COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Tuesday, 20 Apr 2021

Vote 30 - Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Mr. Brendan Gleeson(Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine) called and examined.

Chairman

We are engaging today with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to examine the 2019 Appropriation Accounts for Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine. From the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we are joined remotely from outside the precincts of Leinster House by Mr. Brendan Gleeson, Secretary General, Dr. Kevin Smyth, assistant secretary general, Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary general, and Mr. Colm Forde, principal officer. From the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, we are joined remotely from within the precincts of Leinster House by Ms Georgina Hughes-Elders, principal officer, Agriculture, Food and the Marine Vote section and Mr. Donal Lynch, assistant principal officer, Agriculture, Food and the Marine Vote section. I welcome everyone and thank them and the staff of their Departments for the briefing material which was prepared for the committee.

When we begin to engage, I ask Members and witnesses to mute themselves when not contributing so we do not pick up background noise or feedback and, as usual, I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. However, several of today’s witnesses are giving their evidence remotely, from a place outside the parliamentary precincts and, as such, may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses physically present. Such witnesses have already been advised that they may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. To assist our broadcasting service and the staff of the Debates Office, I ask Members to direct their questions to specific witnesses. If the question has not been directed to a specific witness, I ask each witness to state his or her name the first time they contribute.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The Appropriation Account for Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine records gross expenditure of €1.64 billion in 2019. The expenditure is divided across four expenditure programmes. These correspond to the four key strategic objectives set out in the Department’s statement of strategy for 2016–2019. The programme of farm and agri-food sector schemes and controls accounted for over half of the spending.

Apart from the activities funded under the Vote, the Department is also the accredited paying agency in Ireland for EU payments to farmers and to the agri-food sector. Co-funded scheme payments are accounted for in the Vote Appropriation Account. EU payments directly to farmers, including the single farm payment, are accounted for separately from the Vote. A summary of the EU-related transactions is disclosed in note 6.1 of the Appropriation Account. In total, EU payments amounted to just under €1.6 billion for 2019.

Each year, the Department provides substantial funding for several public bodies operating under its aegis. These include Teagasc, An Bord Bia, the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, Horse Racing Ireland, HRI, and Rásaíocht Con Éireann, RCE.

By year end, net expenditure under the Vote was €98.4 million less than had been provided for 2019. With the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, €19.8 million in unspent capital allocations was carried over for spending in 2020. This related mainly to spending shortfalls under the subheads for forestry, and for agriculture and food development and promotion. The remainder of the surplus for the year, €78.6 million, was liable for surrender to the Exchequer.

I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the Appropriation Account. However, I drew attention to disclosures in the statement on internal financial control of non-compliance with procurement rules that occurred in respect of contracts that operated in 2019 to the value of €3.8 million. The statement on internal financial control also discloses significant financial risks faced by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as well as the steps taken to address those risks.

The Department is directly responsible for the management of the six statutorily-designated fishery harbour centres, which are important economic infrastructure distributed around the coastline. While the harbours are organisationally part of the Department, the relevant legislation requires that separate financial statements are produced for the transactions and activities located there. The day-to-day operations of the centres are funded through harbour dues and user charges as set by law, and rents from State-owned properties. The financial statements for 2019 indicate that the operational receipts of the harbours totalled €5.7 million, while operating payments were €4.8 million. In addition, significant annual capital grant funding is made available from the Exchequer, via the Vote, for the development and maintenance of harbour facilities. Capital payments in 2019 totalled €28.7 million, mainly in respect of major capital projects then under way in Castletownbere and Killybegs.

Following a reorganisation of departmental responsibilities in 2007, the Department assumed responsibility for marine matters, including the fishery harbours. Some difficulties arose with the transfer, and one result was a serious delay in the presentation of the financial statements. At worst, there was a delay of almost two and a half years between the end of the year of account and the production of audited financial statements. As a result, I issued a special report in 2014 about the financial management and reporting for the fishery harbour centres. This included a set of seven recommendations that I considered needed to be implemented. All the recommendations were accepted by the Accounting Officer in 2014. The recommendations were subsequently endorsed by the Committee of Public Accounts, following a hearing to examine the special report. Each year subsequently, we have monitored the progress being made in implementing the recommendations.

The report before the committee today documents the situation as of September 2020. I am glad to report that the Department has made significant improvement in the timeliness of its financial reporting for the fishery harbour centres. However, there is scope for further improvement, and I recommend the setting of a target date for earlier presentation of the financial statements.

The Department had made progress by September 2020 in implementing all of the special report’s recommendations. However, there are a number of areas where we found further action needs to be taken. This includes bringing the format of financial reporting into line with standard accounting practice, the undertaking of a formal review of the merits of possible alternative governance structures for the centres and the cyclical review and revision of user charges.

I also concluded that the Department should have taken a more structured approach to monitoring the implementation of the recommendations. Had it done that, I believe better and earlier progress could have been made and I would not have needed to report for a second time on this matter.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to address the committee. I would like to refer to the Department’s appropriation account for 2019 and chapter 10 of the report on the accounts of the public service 2019 on financial management and reporting for fishery harbour centres.

I will begin with the appropriation account. The Department’s gross estimate for 2019 was €1.678 billion, which included a carryover of capital savings of €22 million from 2018. In all, this represented an overall increase of €92 million over the corresponding figure for 2018. The gross outturn was €1.635 billion, an increase of €89 million over 2018. The Department received a technical Supplementary Estimate to further address emerging priorities. This provided extra funding that was partly offset by additional appropriations-in-aid and also facilitated the transfer of funds within the Vote. I will refer to this in my later remarks.

The Department also receives appropriations-in-aid, which are significant in 2019 in the overall financial outcome. These principally comprise EU receipts in respect of rural development, seafood development and animal disease programmes. In 2019, these receipts amounted to €388.4 million, some €55 million more than the estimate of €333 million. The difference was substantially because of the timing of payments from the EU in respect of its co-funding of rural development programme schemes as one of the receipts that was expected in January 2020 was received in December 2019.

Turning back to expenditure, the Department’s Vote is divided into four programmes, each representing a key policy priority. Programme A relates to the food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health programmes that underpin our agrifood sector. These include: disease eradication programmes such as those relating to TB or transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, TSEs; testing for residues in food products; on farm controls; plant protection controls; and other such headings. Programme expenditure under this heading, excluding staff and administration costs, amounted to €93 million in 2019. Staff costs constitute almost half of the expenditure on this programme and this programme accounts for more than half of the Department’s total payroll. This reflects the very strong investment we have in the skills, expertise and commitment of our staff who are the foundation of the food safety regime upon which our agrifood sector is so dependent.

Programme B covers our major farm support schemes other than the basic payments scheme, which is entirely EU funded. By and large, these schemes are intended to encourage sustainable agricultural practices and most of them, apart from the forestry programme, receive co-funding from the EU under the rural development programme. The final allocation for these schemes in 2019 following a Supplementary Estimate, came to just over €893 million. This included additional spend on the beef exceptional aid measure, an EU support scheme for the Irish beef sector in response to market conditions. The supplementary also allowed for savings elsewhere to be allocated for extra spending on the green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and the targeted agriculture modernisation schemes, TAMS. In 2019, other co-funded schemes included the areas of national constraint scheme, the organics scheme and the forestry programme, which alone among these schemes is 100% nationally funded. The capital carryover into 2020 from 2019 was partly drawn from the forestry savings in 2019. The eventual outturn for this programme was €874 million, some €50 million more than the previous year. That reflects the mature stage we had reached in the rural development programme, which has helped us to make a large portion of scheme year payments within the same calendar year.

Programme C, policy and strategy, includes expenditure on research and training and a number of food support schemes and grants to some of our State agencies. It also included a number of additional measures designed to help build resilience in the sector confronted by Brexit. This included supports for food companies but due to the extension of the Brexit deadline to 2020, demand remained low for those schemes. The Supplementary Estimate was availed of to transfer savings that emerged in various parts of the Vote to respond to a specific request from the World Food Programme for early payment of our 2020 commitment under the strategic partnership agreement. This resulted in total payments of €25.3 million to the World Food Programme in 2019. Overall, the programme C outturn of €356.7 million was €10 million less than the voted allocation.

Programme D relates to the seafood sector. Expenditure under the programme part of this heading in 2019 amounted to €142 million, or 99% of the Estimate. The next piece relates to sea-fisheries and harbours. In order to meet the time allowance, I will terminate my contribution and deal with any questions that arise in the mean time.

Chairman

Hopefully, members will have read the presentation prior to the meeting.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I welcome our witnesses and thank them for their attendance. I have another committee meeting after this one so I apologise for having to leave after my questioning. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is broad and so are my questions. I look forward to engaging with each and every witness.

I will start with programme A. Mr. Gleeson mentioned animal welfare. I noticed that the current spend on this is €3 million less than was spent in 2019. On the capital side, only half was spent compared with what was estimated to be spent in 2019. Could Mr. Gleeson elaborate on that and why that came to pass?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Could the Deputy go through a number of questions and I can come back to him on all of them?

Deputy Cormac Devlin

That is fine. My question concerns the World Food Programme. Mr. Gleeson mentioned that it was an advance on 2020. I understand this and it is welcome and proper. Given the scale of challenge for that UN programme, particularly after Covid-19, could Mr. Gleeson elaborate as to how he sees the 2021 programme developing? Obviously, there was, as he noted, a request from the executive director in 2019 for an advance but how might that impact on 2021 and ensuing years? I know it is a three-year agreement so I am wondering when it is due to be renewed. Mr. Gleeson might elaborate on that.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

It was a three-year contract in respect of the World Food Programme. We have a seat on the executive board of the World Food Programme. It is a mechanism for giving untied aid to the poorest of the poor through that UN programme. It is part of the overall Government commitment to overseas development aid and we are the lead Department on it. The €25 million is the final contribution from our current commitment. As part of the new Government agreement with the World Food Programme, we will have to arrange for future payments. The payment we made in that year was effectively an advance payment. We made another advance payment in 2020 and we will have to come to a new three-year arrangement from 2021 onwards.

Regarding animal welfare, the Deputy asked for the reason for the saving. I do not have the specific explanation for the saving but I can tell the Deputy that the Department takes its obligations relating to animal welfare very seriously. I will come back to the Deputy-----

Deputy Cormac Devlin

If I can help Mr. Gleeson, I will ask it in a different format. Could he outline the role and importance of Department inspections in the horse racing and greyhound industries? He might have a figure. If he does not have one today, he might come back to me.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Rásaíocht Con Éireann is directly responsible for welfare in the greyhound sector. It has a statutory responsibility now. Horse Racing Ireland is the same in respect of horse racing. From the Department's point of view it provides support to those organisations but the principal role in terms of animal welfare inspections is played by people in those organisations. We have provided training to those organisations. Currently, we are involved in authorising officers under the animal welfare regulations for Horse Racing Ireland but the principal role is provided by statute to those organisations. I will come back to the Deputy with specific figures on the number of inspections.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I thank Mr. Gleeson. I presume it is quite similar moving to the meat processing plants. I was a member of the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response and the meat processing plants played a central role through our investigations into the spread of Covid-19 throughout 2020. Mr. Gleeson might elaborate on that. I know the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, and the HSE are the agents carrying out the inspections but my understanding is that Mr. Gleeson's Department has ultimate responsibility in respect of the inspections. Will he outline to the committee the number of inspections done in 2020 and the number done so far in 2021?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The role of the Department in respect of meat plants is a food safety-animal welfare role. In the context of Covid, we agreed a memorandum of understanding with the HSA to assist it with its inspections. We have people on the ground. I will come back to the Deputy with the specific numbers but we carried out inspections and where there were findings, we reported them to the HSA. In general, we found a reasonably high level of compliance. In addition to that we facilitated serial testing at those plants. There were several rounds of testing of staff with PCR tests once a month. There have been three or four rounds of that and at the last round the level of infection was 0.36% for the staff, which is lower than the current community rate, but it is certainly not something we can take for granted. That PCR testing is still going on in meat plants.

In addition to that we ran a pilot for the development of rapid antigen testing. We felt that meat plants were a perfect environment for running this pilot because we could run the antigen tests against populations that were at the same time being tested for PCR. We now have secured a supply of antigen tests which are available for the industry to test its staff. That is beginning to be rolled out. We have done 2,500 or 3,000 of those tests. If I can I will come back to the Deputy. I am afraid my team could not hear the questions so-----

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I would ditch those headphones if I were Mr. Gleeson because we can hear him clearly now, much better than we did with them on.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I have ditched the headphones and my team can now hear me. They can give me the notes now so I can answer the Deputy's questions.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

Mr. Gleeson can come back to me on the number of inspections last year but I think the public would want reassurance that the inspections are ongoing. Is that the case?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Absolutely. The inspections are ongoing. It was critically important to keep these facilities open because without them there could have been food shortages. There certainly would have been a collapse in agricultural markets and the agricultural economy would have collapsed, so it was very important to keep them open. It was important also in those circumstances to protect the staff and the reputation of the Irish sector. These inspections are ongoing. In the context of testing, the latest figure I have is 86,541 tests completed in 88 food production facilities with 526 cases detected in all. At the last round of testing, which involved 11,000 swabs taken in 44 facilities, the positivity rate was 0.35%, which is something below the national positivity rate. The reality is that as long as there is infection in the community there is the possibility of this disease getting into meat plants. We know because of specific research that we have done that they are high-risk environments, particularly in the boning hall because they are temperature controlled. With temperature control comes a control over the input and output of air, so there is a potential for the virus to build up over the day if infection gets into the plants.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I understand that. I thank Mr. Gleeson for that. I have limited time, so apologies. It is reassuring to know that they are ongoing.

It was not just Covid-19 that impacted on last year and 2019; it was Brexit also. I come from a coastal constituency in Dún Laoghaire and we are very proud to have BIM located in the town. I note that the seafood industry in 2020 accounted for a little over €1 billion but I understand that was down 18% on 2019. The funding of that service, of BIM, is essential. Will Mr. Gleeson outline the role and operation of the Department in dealing with both Brexit and Covid-19 over the past two years?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Certainly. In the context of Brexit there were a number of false starts but, equally, some of them had a real impact on the marketplace in some of our sectors. In 2019, for example, we introduced a scheme for the support of the beef sector, on the basis of an economic analysis of the potential damage to the beef sector, which was co-funded by the European Union.

In the context of fisheries, right through the negotiations on Brexit the Department has been involved in providing its advice to those in government who were involved in the dealings with Michel Barnier and his team. The negotiations on Brexit were conducted by the Commission on behalf of member states with the UK but I can certainly say that Ireland's interests were well known to all of the participants in that and that was in part as a result of the work done by this Department.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I thank Mr. Gleeson for that. I will turn to the Comptroller and Auditor General report, particularly in respect of the procurement issues. There were some non-compliance issues. I believe there were 98 contracts in total with a value of a little over €14 million. In the same vein, I note also that there was the risk and control framework. That predates my time but I understand that in 2017, there was some sort of internal audit committee that, to my surprise, was wound down in the Department. I am happy to see, however, that a new risk management system has been put in place and there is an estimated timeframe. Is it the asset verification register that is due to be complete by 2021? Are we still on track for that to be completed this year? Also, Mr. Gleeson might comment on how his Department is dealing with the non-compliance issues as outlined by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

On procurement, we had a discussion on this the last time I was in. The reality is that we have €100 million worth of procurement. We have about €3.5 million or procurement that is non-compliant. There is a bit of a legacy problem here because contracts that were procured in this way, as long as they remain uncompleted, remain on the register. It is an ongoing effort to reduce this problem and the figure is diminishing every year. A significant part of the problem is in our laboratories. A variety of issues arise in our laboratories. For example, sometimes, for complex pieces of equipment there is a single supplier. Sometimes, for an accredited test there is a single supplier of reagents and if the reagent is changed we have to change the accreditation of the test. There is a variety of issues but we are working hard on those.

In terms of risk management, the Department was among the earliest movers on the development of an electronic risk management system. The reality was that the system we had became a bit stale and was no longer consistent with the central system established by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. We have replaced that with a new risk management system. The Deputy mentioned the winding down of the committee. The truth was that we decided we would deal with risk management at the management board rather than having a specific committee. We have a specific committee now.

On the way we will deal with non-compliance, we have an accreditation review group. That group was established to look at all audit findings and it ensures that audit findings are followed up in a systematic way.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

Finally, the asset verification project was expected to be done by 2021. Are we still on track with that? The Department would want to make sure that the project is completed by the time Mr. Gleeson appears before us next year.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I do not want to give any hostages to fortune. There is very serious work being done in the context of the asset register. Covid did not help. Again, part of this is a legacy problem, finding assets that may have moved from one section to another. Going forward, we have a system that requires assets to be registered on an electronic asset register as they are purchased. However, we still have that legacy problem. I would be misleading the committee if I said that the effort to track some of those down had not been impacted by Covid. So 2021 is still the target but I cannot say that when I am before the committee next year that some of this will not still be there.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I welcome Mr. Gleeson and his team and thank them for making themselves available this evening. In view of the limited time, I will go straight to discussing a pertinent issue.

There are reports that the European Commission has made a ruling on the withdrawal of the derogation relating to fish weigh-ins at factories. This matter is being reported in terms that Ireland cannot be trusted to guarantee that fraud can be detected. I am sure Mr. Gleeson will agree that Irish fishermen will be utterly aghast at such an assertion. Is the Department aware whether the Commission intends to impose financial penalties on Ireland? More importantly, what actions does the Department intend to take to challenge the Commission's ruling? The SFPA has expanded greatly in size in recent years so either fraud is being committed and not being detected, which would be widely disputed, or the processes are not in place to give the European Commission the assurances that it requires. Will Mr. Gleeson confirm whether it is the Department's intention to lodge a robust appeal.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The first thing is that this has been in gestation for a while. It is something that I declared in my statement of internal financial control and the Appropriation Accounts for 2019. The second thing is that we have taken a number of steps in recent years to increase the resources available to the SFPA and the Deputy mentioned that. The SFPA has engaged the PwC to carry out a capability review and is trying to implement the relevant recommendations at the moment. A number of steps have been taken to improve IT systems in the SFPA. So all of these things are happening to improve our control systems.

The administrative inquiry hit the newspapers today. The standard requirement under the relevant regulation is that fish are weighed at the point of landing on the pier. Ireland has been operating on the basis of a derogation. We had a Commission audit followed by an administrative inquiry which indicated that, in some instances, that they were not happy to rely on the efficacy of the controls relating to the weighing of pelagic fish. It is on that basis that the Commission's decision has emerged. The decision removes the derogation. That is what the effect of the control plan is. There is a process under way and the SFPA and the Department are still engaged with the Commission on that. I do not want to say too much more about that because I do not think it would be helpful to the process. I am sure we will have long and detailed conversations about that matter.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Can Mr. Gleeson indicate whether the Department will be challenging the findings? I take it that that is what he is saying in the context of the engagement with the Commission.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

What we have now is a Commission decision. What will be required will be to establish an alternative to the existing control plan. The SFPA, because this is its business and because it has absolute operational independence from the Department, will have to put forward some kind of an alternative. We will have to make sure that that is as reasonable and as workable as possible for fisherman but it must also address the control issues that the Commission identified.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I will touch on the TB eradication programme because the figures can appear stark when taken in a certain context. I looked through the figures for previous years and discovered that the spend on the TB eradication programme in 2014 was more than €86 million and that 16,000 cases of TB were detected. Last year, the spend was €98 million and 23,000 cases detected. Where this becomes more of a concern to the Committee of Public Accounts is the fact that the EU funding element of that decreased from €12 million in 2014 to a little over €5 million last year. Does Mr. Gleeson accept that there is a problem in that we are spending a lot of money? A huge proportion of that money comes directly from farmers. When Mr. Gleeson was talking about the programme being rolled out in factories with regard to Covid mechanisms, I was struck by the fact that the associated costs involved are not being levied from factories. In the context of the TB programme, a substantial levy is imposed on farmers in the context of meeting the overall cost. Does Mr. Gleeson accept that the TB eradication programme is not working? Is there a need for a fundamental review of how we spend this huge sum of money?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The firs thing I will say about the TB programme is that we have to have it. The programme is necessary for trade and in order for farmers to trade. If we look back at the figures relating to the programme, it becomes clear that €5.5 billion has been spent on it since the early 1960s. The truth is that what the programme has done is that it has kept TB at a reasonably low level compared with where it was in the 1960s. The disease is at a much lower level than it was then. The programme is a burden on farmers and it is a burden on taxpayers. If we are to reduce the burden on farmers and on taxpayers, then we have to take the steps necessary to try and eradicate the disease.

The Deputy will know that we have a TB forum. Part of the dynamic here would be to try and work with farmers, and agree a system on the measures needed to reduce disease levels. The forum has a number of sub-committees and one of them is looking at finance. We will be talking through the financial arrangements with farmers. There is a report from Grant Thornton which examined the cost-benefit analysis relating to the programme. Informed by that analysis, farmers and the Department will discuss future financing.

The Deputy mentioned others being levied. It might be possible to levy other operators along the food chain. It certainly might be possible to do that. Whether that levy would manifest itself in increased consumer prices or reduced prices to farmers is anybody's guess.

Deputy Matt Carthy

To be absolutely clear, I am not disputing that we need to do all we can to eradicate TB but I am contemplating whether our investment has delivered. It is very difficult to get a breakdown and to extrapolate the exact detail of the funding that is attributed to the Exchequer. Can the Department provide the committee with a detailed breakdown of the Exchequer funds for 2019 and 2020?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Yes. I can give the Deputy some figures now if he wishes or I can come back to him.

Deputy Matt Carthy

A breakdown would be useful. Finally, with the indulgence of the Chair, I wish to touch on environmental schemes, particularly in the context of the new scheme that is coming down the tracks and that is in pilot phase at the moment.

If we go back to the old REPS, the Holy Grail to which farmers want to return, the average payment was approximately €4,500. The GLAS payment was around the same and it appears that the next round of environmental schemes will be at the same level. When one takes inflation into account, farmers are getting less money but with more conditions attached. The Government previously committed €1.5 billion for a new agri-environmental pilot programme and I see that €200 million has been allocated thus far. Is that €1.5 billion coming from carbon tax receipts or is it separate? Can we expect that the €1.5 billion over ten years will be additional funds for agri-environmental schemes?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I will try to answer that question as quickly as possible but I ask the Deputy to indulge me for a minute or so. We are now in a transition period between two CAPs. We should have had a new CAP at the start of this year but we do not have one yet. We did two things for the transition, one of which was to roll over existing schemes. The existing GLAS and BDGP, for example, are being rolled over and participants in those schemes can continue to avail of payments. The second thing we did was to begin piloting some ideas and measures that might inform how we approach a new agri-environment scheme. We will have a new CAP and a major new agri-environment scheme from 2023 onwards but we do not know what that scheme will look like-----

Chairman

Time is up.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We do not know what the average payment will be because that has not been decided yet. The Deputy referred to a commitment in the programme for Government and while I do not want to get into the implementation of governmental commitments, it is true that the programme for Government commits to a €1.5 billion agri-environmental fund, the money for which will come from carbon taxes. The current scheme, the REAP, is really a vehicle for testing some concepts and ideas, particularly the results-based idea, so that we are not forcing measures on farmers and then penalising them if they do not meet them. Instead, we are offering farmers the opportunity to volunteer for things under the results-based scheme and to decide what level of payment they want. That is the idea behind the new scheme. It is not intended to replicate what will happen after 2023 but is intended to trial a few ideas for people who are not already in environmental schemes.

Chairman

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill is next.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

I was at meeting of the Select Committee on Justice so I am afraid I missed the beginning of Deputy Devlin's presentation. Did he cover horse and greyhound racing? I do not want to repeat anything he said.

Chairman

Yes, he did.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

In that case, I will go on to land and land values. I thank the witnesses for coming and welcome the opportunity to speak to them. The appendix contains a list of land and buildings controlled or managed by the Department. Some of them have valuations, while others do not. Teagasc produced an interesting report today about the land market and the outlook for land prices generally across the country. In that context, I am interested in the Department's land holdings. What does the Department hold? What is the valuation on its land? Has the Department engaged with the Land Development Agency, LDA? Is the Department's property predominantly land or buildings? Is it close to towns or not? I ask for a profile of the Department's lands.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

First, I will mention Haulbowline island, which is very specific. We took over Haulbowline a number of years ago to remediate a site there that needed remediation, the former Irish Steel site. It is also the headquarters of the Irish Naval Service. Having remediated the east tip of Haulbowline, there has been a Government decision to transfer it back to the Department of Defence. That is a large site with a very specific purpose and there is no prospect of disposal by the State any time soon. It is the Naval Service headquarters and there is also a public park there.

We have a number of regional laboratories around the country and again, these are places where the Department has buildings and functions. We have a proposal in gestation to redevelop some of those buildings but completing that work will depend on whether we get the required funding. There is a long list of sites in the appendix and a lot of them are small bits of forest and bog. We do not have valuations for them because our policy is to value things at the point of disposal. Some of the sites are former Land Commission sites and some of them are bits of land on top of mountains. We are looking at our forestry plots to see if it is worthwhile transferring them to Coillte. Most of them, I would suggest, have very little value. They are not fit for agriculture.

We have a number of specific sites like the potato testing centre in Raphoe, which is quite near Raphoe town. There is a farm there and a research centre that is going to be more important than ever in the context of seed potatoes. We also have Backweston, our laboratory complex which was developed back in the 1990s. We do not have a valuation on that either but there is no prospect of the State disposing of its interest there. The State Laboratory is there and we have a variety of other laboratories on site. We have some ideas about how that site might be developed as a centre of excellence for laboratories generally across the State. That is it in terms of significant holdings. The vast majority of items on the list are small plots of bog or forestry that are legacies from the Land Commission and are probably of very little value.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

That is understandable and explains why the Department would not go about valuing the land in the normal way. There may be some interest in determining its value but I can see why the Department would not do that. I am more interested in the Department's strategy for how the sites are being used and for achieving the maximum productive use from them, which is a separate question. How does the Department approach that question vis-à-vis its assets? Has it ever engaged with the LDA in that context?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

All Departments were required to offer suitable land to the LDA a number of years ago and we would have done that. All of our agencies did a return-----

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

What did the Department offer?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I do not have a list here but I can find out. I have no idea, to be honest. The last time I was here Deputy MacSharry, who has a great interest in land valuations, asked me the same questions. He said at the time that the Department has probably not looked at some of its plots for 50 years and does not know what is happening on them and that is definitely true.

Deputy Jennifer Carroll MacNeill

That may be so but what I am interested in is the productive strategy for them. Identifying them and determining that some of them are not useful is fine but there should be engagement with other arms of the State to make sure that if there are any linked pieces, there is a productive strategy for them.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I accept that. All I can say at the moment is that we are reviewing those sites that have forestry on them with a view to transferring them to Coillte, if we can.

Chairman

Deputy Verona Murphy is next.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I thank Mr. Gleeson and all of the crew from the Department for their attendance today. I will start with forestry. My question is simple and relates to the ongoing and persistent licensing crisis. We have never had more resources in the Department. We passed emergency legislation to provide more resources, including more ecologists, but the crisis seems to be getting worse.

Could Mr. Gleeson explain that for me, bearing in mind that we are on limited time and I have two other questions?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

First, I accept that there is a real problem with forestry licensing. The Deputy will be aware of the background to that. It just has not happened as a result of dramatic changes in the way we have to do things.

I do not accept that the prices are getting worse. On our output now, we have really put tremendous resources into this. We have established a project that will look at a variety of things, including getting rid of the backlog, processes and procedures, and developing new vision for forestry.

Deputy Verona Murphy

In relation to applications, what is the Department's output?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I ask the Deputy to bear with me for a moment.

Deputy Verona Murphy

How are they divvied out, such as to Coillte versus privateers? If Mr. Gleeson does not have the figures, he might send them in to the committee.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I have the figures here somewhere but I will send them in to the committee.

Deputy Verona Murphy

My information is that there are approximately 150 staff now working in forestry. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Yes.

Deputy Verona Murphy

That is a huge increase. We should not be having the problems that we are having. I would appreciate those figures in the coming days.

The other question I want to touch on is one Deputy Carthy raised about today's report from the Commission. There are two points about this. The Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, spent €1.47 million on legal fees in 2019. It spent €731,000 in 2018 on internal audits. In Oireachtas grants, it got €13 million from the Department in 2019 and €10.3 million from the Department in 2018. How can we spend so much money on a regulatory agency and end up with a fine of €40 million?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

First of all, I suppose, this is a very contested area. There is an acceptance that this is not where we want to be. We have worked hard over the past couple of years to increase the resources available to the SFPA and it has engaged-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

When Mr. Gleeson says the Department has worked hard to increase the resources, how many prosecutions have been yielded out of the €1.47 million?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I might ask Dr. Beamish-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

It is a specific question. How many successful prosecutions have we had?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I just want to ask Dr. Beamish if he has that information available for the Deputy. If he does not, we will get back to the Deputy.

Deputy Verona Murphy

Dr. Beamish should have that. That is not a big question. Surely Dr. Beamish has that.

Chairman

Deputy Veronica Murphy has one minute left.

Deputy Verona Murphy

It seems Dr. Beamish cannot hear me.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I can hear the Deputy and I hope the Deputy can hear me. I do not have that at my fingertips because-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

Have we had any?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

One second, if I could just finish. We do not do it. The SFPA is a legally independent enforcement body. It is reportable to the committee as well in terms of its actions. That is information that it has.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I will go back Mr. Gleeson. When Dr. Beamish says "legally independent", there was a statement made this morning to the newspaper that a spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine said the Commission decision was an operational matter for the SFPA and that the Minister is precluded from getting involved in these matters. The SFPA has, in effect, cost us €40 million and it is nothing to do with the Minister. That is for Mr. Gleeson.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The SFPA has not cost us €40 million. I am not sure where that is coming from.

Deputy Verona Murphy

So who made that statement? When Mr. Gleeson says they have not cost us €40 million, the report from the Commission and the report in the newspaper says that it is around the €40 million mark.

Chairman

The Deputy's time is up.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

There is no financial penalty involved here at all.

Deputy Verona Murphy

So how can it cost us? There is a figure being quoted. Will it reduce quotas?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

That is the point. If the Commission assesses that catches have been under declared-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

They are going to withhold possibly €40 million. That is going to have a significant effect. It may not be a fine but if they withhold it, where is the money going to come from that that €40 million ordinarily funds?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

That is a different issue. I will ask Dr. Beamish to help me here if I do not explain this adequately. Essentially, we have a reasoned opinion against us because we do not have a points regime in place and, therefore, the Commission has withheld funding from us. Sorry, that is a separate issue.

The reasoned opinion is because we do not have that points legislation. We now have a statutory instrument that gives us one part of that picture and today, in the Oireachtas, the first step in pre-legislative scrutiny took place for the second part of that legislation.

Deputy Verona Murphy

That will most likely end up again with the Commission because I believe that the legislation is not what it was purported to be on the floor of the Dáil. It is typical of what happens nowadays. I would expect that that legislation will at some point fall, as it did previously, when it is tested. However, that is not for Mr. Gleeson or me.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We would only advance legislation on the basis of the legal advice we get and the legal advice is that this is what is required.

Chairman

We have gone over time.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I will come back to it. My time is up. I thank the Chairman. I would like to come in again at the end.

Chairman

I will try to get Deputy Verona Murphy in later on again. Deputy Dillon is as lathair. Deputy McAuliffe is not with us either. I call Deputy Sherlock.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I will go straight into questions. I thank Mr. Gleeson and his colleagues for being here.

I want to ask about the fishery harbour centres financial reporting and financial management review group within the Department. It is quite a mouthful of a name. First, when specifically will the work of that group be completed? Second, there is to be a report on debt management. I am trying to understand why specifically there is to be a report on debt management; what is the nature of that debt and how much is that debt?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I thank the Deputy. First, I expect to have the report from that group within weeks. When I get the report, I will engage with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General and I will immediately implement its recommendation, subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General being happy with what we propose.

On debt, when the Comptroller and Auditor General originally reported on the fisheries harbours management system there was a problem with the recovery of debt. There has been a dramatic change in the level of debt. I will come back to the committee with the figures or, maybe, Dr. Beamish will have them for me. We now have a system for the collection of debt, which is centralised and which has a regular escalation feature where we know at what point we will escalate and at what point, for example, we will go to court.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I apologise for interrupting Mr. Gleeson. What is the nature of the debt? Are we talking about the charging regime within those entities?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Yes. Most of it is harbour dues. The substance of the findings in terms of our management of debt has been addressed in my view and what remains is a Comptroller and Auditor General recommendation that we have a target for the reduction of debt. The establishment of the target is the issue now.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

How much is outstanding in debt on the books of the six centres?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

If I could help on that one-----

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Thanks.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

-----when the report was done in 2013 there was €5.5 million in debt, and the same in 2014. In 2019, it was €1.8 million. That would include 30-day debt which is not overdue but is just going through the billing process.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Forgive my blinding ignorance. In real time, as of today, how much is outstanding in dues?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

On 28 February, it was €2.3 million.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

That is a fair lot of invoices.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

To say that is all outstanding is technically not really giving the picture because there is always 30-day debt, which is just when people are being billed.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I understand.

I will move on. I thank Dr. Beamish because that is enlightening. Regarding the review of the review of the charging order, when does Mr. Gleeson propose to go to the public consultation process? Is he going to the public consultation process with a view to increasing the charging order?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

This is one of the practicalities of dealing with Covid. These are charges on small businesses and fishermen. We have done a review. Obviously the review applies an inflationary increase to the fees, which have not increased for a long time. Our view is that this is not the time to impose additional charges on those small businesses, so we will not do that for the moment. The "when" is a difficult question. There will come a point at which we feel it is appropriate to revisit this but right now is not the time to do that.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I thank Mr. Gleeson. It does my heart good to hear him say that, because all businesses in the current climate need a fighting chance, especially those people who live in coastal communities. I will draw a line under that and thank him for that.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

For clarity, approximately 80% of the charges are harbour dues. Under the 2012 order, they are linked to the value of the fish being landed. To an extent, they are inflation-proofed in that they are linked to the value of the catch being landed. As it stands, there is an element of dynamic charging involved.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

In the 2012 charging order, which is the last one I looked at, the schedule of charges-----

Chairman

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I do not know how much time I have left.

Chairman

We have gone over time. We will have a second round.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I wanted to talk about greyhounds.

Chairman

We will have a second round of questions.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I welcome Mr. Gleeson and his staff. How many full-time equivalents are there in the special investigations unit? Has that altered in the last few years? Does the Department keep and have a note about the number of prosecutions taken and the degree of success with those?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The number of staff in the investigations unit has not changed substantially in quite a number of years. I can go through the numbers from 2015 onwards.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If Mr. Gleeson could send them to me, that would be great.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I will. I have statistics somewhere on the number of prosecutions and the success rate. I can shuffle through the papers or I can send them to the Deputy, which I am happy to do.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Please. We obviously have to protect the value of the agricultural industry and horse racing too. In January, I asked some parliamentary questions about seizures and so on. In January last year, a large quantity of animal remedies from horse premises were seized, including anabolic steroids, a variety of performance enhancers and painkillers. They did not appear in the parliamentary question reply that I received. Why would that happen? Was it just an error? Who keeps a note of the seizures? How is it kept?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I do not know. The investigations division is the repository of that kind of information. If a parliamentary question came in, in the normal course of events, we would ask the investigations division for any information that it had. I cannot think of a reason that we would hold that kind of information. I can only surmise that, when we asked, the information was not available or was not obvious to the head of the division. If the Deputy is aware-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I will send a note about the dates. It does not seem like a complete list and makes me question whether I have the entire list. I want to swap over to greyhound racing. We know that the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 provides for the gambling tax, which is collected by Revenue, to be distributed on an 80:20 basis to horse and greyhound racing. If a deficit arises, it is a generous amount. It is collected from a variety of different gambling exercises, not exclusively horse racing. Many people bet on football and other things. Horse and greyhound racing get the benefit of that. If a deficit arises, it is then topped up by the Exchequer, which is quite incredible. Does Mr. Gleeson envisage that last year, 2020, and coming into 2021, because of Covid, there will be an issue where there is a requirement to top that amount up? Does he have any idea how much that might be?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The picture the Deputy presented about the definitive link between the tax and the fund was certainly the position years ago but it is no longer the position. The reality is that an Exchequer grant is given to these bodies every year, which no longer has that linkage with the taxes. The statutory requirement is that the Exchequer contribution, whatever it might be, will be divided 80:20 between Horse Racing Ireland and Rásaíocht Con Éireann. The question as to whether that is appropriate is a policy question. If there was a change in the legislation, that would be changed, but right now, we are required by statute to break it down in that way.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

It is expected that there will be a traceability system for racing greyhounds. That is a distinction that is not often picked up, that it relates to racing greyhounds. There is obviously concern about the overbreeding of greyhounds, but not every greyhound will race. Is there an animal welfare issue for the Department, given that the greyhounds are listed as livestock as opposed to dogs?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

This is something that we will have to reflect on. The reality is that Rásaíocht Con Éireann has sight of these greyhounds when they race, so it is reasonable from its perspective to look at it this way. If there is a gap, we will have to reflect on it. My personal view is that this is something we will have to look at, broadening the scope of the traceability system. I do not intend to plunge people who are trying to do this into a new policy but I am prepared to say that I think it is worth looking at.

Chairman

I will let Deputy Murphy back in in the second round.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

If you would, please.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I thank Mr. Gleeson and his team. We heard in this committee before, from HRI for the year of 2019, that the total amount that was paid to horse breeders as part of the fund was €385,000 out of €67 million. Does the Department believe that represents value for money?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

HRI is a body established by statute with its own board and chief executive. It has statutory functions for the development of the sector. I am not qualified to say what the appropriate distribution of funds is between various parties in the sector. That is a matter for HRI. I know it is directly accountable to the House and was here some time ago.

Deputy Imelda Munster

The problem we have here is that horse racing seems to be unique as a sport in Ireland, in that we have Horse Racing Ireland and the Irish Horseracing Regulatory Board. They are two distinct organisations. There does not seem to be a similar practice in any other sport, with the regulatory body and the body responsible for the sport being distinct from each other. Will Mr. Gleeson comment on the regulatory board being almost exclusively funded by HRI?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

This is something that we looked at in the context of the horse and greyhound legislation in, I think, 2014. We looked at the arrangements between the regulatory board and HRI.

The Deputy is right that it is a very unusual arrangement but it is part of the tradition of horse racing that the Turf Club regulates the rules. At the time we were putting through the legislation, that was preciously guarded by Members of the House. We have an arrangement where the IHRB makes the case annually to HRI for funds. There is an engagement between them. Dr. Smyth might correct me if I am wrong but I think there is a facility, in the event of a disagreement, for an arbitration. It is a reasonable arrangement. Could there be other arrangements? There could.

Other things we did in that Bill included making the IHRB directly answerable to the House and the Comptroller and Auditor General. It has to account for its expenditure directly to the Comptroller and Auditor General and it is answerable to this committee.

Deputy Imelda Munster

It would be interesting to get the Department's perspective, with both organisations being distinct. When we had representatives of the HRI before the committee, they more or less adopted the position that the regulatory board was best positioned to choose how to tackle doping, say, in the sport. One got the impression HRI was not too bothered and had little or no interest in it. Attendees might remember the €9 million that was allocated for CCTV and was not spent. It was spent on an integrity licensing system, despite the fact doping was ongoing. If HRI was not interested, does the Department have an interest in this?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We do. It is true the IHRB has exclusive and sole responsibility for the regulation of racing but we have a memorandum of understanding with it on its regulatory issues and doping, for example. We have engaged in training with the IHRB to help it do that. We have authorised its officers so there is a bigger resource available nationally to do this. We are issuing warrant cards at the moment to IHRB officers.

Deputy Imelda Munster

At the time, did the Department express an opinion on the fact that the €9 million in funding given to the regulatory board to install CCTV was spent on something other than CCTV?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We were not involved in that process. Every piece of the jigsaw is important, whether testing, CCTV or the authorisation of officers.

Deputy Imelda Munster

It is the integrity of the sport, is it not?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Yes, 100%. I am not qualified to say what the right balance is there. It seemed to me from what I heard of the evidence presented that the funding was provided for a purpose and the IHRB came back and said it needed to do something else with it. It is not as though it did this without some kind of engagement. I am just-----

Deputy Imelda Munster

I was curious as to what oversight there was from the Department.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We are not involved in that process. It is there as a matter of statutory arrangement. We engage closely with the IHRB and provide it with as much support as we can. I am happy to explain in more detail to the committee or give a report. If the Deputy wants more information on that, I am happy to do that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

In the interest of accuracy, the figure of €9 million was the total amount being provided to the IHRB by HRI for its complete operations in one year. That is about what it usually provides. The figure that was spoken of in relation to CCTV is much smaller. I think it is about €1 million to €1.5 million. We can find the correct figure.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

That is correct. Apologies, I should have pointed that out.

Deputy Colm Burke

I thank Mr Gleeson for presenting to the committee. I go back to the issue of the derogation by the European Commission in relation to sea fisheries. I am reading a report by Michael Clifford in the Irish Examiner, published a number of weeks ago. It states that an EU investigation reported that "during a four-year period, 33 cases of suspected fraud in relation to fishing quotas were sent to the DPP." It continues:

None of the cases were sent forward for prosecution. The DPP either determined there was insufficient evidence or too much delay in bringing the cases. The EU now wants to examine each of these cases to determine why exactly none were prosecuted.

Was the Department aware of this before the European Commission started an investigation?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Clearly, we were aware of the European Community's investigation-----

Deputy Colm Burke

My question is quite specific. Was the Department aware of the delays by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, which was there to provide supervision? Was it aware the authority was defaulting in doing its job?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I ask Dr. Beamish to come in on this.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The issue is that, in terms of prosecutions, the SFPA has the function of detecting non-compliance and presenting the case to the DPP. The DPP decides whether or not to prosecute. Now-----

Deputy Colm Burke

My question is quite clear. Was the Department aware of the delays that were occurring in bringing forward the cases? It is a simple question.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The Department was aware of the activity of the SFPA. A variety of things were going on to improve the situation that the SFPA was engaged in, including-----

Deputy Colm Burke

I will ask a further question. My understanding is there are different views between inspectors and management within the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. In 2012, there were concerns raised with management in the authority about activities about which the inspectors were concerned. Was the Department aware of those concerns being raised by inspectors?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Yes, there are always concerns in relation to fisheries. It is a difficult area to regulate. In 2007, 2006 and 2005, many issues were raised which led to the creation of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority by the Oireachtas. There are ongoing issues of concern in relation to fisheries control and compliance, not totally unique to Ireland. It is a difficult area to regulate. Yes, we are aware of the 2012 issues raised but there are legal operational issues and, by statute, those issues are legally the responsibility of the SFPA.

Deputy Colm Burke

Surely the Department must be concerned. In 2017, a fishery officer alleged he raised the issue in late 2012 but nothing was done about it. Was the Department aware of the lack of action at managerial level? The report from the European Commission seems to say that there was a lack of action at managerial level in taking decisions about prosecutions.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I do not want to comment on an individual case. There are individual cases and that is not the full picture in terms of what did or did not happen. Those matters are still ongoing.

Deputy Colm Burke

The EU investigation found that 33 cases were sent to the DPP and not prosecuted. Surely the Department must be concerned that someone is not doing their job and there is likely to be penalties as a result of lack of action?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The first thing to understand is that under European law, the operators carry the primary responsibility for accurate weighing and reporting of catches. There is a very clear legal duty on the operators, in the first instance. After that, we are talking about detection of non-compliance. In that sense, a lot of effort has been made to strengthen the SFPA and to build its capability. A capability review was commissioned by the SFPA with an oversight committee, subsequent to the period the Deputy is talking about. There is an implementation advisory board in place implementing the findings of that capability review.

That happened after the period we are talking about.

Deputy Colm Burke

I know but if I go back again, five years ago a number of the biggest fishing operators in the State were found to have falsely reported the size of catches but we were told files would not be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions on that occasion. We were also informed the value of the fraud they were suspected of perpetrating would not be calculated. If that happened five years ago, surely alarm bells must have been raised within the Department that if this continued, there would be repercussions. Why was action not taken by the Department? It was the funding agency for the SFPA.

Chairman

The Deputy has gone well over his time. I will allow a brief answer.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I was seeking to explain the actions that were taken by the Department but the Department cannot deal with the legal day-to-day operational responsibilities. The Minister is precluded from becoming involved with those. On the overall resourcing, supporting and building of the agency, much work has been done over the past three or four years on that front. I can go into more detail on that if the Deputy so wishes.

Deputy Colm Burke

Penalties are now likely to be imposed.

Chairman

I will allow the Deputy to contribute again in the next round of questions. I know he is anxious to pursue the matter. If members wish to contribute again, they can use the raised hand function and I will take them in the order they signal. Four members already have indicated they wish to contribute again so if anybody else wishes to do so, they should let me know.

I have some questions for Mr. Gleeson. On meat plants, this time last year I had a bit of responsibility in this area in this regard. You have said inspections are still being carried out. How many of those inspections have been carried out to date? How many of those were unannounced? You might keep the answers brief because we are tied to time.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

In the interests of brevity, I can revert to the committee with those figures straight away.

Chairman

That is okay if you do not have them with you. At present, many veterinary staff are directly employed or contracted by the Department. Approximately how many vets or inspectors are in meat plants at present? I do not expect witnesses to have the exact number so a rough one will do.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

There are roughly 250 departmental staff, a mixture of veterinary and technical support staff, in meat plants.

Chairman

It is 250.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

It is around that.

Chairman

There is clearly a huge cost to that. Does the industry make any contribution to that cost?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

It does. There are levies on the industry to cover part of the cost of meat inspections.

Chairman

What percentage of the cost is that?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

It is less than 50%, I think. Again, I can get the precise figures. They are here in my briefing.

Chairman

Is it between 40% and 50%? We are not talking about 10% or 20%.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

No. It is somewhere between 40% and 50%.

Chairman

It is just under 50%

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Let me come back to the committee on that.

Chairman

To follow on a little further with the meat industry, farmers have complained a lot and the Department makes a big effort in trying to police or manage all this, while developing the sector. It is a very important part of the food sector and industry. We do not have a meat or food regulator. Is it the Department's position that we should have a meat regulator? As Secretary General, does Mr. Gleeson believe we should have a meat regulator to make work more efficient and bring more accountability?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

In a way that is a policy question but I will tell the Chair what the position is.

Chairman

I know it is but there is a cost in not having such a regulator.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

We have a competition authority, which deals with competition concerns that are frequently raised in the context of this sector. There is also an unfair trading practices directive, which lists practices in the context of the supply chain that are deemed unfair. Currently, the Department is establishing a statutory instrument to implement that directive. As part of that, it will establish an authority for overseeing the unfair trading practices directive.

When that is done we will open public consultation to meet the programme for Government requirement to establish a national food ombudsman. The public consultation will determine what additional functions people feel should be attributed to a regulator in this area. To implement that aspect, we will need primary legislation. The order of events is that there will be a statutory instrument to implement the unfair trading practices directive, we will establish an authority to oversee that statutory instrument, we will do a public consultation and then primary legislation will add to the functions of the authority and establish a national food regulator.

Chairman

I have some questions about forestry and bioenergy. We had a willow scheme a number of years ago but it did not prove too successful and there were problems with it, as I understand it. We have a major need for biomass and we have had to import it. Edenderry power station is located in my constituency, in north County Offaly. If I drive across that countryside, I can see thousands of acres of marginal land that is partially used or unused. What is being done to try to meet this need?

On the one hand we have farmers farming marginal land, and many of them are former employees of Bord na Móna who are now redundant or employees who are soon to be made redundant. They and the farmers around them have land and unemployment rates are very high. The area has the lowest income per head of population in the State. There is a power station that is going to 100% biomass in a year's time but I am not sure where that biomass will come from. I am not sure anybody else knows that either. It is an issue.

What are we doing in trying to get a biomass scheme in place? I have walked around areas that were bare five years ago and they are now covered in trees that are 15 ft or 20 ft tall. There is much moisture and we have had a couple of warm summers so there has been much growth. Why are we not using that marginal land or areas in which to grow biomass? Many of these areas are connected by rail to the power station, as the Bord na Móna rail network is still in place in many places in north and west Offaly. What could be done?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I am told that in our afforestation schemes, we have a forestry for fibre scheme which is intended to promote wood-based biomass and the development of that is a stated policy goal. We are on the cusp of developing a new forestry strategy and we have much to do to sort out our licensing and all of that. It is part of our policy goal and the scheme is available.

Chairman

There is a scheme up and running, so farmers could get involved now.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Yes, that is my understanding. Again, I am happy to give the committee details if it wants them.

Chairman

I would appreciate Mr. Gleeson sending a briefing note on that. There is a requirement for this and people are asking about it. It just seems a perfect fit at this time, as Mr. Gleeson understands.

We will now return for a second round with some members who have indicated. Deputy Carthy is first.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I want to go back to the interaction with Deputy Munster, in which it was stated that essentially, funding is allocated to the horse and greyhound fund and it is up to the organisations to spend or distribute that as they see fit. Is that correct?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Perhaps I did not explain it adequately. We have oversight arrangements and an oversight agreement with all our State agencies. We meet them several times per year to ensure they are discharging their expenditure responsibilities correctly. It is not true to say that we determine on what they spend money. We try to ensure they have the necessary governance arrangements in place and they spend the funding correctly.

Deputy Matt Carthy

This year the Department allocated an additional €12 million to the horse and greyhound fund, which is a lot of money in the middle of a pandemic. It seems utterly bizarre that this would be done without any idea of how the funds would be distributed.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Perhaps I could ask Dr. Smyth to explain about the oversight agreement and what the priorities are for this year.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Before Dr. Smyth comes in, could I put the specific question to him? The backbone of the horse industry are local breeders the length and breadth of this country. They are the people who provide the benefit to our local economy and to our rural communities. They are the people who are the bedrock of the outstanding successes we have seen in the Grand National and elsewhere, yet they are telling us that the funding, almost €100 million this year, does not make it to them and does not give them the type of support they want because it is distributed through a prize money mechanism that invariably supports a very small number of the top breeders. Good luck to them, but the difficulty is that we are not getting an economic return to the degree that we could. Does the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which actually allocates this money, have any view whatsoever as to whether or not this is the best way of spending this substantial Exchequer investment?

Dr. Kevin Smyth

I think there are two separate issues here. First, the Deputy mentioned Covid. What happened with Covid, for both racing and greyhounds, was the closure of all tracks and courses, so there was immediately a loss of everything. The result was a financial catastrophe for many of these courses and tracks. They were losing money. There was an improvement when the limited racing was allowed back behind closed doors, but in areas such as greyhounds and hospitality there were huge losses, so the funding was justified from that point of view.

The second issue is that of prize money. About 60% of the money for HRI goes into prize money along with entry fees and sponsorship money as well. This is the best way it is seen to distribute money within the industry. I know there are those who would prefer a more egalitarian solution-----

Chairman

There is just under a minute left in this slot.

Deputy Matt Carthy

To clarify, and I am sorry for cutting across Dr. Smyth, contrary to what we heard earlier, the Department does have a view that this is actually the best way of distributing the funding to the sector.

Dr. Kevin Smyth

I will be honest with the Deputy. I do not know what the alternative to it is. The international benchmark is the use of prize money. That is the way of making sure that the industry operates. For example, 70% of horses receive some form of prize money in one shape or another. There is prize money at all the small racecourses as far as down as sixth place, so there is money going into-----

Deputy Matt Carthy

But does Dr. Smyth accept that there is a huge concentration in the division of that prize money-----

Chairman

Time up, Deputy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

-----to a very small number of trainers and that most breeders actually get damn-all? I am referring to the people who do all the work, making our industry the success that it is internationally.

Dr. Kevin Smyth

The largest trainers are obviously the ones who run the largest strings of horses and have the highest level of costs. Therefore, it is necessary for them to be able to get the maximum amount of revenue.

Deputy Matt Carthy

But not from the taxpayer. This is the point. Yes, they are absolutely-----

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Matt Carthy

The Irish taxpayer should not be supporting them at the expense of the smaller breeders who are the backbone of the industry.

Dr. Kevin Smyth

I believe there is a trickle-down effect within the horse racing industry whereby breeders receive money as well. As I said, 70% of horses receive prize money in some shape or form.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General for clarification on the figures and the funding for CCTV, but the important factor is that the IHRB thought it was appropriate to spend money allocated to protect the integrity of the sport on an online portal system instead of CCTV that would detect doping. The Department remained indifferent to this, despite the fact that, as Mr. Gleeson has just said, it has an oversight arrangement and that something like that would be a priority in protecting the integrity of the sport. There was not even a reference from the Department about that.

The other issue I want to raise relates to the fishery harbour centres. Regarding chapter 10, on the financial management and reporting of the fishery harbour centres, it seems that the initial report by the Comptroller and Auditor General was published almost seven years ago almost to the day and that less than half of the recommendations are gauged as having been implemented as of today. There appears to be an issue with the governance of the fishery harbours, with the fishery harbours management committee lacking the terms of reference under which it operates, for example, minutes of meetings held not being prepared and no formal reporting arrangements to the Department's managing board, the audit and risk committee or anyone else. To say there seems to be a general lack of oversight is probably an understatement. Perhaps there is even a lack of interest from the Department in these matters, given how long they have gone on. Can the Department outline why that is the case?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

First, could I come back on the horses for a moment? I cannot accept that the Department does not take an interest in these things. There are statutory functions assigned to the IHRB - operational functions - and they are explicitly in its preserve under statute. The Department plays a very active role in supporting the work of the IHRB. I described some of that earlier and I am happy to provide a note on it. I accept that in the context of the sea-fisheries harbours it has taken too long to implement some of these recommendations, but the substance of many of them have been implemented. The fisheries harbours management committee does now have terms of reference, minutes are kept and there is a formal reporting arrangement to the management board. I accept, however, that it would be far better if this were done long ago and we were not back here again, but I can provide an assurance that all these things will be done very quickly. The remaining issues will be-----

Chairman

The Deputy has one minute.

Deputy Imelda Munster

With respect, given that it is seven years on from the recommendations and the Department is now saying almost seven years to the day later that some have been implemented and others will be in the future, where is the stringent oversight that ensures accountability? Why does there seem to be an absence of that? I have listened to other Deputies raise issues, and the one thing that strikes me all the time is the lack of oversight. It is like a hands-off approach from the Department.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The fisheries harbours are part of the Department; they are not an agency. Looking at the debt issue as an example, the Department completely revamped the debt arrangements in fisheries harbours. The remaining issue, I suppose, is the establishment of a target for reduction, but we have achieved the substance of establishing a new system. That then appears as an outstanding issue whereas we feel we have dealt with the substance of the issue. We have introduced a whole lot of new elements to the accounts and we have introduced valuation of assets. That is in there now from 2019 on. Again, we feel we have dealt with the substance of that finding but we accept that there is a view that maybe that should be an accrual account. We are having that looked at now. An awful lot of work has been done in the seven years to try to address those issues, but equally I accept that the Comptroller and Auditor General has taken a view that they are not all fully implemented. We are going to work with him and get them done very quickly. It will not be another seven years; it will be weeks.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I have one quick question for Mr. Gleeson about the FSPA. To whom is it answerable?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The FSPA is a State body under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine but it is established by statute. The statute-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

No. To whom is it answerable? Is it the Minister?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I am trying to explain.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I do not need Mr. Gleeson to explain. Is it the Minister? I just do not have the time. I am sorry.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Not for its operational matters. It has a statutory independence and the Minister is precluded from interfering in operational matters in the FSPA by legislation.

Deputy Verona Murphy

So, basically, we are almost back to square one. I will quote from paragraph 5.1, under conclusions, on page 44 of the 2018 audit report. It is the third last paragraph.

It states: "Due to a lack of resources dedicated to control Ireland only met one of eight benchmarks to fully inspect landings of bulk pelagic species in 2017 which undermines the ability to ensure an effective control system." That was then, but it must be remembered, no matter who it is, that obligation is on Ireland. Today, we have the chair of the SFPA, Susan Steele, quoted in a newspaper as saying that the "accurate weighing of catches remains the responsibility of [the] industry." Can someone just tell us who is in charge? Mr Gleeson might have to check that but when he finds out I would appreciate it if he would come back to me.

We cannot be exposed by an organ of the State, another entity over which nobody seems to have control, to any form of penalty, whether it is €40 million withheld or €40 million in fines or, more importantly, a reduction to the current miserable quotas we have for the fishermen of Ireland, who have lost about 15% through the Brexit process. I make the point that agencies are out of control and the State seems to be absolving itself of responsibility. Does Mr. Gleeson believe the SFPA is a functional organisation?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

Let me deal with some of those questions. First of all-----

Deputy Verona Murphy

They are not questions. I am really just asking for a "Yes" or "No". Does Mr. Gleeson believe the SFPA is functional?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

It is not a yes-no answer. Can I address the questions? First of all, the obligation for regulatory compliance rests with people in the fishing sector.

Deputy Verona Murphy

How many prosecutions have been successful if they are not compliant?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

The SFPA's obligation is to exercise control over that and do its checks. The Commission has identified significant issues with that and the Department has put significant resources into the SFPA and built its capability over the last three years. Maybe Dr. Beamish has-----

Chairman

The Deputy has just under a minute left.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I will make the point about the Department investing money because it is my time. This is the Committee of the Public Accounts and we are here to make sure that there is value for money for the public coffers. When Mr. Gleeson says the Department has invested significant money in the SFPA, I appreciate that is what he thinks. However, from the public purse perspective, what we expect is a result. It seems that the only result we have got here is that we have exposed ourselves, after investing huge amounts of money, to either a reduction in our quotas and no prosecutions, which proves what the Commission stated today. Clearly, the SFPA is not doing its job. I will now move on. I just want to ask a question-----

Chairman

The Deputy's time is up.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I have one quick question. Has the process of deer culling been suspended this year because of Covid?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

What is the context?

Deputy Verona Murphy

The eradication of TB.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I will ask Mr. Forde to come in.

Chairman

Briefly, please.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I think Mr. Forde's link is frozen. If he cannot come back in, I will not hold up the Chair.

Chairman

We will ask Mr. Forde to come back with an answer in writing. Deputy Catherine Murphy has four minutes.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Regarding prosecutions undertaken by the special investigations unit, does Mr. Gleeson have a figure for the number of cases that have been taken over the last five years? Obviously, some will be successful and some will not. Are there also figures for the cases that might have been withdrawn? A very high-profile case was withdrawn on 29 January last year, Department of Agriculture v. Brian Wright. Did the Department calculate the cost of the investigation up to the point it was withdrawn? It was on the way into the court when it was withdrawn and had a fairly big animal welfare backstory. It was a very surprising case. A letter was sent to the Department from a Minister and it was withdrawn after that. Can Mr. Gleeson tell us what the rationale was for withdrawing that case? What was the cost of the work to bring that case to the point where it went to court?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I will not discuss an individual case but I will be as helpful and honest as I can. I will give the Deputy information on the number of prosecutions subsequent to this meeting. The Department has discretion as to whether to proceed with a prosecution. Generally speaking, these decisions are made by people involved in the case. It might be argued that the Department should dispense with its discretion in all of these cases. However, for example, sometimes animal welfare cases are also human welfare cases. There are sometimes complex situations locally, which people are aware of, and sometimes people try to work with the families of people involved in these cases to try to resolve the animal welfare issue. Sometimes the priority in cases like this is to resolve the animal welfare issue.

Regarding that letter, it came to my office. I did not see it and no Minister in the Department saw it. It was not a letter from a Minister, although there is a perception out there that it was. I am not saying the Deputy is suggesting that. It was a letter addressed by family members to the office of a Minister, which was just passed on to us without any comment or representation whatsoever. I want to be clear about that. There was no representation whatsoever made in relation to that case. However, a letter did come from family members. Maybe the Deputy feels that is not a satisfactory answer but I suppose-----

Chairman

The Deputy has one minute left.

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

My view is that there is a degree of discretion required from the Department and sometimes it is good public service to try to engage with people in difficult circumstances, even where egregious offences have been committed. It is a complicated world but that is my strong view.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

When the Department withdraws cases, or even when there are successful prosecutions or it is decided not to prosecute, is the cost calculated? Is there an average cost for taking a prosecution?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

I am not sure that we do. One of the lessons to be learned from this, and other cases, is that we need to have a more systematic approach to making these determinations. That is being worked on at the moment. If we do not do so, we leave our officers who make these decisions, with the best of intentions, exposed. I accept that we need a more systematic approach and that is being developed as we speak, in part as a result of the lessons learned from some of these cases.

Chairman

I call Deputy Colm Burke who has four minutes.

Deputy Colm Burke

I thank the witnesses for their replies to the earlier questions. I have two quick questions on different issues. On the SFPA, the PwC report concluded that the SFPA was not working effectively and required urgent attention. That was one report. There was a report from Deloitte in 2020 as well. What action will the Department take in dealing with all the concerns that have been raised? Two independent reports have been produced which have raised concerns.

Regarding the whole TB testing issue, I note that as far back as 1994 the Department was before the Committee of Public Accounts. Now, 27 years later, the committee is discussing the same issues it discussed then. Professor Simon Moore from University College Dublin, UCD, stated that there were three fundamental areas that require additional focus: adequately addressing TB risk from wildlife; additional risk-based cattle controls; and programme governance and financing. The Minister has now set a target of 2030 for the elimination of TB.

What change in policy has occurred to ensure those three items can be focused and delivered on within that three-year timeframe?

Mr. Brendan Gleeson

On the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the PwC report, we have appointed an advisory committee to advise the authority on the implementation of that report. We have provided additional resource and capability. The Department is working with the authority to address those difficult and complex issues.

On TB testing, the Deputy is right that there was a Committee of Public Accounts report in 1994. It bears reading because there are many interesting points in it. I will ask Mr. Colm Forde to come in on that.

Mr. Colm Forde

I apologise as my system crashed when I was addressing the deer question.

The Committee of Public Accounts addressed this issue in 1994. As the Secretary General stated earlier in his presentation, we launched a new TB strategy in January of this year. We have a revised governance structure filled with stakeholders to ensure we take on board their views.

Simon Moore highlighted the different policies of the strategy. We seek to work in partnership. We have our forum with three working groups, namely, scientific, financial and implementation. We are seeking to prevent spread from herds with a high risk of recurrence. We have enhanced actions to clear infection from extended breakdown herds. We are addressing the risk posed by inconclusive animals. A new policy was launched on that last week. We have action plans for areas with heightened levels of TB. This has been quite successful in the Monaghan-Cavan area. We are aligning with the incoming EU animal health law. From the wildlife perspective, we have specific actions to address the risks posed by badgers. We are also working with stakeholders in looking at any potential risks with the deer population.

Deputy Colm Burke

Are there targets for each year over the next ten years? Sometimes one can have a good year with a reduction in cases where TB has been identified but then the following year it could be back. Are clear targets set for each year?

Mr. Colm Forde

With a disease like TB, there can be peaks and troughs and it might not follow a straight line. We are committed to reaching that target by 2030. We will work with stakeholders to gradually strengthen the programme if we are not seeing the results we want.

Chairman

On CCTV cameras at racetracks, we have dealt with this in the past and some of it was outlined here again today. Part of the €9 million allocated was to be used for cameras. The Comptroller and Auditor General said it would come to €1 million. We know from Horse Racing Ireland and other inquiries that up to 26 racecourses need the cameras. They have been erected in one and there are plans to put them up in another. This is three years after the money was allocated.

At a previous meeting, we heard that the cost of putting CCTV cameras in the stable yards of each racecourse would come to €25,000. By my calculations, that would take €625,000. Basically, €0.6 million would do this. The money is dished out by the Department. Who is responsible? What has the Department done about the failure over the past three years to erect a simple thing? I see neighbours and small businesses putting up CCTV cameras in the matter of a couple of days. Why can we not get CCTV cameras erected at racecourses to prevent interference with and the doping of horses? We have a valuable industry and one we want to protect. We want the highest standards and a high reputation. However, one can get a low reputation quickly, a point we all appreciate.

What has the Department done? It is farcical that three years after the moneys were allocated, only one course has CCTV with plans for only one more. Why are they not installed at the 26 racecourses to make sure there is no doping or interference with animals before or after race meetings?

Dr. Kevin Smyth

The tender is in place. The cost is €20,000 per racetrack. With 25 racetracks, that will come to €500,000.

Chairman

It is less than my calculation.

Dr. Kevin Smyth

Yes.

Chairman

Why have we not got them installed? What has the Department done about this?

Dr. Kevin Smyth

Matters were prioritised. The €60,000 put in place for the three racecourses was used for other things by the IHRB. The argument from the committee has been accepted about the need to put in place the CCTV cameras. They will be put in place by the end of the year at the cost of €500,000.

Chairman

We have tried to get a handle on this before. Ultimately it comes through the Department. Will the Department come back to the committee within a month on what progress has been made? Where progress has not been made, will the Department explain what action it will take to ensure this happens?

We have the IHRB and HRI but the buck stops with the Department. The moneys are voted by the Oireachtas in good faith to ensure this is a good industry. I hope progress has been made since we last met HRI. Where progress has not been made, what actions did senior staff and the Secretary General take to get on top of this? Can we have that report from Dr. Smyth in four weeks' time?

Dr. Kevin Smyth

Yes. I believe action is being taken.

Chairman

That is appreciated.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and for the information they provided across the wide range of work that the Department oversees. It has a broad remit with many responsibilities. I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff for attending and assisting the meeting.

Is it agreed the clerk will seek any follow-up information and carry out any agreed actions arising from today's meeting? Agreed. Is it agreed we note and publish the opening statements and briefings provided for today's meeting? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 8.08 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 21 April 2021.