Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government must urgently review the proposed closure of the Kinsealy research centre and its relocation to a much smaller facility at Ashtown, County Dublin. The important Teagasc facility at Kinsealy plays a critical role, as the Minister of State knows, in the horticulture and agrifood sector in Fingal and the north county. Serious issues have been raised about the high cost of closing the facility. Many constituents and Teagasc workers have argued that the proposal to close the centre will incur a significant net cost to the State at a time when we can least afford the burden of any extra or unnecessary costs.

It has also been alleged that extraordinary costly mistakes have been made by Teagasc during this episode. For example, it is alleged that property consultants missed the key submission date to the Fingal county development plan in what was an extraordinary lapse. For these reasons I have contacted the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Buckley, to ask him to request that the Teagasc internal auditors submit an immediate report responding to these allegations. I also asked him to carry out a full cost-benefit analysis on the closure and relocation of the centre to Ashtown. On 12 April I received a letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General stating that he "has asked the audit group completing the financial audit of Teagasc to make preliminary inquiries" and that he will "review the outcome as soon as they have been made". It would be extraordinarily premature for Teagasc to move ahead with the closure of Kinsealy given the involvement of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the prospect of a report being published on serious auditing of financial matters surrounding the proposed closure.

As the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Reilly, knows, the Kinsealy Teagasc centre is a vital agricultural and horticultural research station for north County Dublin and its wider environs. Fingal has a strong farming tradition and the horticultural sector here is critical to local, mid-Leinster and national economies. For example, I understand very important research was developed at the centre relating to the valuable mushroom production sector in some of the northern counties.

Some 85 people are now employed at the Kinsealy centre, and it has an important mandate for ensuring that the long-term competitiveness and dynamism of Irish horticulture continues. I understand the Kinsealy centre also has close research links with scientific staff at the world-class Botanic Gardens in Glasnevin.

In late 2009, just before Christmas, staff at the Kinsealy centre were shocked to discover that there were plans afoot to shut their research station down and relocate staff to Ashtown and other Teagasc facilities across the country. As the Minister of State knows, it is a big site of 100 acres plus. It was then that constituents who are also Teagasc staff first came to meet me to express concerns about the closure. Several were rightly fearful that they would be forced to move across the county or the country even though they and their families had deep roots in Fingal, in the Minister's constituency and mine, and throughout the north county. I continually pursued the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, on this matter, and was disappointed with the performance of the outgoing Minister of State with responsibility for horticulture, Trevor Sargent of the Green Party who, despite representing the area, seemed to do little or nothing for the welfare of these workers and the important work they do for our country.

During the 30th Dáil, as the Acting Chairman knows, I was a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, and I asked the committee to examine the value for money to the State of the potential closure of the Kinsealy centre. I understand the clerk of the committee contacted Professor Gerry Boyle, the director of Teagasc, at the Carlow headquarters and asked him to provide details of any cost-benefit analysis undertaken before the closure plans were developed. As far as I understand, Professor Boyle and the Teagasc senior management team have never provided this information to the committee or to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Can the Minister indicate whether he has seen the details of any cost-benefit analysis? What are the costs and benefits of relocating from Kinsealy to Ashtown? What is the economic justification for closing down such a vital and historic facility in modern Irish agriculture?

For all these reasons, the Minister should insist on an immediate moratorium on all plans by Teagasc to shut down the Kinsealy centre until the outcome of the investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General is known. I understand that a decision some time ago to close the Teagasc facility in Naas, County Kildare, was ultimately reversed, and I ask the Minister to ensure, similarly, that the proposal for our Kinsealy station is reversed.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Broughan for bringing this matter to our attention.

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was hoping the Minister, Deputy Reilly, would respond to this debate.

James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I only have two other matters to respond to.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise for the absence of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Shane McEntee, who has asked me to take this matter on his behalf.

I am pleased to be given this opportunity to deal with the issues raised by Deputy Broughan. I would like to clarify the position with regard to the respective responsibilities of Teagasc and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Under the Act establishing Teagasc, the Agriculture (Research, Training and Advice) Act 1988, Teagasc has statutory responsibility for the provision of education, advisory and research services to the agriculture sector. It develops its programmes, services and activities in conjunction with its clients and partners, overseen by an authority that is representative of the main stakeholder groups in the agri-food sector. It is a matter for Teagasc and its board to prioritise activities in the delivery of these services and to allocate its resources in accordance with these priorities.

As far as my Department is concerned, ministerial responsibility is confined to matters of policy in accordance with the Act, and the Minister does not interfere in the day-to-day operations of Teagasc. Accordingly, decisions relating to the future of the Kinsealy centre or any other research centres or advisory offices are operational matters for the Teagasc authority to consider. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to interfere in decisions made by the Teagasc authority about the Kinsealy centre.

I am aware that the Teagasc authority approved a major change programme in 2009, reorganising and refocusing the organisation to meet the significant challenges that lie ahead. The programme provided for rationalisation measures across the organisation, including changes in the advisory office network and research centres, the disposal of surplus land and staff reductions. The agreed actions were seen as the first step in an ongoing process of change. The programme was updated in May 2010 to incorporate additional rationalisation measures to the end of 2012.

As part of this change strategy, Teagasc decided to move the activities and staff based in Kinsealy to other locations, with the majority transferring to the Teagasc campus in Ashtown. I understand that Teagasc took the decision to close the Kinsealy centre for a number of reasons. It currently has four centres in the greater Dublin area - Grange, Botanic Gardens, Ashtown and Kinsealy - and Teagasc has concluded that it does not make economic sense to maintain all of these sites. Many of the facilities in Kinsealy are aging and the move to Ashtown offsets the need to invest in these facilities. I understand Teagasc has developed excellent facilities in Ashtown following a €10 million investment programme in recent years. The move provides the opportunity to optimise the usage of this valuable centre. In addition, there are considerable savings in overhead costs and staff costs to be achieved from operating at one site. For example, Kinsealy education and research programmes can be delivered effectively from Ashtown and other Teagasc locations.

Teagasc has stressed that the decision to relocate horticulture services from Kinsealy will not have a negative impact on its support for the horticulture sector. It points out that most of the permanent staff located in Kinsealy are not involved in horticulture and could operate from other Teagasc centres. There are only three permanent horticulture and forestry researchers working in Kinsealy.

Teagasc has produced a comprehensive horticultural plan which outlines an alternative model for horticultural research that is less dependent on the traditional type of research infrastructure. Following preparation of the plan, Teagasc is satisfied that the needs of the programme can be adequately met by the facilities proposed for Ashtown and by conducting more research on producer sites. It plans to service the horticultural education programme from the new Teagasc facility in the Botanic Gardens and the training centre in Ashtown, with the addition of some new facilities. It is investing €2.5 million to upgrade educational facilities in the Botanic Gardens, and this will cater for many of the Kinsealy educational staff and students.

For strategic reasons, Teagasc considers it essential that it retains a presence in the Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens brand is hugely important for the standing of the college and its courses. Teagasc plans to meet the needs of the forestry programme through a combination of new and existing facilities at Ashtown and through the exploitation of other Teagasc locations.

I understand that Teagasc has carefully assessed the potential investment attributable to relocating from Kinsealy to Ashtown, and that this is estimated to be €4.8 million. The actual costs will depend on the outcome of any competitive tendering processes. Teagasc estimates that overhead savings of approximately €300,000 per annum can be achieved through moving to Ashtown. The amalgamation and streamlining of services at Ashtown is expected to yield further annual savings of approximately €240,000. In addition, savings on the upgrading of facilities and equipment are expected to be €200,000 per annum, or €1.4 million over seven years, on the assumption that the facilities in Kinsealy would have to be upgraded to bring them into line with those proposed for Ashtown.

Teagasc is satisfied that the closure of the Kinsealy campus will give rise to significant annual cost savings. It confidently expects a payback arising from relocation savings over an acceptable seven-year period. Teagasc is substantially dependent on taxpayer-funded resources to deliver on its statutory mandate. In the current economic circumstances, it has had to explore every conceivable option to minimise the Exchequer contribution. It embarked on an extensive rationalisation programme in 2009 to respond to these constraints in a manner that minimises any adverse impact on its services and programmes. The move from Kinsealy to Ashtown is consistent with the aims of the rationalisation programme to reduce organisational overheads and achieve greater efficiencies.

The Teagasc authority has concluded that the Kinsealy campus is no longer a strategic site for the organisation and that programmes and staff can be accommodated in Ashtown and other Teagasc sites. I reiterate that this is an operational matter for Teagasc. It is entirely within its rights to make this decision, and it would not be appropriate for the Minister of the day or the Department to interfere in the matter. I will bring the Deputy's comments to the attention of the Minister.