be mutually beneficial arid six suitable locations have been identified.
Castlebar is not among those locations as it would not be strategically viable for Teagasc and would put at risk a very important location in Westport where Teagasc provides a wide range of knowledge transfer and advisory services to the hill areas and the islands. It has a strong advisory presence, a large client base, a very significant number of discussion and producer groups and rural development initiatives, including direct selling of hill lamb.
Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I would not like the debate to finish like that. I appreciate that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here but the last paragraph is pure mischief making. There is no threat to the Westport Teagasc office, which is completely viable in its own right. It was never a case of one office or another and the record should reflect that. It is my intention to pass this issue to the members of the board for consideration at their next meeting.
Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Deputy might take that up with the Minister directly.