Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Jun 2015

Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll(Secretary General, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine) called and examined.

Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery that they should turn off their mobile phones. The mobiles interfere with the sound quality and transmission of the meeting.

I advise witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 163 that the committee shall also 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 policy or policies.

I welcome Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I note it is his first appearance before the committee. I wish him well in his term as Secretary General. I ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I thank the Chairman for those good wishes. I am accompanied today by a number of officials. On my right, I have: Ms Kay Ryan, principal officer; Mr. Martin Blake, chief veterinary officer; Mr. Pat Flanagan, senior inspector; on my left, Mr. Heber McMahon, principal officer and Dr. Cecil Beamish, assistant secretary; and behind me are Mr. Brendan Gleeson, assistant secretary; Mr. Richard Healy, director; and Mr. Martin Crowley, assistant principal.

The Chief State Solicitor's office is represented.

Ms Maria Browne

I am Maria Browne, assistant chief State solicitor. I am accompanied by Mr. Brian Cox, principal legal executive.

I ask the Comptroller and Auditor General to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The appropriation account for the Agriculture, Food and the Marine Vote shows gross expenditure of €1.2 billion was incurred in 2013. In addition, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the accredited paying agency for EU direct payments which amounted to €1.4 billion in 2013. These are accounted for separately from the Vote. The Vote expenditure in 2013 was spread across four major expenditure programmes: €327 million, or 27% of the total, was spent under the agrifood policy, development and trade programme; €213 million, or 18%, was spent on the programme for food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health; €412 million, or 34%, was spent on rural economy, environment and structural changes measures; and €254 million, or 21%, was spent on schemes of direct payments to farmers. Note 3 to the appropriation account provides further detail on the spending under each of the programmes.

Net expenditure under the Vote was around €36 million less than provided for in the estimate for 2013. With the agreement of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, €16.8 million in unspent capital allocations under the rural economy, environment and structural changes programme was carried over to 2014. The remainder of the surplus for the year, totalling €19.4 million, was liable for surrender to the Exchequer.

The Department provides substantial funding each year for a number of public bodies that operate under its aegis. These include: Teagasc, An Bord Bia, the Marine Institute, Horse Racing Ireland and Bord na gCon. The Department is also directly responsible for management of the six statutorily-designated fishery harbour centres. In the audit certificate for the Vote, I have drawn attention to the statement on internal financial control and the disclosure by the Accounting Officer that the Department procured goods and services under 19 contracts, to a value of just under €5 million, that were not compliant with all relevant procurement guidelines.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will briefly address some aspects of the Department's work in 2013 and then say something about the investigations division of the Department, as the committee has requested. I will skip the first paragraph of my written submission as the Comptroller and Auditor General has just gone through the figures it sets out.

In 2013, having assumed the Presidency of the EU in January, Ireland successfully negotiated political agreement on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. Leading these successful negotiations involved a huge effort within the Department in 2013 but the non-staff cost to the Department's Vote of the Presidency was only €827,000. The final shape of CAP focused on three key themes: sustainability, generational renewal on farms and greater market orientation. The agreement also includes a range of flexibilities that allow member states to pursue targeted policies suited to their individual circumstances. The end of milk and sugar quotas was confirmed and we largely protected our very large EU budget transfers on agriculture. The new direct payment and rural development programme schemes will be of considerable benefit to Irish farmers, the agrifood industry, the environment and exports, and will provide an important basis for the further sustainable development of the agriculture sector. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy was also secured under the Irish Presidency and will allow for the rebuilding of fish stocks in European waters. It will also reduce and eliminate discards where possible and aims to rebuild stocks to maximum sustainable yield. The reforms agreed will govern the nature and operation of Irish and EU fisheries for the foreseeable future and are designed to usher in a new era of more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable fishing across EU waters.

During 2013, the Department continued to operate a wide range of schemes and initiatives which were of direct benefit to farmers and which also contributed to the development of an increasingly vibrant agricultural sector. The sum of €1.6 billion was paid to farmers in 2013 under the single payment, disadvantaged areas scheme and agri-environmental schemes. The rural development, or CAP Pillar 2, payments are co-funded and made through expenditure largely through programme C of the Vote. CAP Pillar 1 payments, such as the single farm payment, are fully EU funded and do not go through the Vote but are reported on in section 6.1 of the appropriation account.

At the beginning of 2013, the Department, working in close co-operation with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, reacted swiftly to the equine DNA and mislabelling of beef issue. FSAI survey results produced evidence of the presence of equine DNA at a high level in frozen beef burgers. On receipt of the information from the FSAI, the Department immediately commenced an investigation to determine the source of the equine products focusing on the individual ingredients used in manufacture. A number of these ingredients were imported into the State. On the initiative of the Irish Presidency, EU Ministers agreed a DNA testing protocol and intensive testing of horses for phenylbutazone, or bute, across the EU. The EU Commission committed to pursue an action plan over the remainder of 2013 and into 2014 which included specific actions and measures on fighting food fraud, testing programmes, horse passports, official controls and origin labelling. It was because of the vigilance of Ireland’s robust testing and control regime that what became a pan-European problem was exposed. The robustness and transparency of our controls were again shown recently when a BSE case was identified through the Department's ongoing surveillance system, this time on fallen animals. Overall the cost of the horse meat investigation was €183,000, covering both the costs of the DNA testing and the bute testing of horses. The figure does not include staff costs.

At the beginning of 2013, bad weather created major difficulties for some farmers. The fodder transport scheme was introduced and was designed to reduce the cost to farmers of imported forage from outside the island of Ireland. The aid substantially covered the cost of transport into the country, thus reducing the cost to farmers of a bale of hay by approximately one third. While the scheme operated through co-operatives, marts and other approved agencies, the actual beneficiaries were over 18,000 farmers who needed urgent supplies of feed. Total costs associated with the scheme amount to some €2.8 million.

I turn now to the SIU issue. The protection of food safety and animal health is a key objective of the Department. This is a vitally important task in itself as it potentially impacts on the health of our whole population and it is also fundamental to the development of the agrifood sector. It is, therefore, no accident that over half of our staff, which is 1,600 people, are employed in the food safety, animal and plant health pillar of the Department as shown in the Revised Estimates. The agrifood sector employs over 170,000 people and last year produced record exports of over €10.5 billion. It is our most important industrial sector and is admired and respected internationally, not least in the over 170 countries to which we export our food and beverages. It is also a sector that offers the strong prospect of further economic and employment growth in the years ahead. This hugely important and successful industry is extremely susceptible to any breaches of our high food safety and animal health standards. Our international reputation for high standards and transparency in this area is the key platform for our food exports. It is therefore essential that the Department has a well-managed capacity to investigate potential breaches of food safety and animal health legislation and, indeed, potential instances of food fraud. The investigations division, which incorporates the former special investigations unit, SIU, is one element in the Department's capacity to deal with this challenge.

The SIU was set up in the mid-1980s to provide specialist officers within the Department to investigate and deal with serious problems relating to use of illegal substances, such as angel dust, in animal production. Apart from the risk to human health, the abuse of illegal growth promoters was posing a huge risk to the reputation of the Irish agrifood industry and needed to be addressed urgently. This particular problem was dealt with quickly and successfully following a series of convictions. The scope of the unit was subsequently extended to include legislation relating to TB and brucellosis, where very significant Exchequer funds were being spent, and other animal health and animal welfare legislation. Its remit also extended to some investigations into potential fraud in relation to national and EU funds. Apart from its success in dealing with the use of illegal growth hormones, the work of the SIU has made a significant contribution to the huge progress which we have seen over the past ten years in disease eradication, particularly in the case of brucellosis, which has now been eradicated, and BSE which, despite the recent case, has been controlled. There has also been very considerable progress in the eradication of bovine TB, the incidence of which has been reduced to a record low level in the last number of years. The progress achieved in eradicating these diseases has resulted in very significant savings to the national Exchequer. For example, the cost, excluding staff costs, of implementing disease eradication schemes in the areas of bovine TB, brucellosis, BSE and scrapie amounted to €180 million in 2002 but had fallen to €38 million in 2014. The SIU has also played important roles in dealing with the foot and mouth, dioxin and horsemeat issues in the last 15 years.

The inspections and investigations carried out by the SIU represent only a very small proportion of the inspections conducted by the Department. Staff of the Department carried out over 41,000 inspections in 2014. Over the past five years, the SIU or investigations division conducted some 607 investigations, of which only 58, or less than 10%, actually proceeded to prosecution.

However, where prosecutions were taken, the success rate has been very high - 90% in that period.

The payroll and travel and subsistence cost of the investigations division are relatively small and have reduced by almost 20% since 2008 - down from €1.24 million in 2008 to €964,000 in 2013 - mainly due to reduced staff numbers. The legal costs incurred by the State in prosecuting cases arising from investigations by the SIU and by the Department generally are borne by the CSSO. However, where the prosecution is unsuccessful and the costs incurred by the defendants are awarded by the court against the Department, these costs are borne by the Department, not the CSSO. There were six such cases in the period 2006-2014 and the legal costs awarded by the courts against the State in these cases amounted to €154,000. However, in cases successfully prosecuted by the State, following investigations division investigations, during the same period, legal costs awarded by the courts to the State amounted to €201,000 and my Department was awarded €52,000 in expenses. In addition, fines amounting to €360,000 were imposed on defendants. The committee has provided me with a report of a meeting held recently with seven people who made various allegations in relation to investigations division. Unfortunately, a great deal of the information provided to the committee at that meeting was untrue and I will be happy to provide whatever additional information members need on these matters to allow them to make an informed assessment.

The Department has systems in place where people may bring complaints or appeals. Generally these have not been availed of by the people whom members met. I am also aware of serious allegations made against staff of the Department, which have been dismissed by the courts as having no substance, yet they continue to be made in the media and elsewhere. I would like to make a few comments in this context.

First, a code of practice relating to the operations of the SIU, which codified previously existing guidelines, has been in place since February 2004. Among other things, this provided for complaints to be dealt with through line management and, if necessary, subsequently through the quality service unit, which is a completely separate unit of the Department, with a separate line of management. Complainants also have recourse to third party bodies such as the Office of the Ombudsman and, if necessary, the courts.

Second, the powers of officers in the SIU were the same as other authorised officials of the Department, contrary to what the committee was told. They had somewhat similar powers to the Garda, with the important exceptions that they did not have powers of arrest and their powers are restricted to a very specific range of legislation. This remains true today in relation to our investigations division and all other authorised officers of the Department.

Third, the investigative procedures adopted by the SIU complied with the standard requirements in regard to the taking and presentation of evidence and the rights of those being investigated. They followed the same protocols as were used for criminal investigation carried out by the Garda and on many occasions investigations were carried out jointly with the Garda Síochána

Decisions on whether a prosecution was warranted were made in consultation with the relevant division of the Department, the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and, where appropriate, the Director of Public Prosecutions. The SIU investigated cases and, where appropriate, prepared files for prosecution. It did not make the final decision to prosecute or to impose any administrative penalty.

Finally, the division works closely with many other State regulatory and enforcement bodies, including the Garda Síochána, the State Laboratory, the Revenue Commissioners, the Irish Medicines Board-HPRA, the State Forensic Laboratory, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and the various operational arms of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine itself. It also works closely with the European Veterinary Enforcement Officers group and with colleagues from DARD Northern Ireland and the PSNI.

The Minister, Deputy Coveney, announced last September that a new investigations division would be established in the Department. The Minister acknowledged the dedication and commitment of the staff who have carried out investigations in sometimes very challenging circumstance.

The intention with the new arrangement was to bring all of the Department’s investigation capability into one division. This has not yet been fully realised due to staffing constraints. The investigations division includes the functions previously undertaken by the SIU.

The investigations division reports to a steering group chaired by the Assistant Secretary General for corporate affairs and including senior staff from a numbers of areas of the Department. It includes the chief veterinary officer, another Assistant Secretary General, and the heads of legal services, internal audit and HR divisions. This group reviews all new cases, determines whether the matter should be referred back to the relevant line division, investigated by investigation division or referred to an external agency, such as the Garda Síochána. The steering group oversees the conduct of investigations and, in conjunction with the head of the division, determines whether the submission of cases for prosecution is warranted. A new code of practice for the division is currently being prepared by the steering committee.

The intention is that the new division will consist of a core group of full-time staff, with a range of skills and expertise, augmented as required by staff from other areas of the Department on temporary assignment on individual cases. The moratorium on recruitment has meant that it has not been possible to date to implement this aspect of the new arrangements but it is hoped that some progress can be made in the near future in the light of a new and possibly more flexible system of staffing controls.

We aspire to high standards throughout our Department, and this reaches to all corners of our operation, including our various inspection and investigation systems. Aspiring to excellence in this case certainly means continuing to give absolute priority to protecting the safety of our food and being unrelenting in pursuit of those who threaten the future of our most important industry and the health of our people. It also means full adherence to the Civil Service code of behaviour, ensuring proper and proportionate procedures and committing enthusiastically to change.

I am happy to deal with any questions or comments members of the committee may have.

Before I call Deputy Connaughton, I seek clarification on a point made in your opening statement. You said: "Unfortunately a great deal of the information provided to the committee at that meeting was untrue". This would suggest that the Committee of Public Accounts was deliberately misled or that we were told lies. You also said you would provide whatever additional information we need on these matters. Does that mean you will provide that information today, should we ask for it or will you provide it later?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am prepared to answer any questions today with the assistance of my colleagues. Equally, I would be happy to provide subsequent information.

You did not provide a written response other than make that comment to the general statements made by other individuals before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The report of the meeting contains a significant range of issues. I am happy to provide the committee with point-by-point rebuttals in writing after the meeting but I am also happy to discuss them today. A range of issues was raised in those statements. It was suggested, for example-----

I will not go into that now but will you provide the committee, in a timely fashion, with a point-by-point rebuttal?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Absolutely.

We can then look at it. Should members wish to raise any aspect of this today, they can do so. Thank you for that clarification.

May we publish your opening statement?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, Chairman.

I welcome Mr. O'Driscoll and his officials. Last week we had the issue of the suspected BSE case. What is the update on that situation?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As the Deputy may know, the suspected BSE case emerged through our surveillance systems on fallen animals. An animal died on farm. We have a system where we assist with financial aid to remove animals over 48 months of age and then we sample the animals to see if there are any traces of BSE or other diseases. In this particular case, BSE was found in one animal. Tests have been carried out to confirm that and at present we are awaiting two further confirmatory tests. That full epidemiological investigation is underway to determine both whether other animals that are related to that animal have it, and potential causes and so on. That investigation will probably take some time. It is ongoing.

Is it a confirmed case of BSE?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, the initial tests have shown it to be a case of BSE. There are two further confirmatory tests that we are awaiting the final results. These tests take some time. There are cultures that have to be done. It is not a simple matter.

It was reported that this animal had three offspring. Has the Department been able to track those three animals?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have tracked down all of the offspring of the animal as well as other animals that would have been fed with it and so on, its cohort.

Have they all been tested at this stage?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have them all under control. They will be tested. To test for BSE, one has to kill the animal. It is not something that one can establish from a blood test or something like that.

I will now turn to the very staunch defence by Mr. O'Driscoll of statements that were made to the committee some six weeks ago. I will not speak for other members but I found what I heard at that meeting quite shocking.

I come from a farming background and that is why some of the material I have heard is hard to fathom or take in. Let us go back to the start. How many people are in the special investigations unit? How many people are on that team?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There are eight. It has decreased in recent years because of staffing restrictions. There are eight in our unit but if one wants comparisons, there are 17 in the Northern Ireland unit. I know comparisons have been made with the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners and their approaches as well. The investigation unit of the Department of Social Protection consists of staff of the Department and gardaí, and there are 111 people involved. The investigations and prosecutions division of the Revenue Commissioners has 150 people. Our unit is small.

The context I set out in the opening statement is important in the sense that the unit is only one element. It is difficult to separate the investigations division from the rest of our processes around inspections, controls and so on. A great many of our staff are involved in this. I mentioned that in the Revised Estimates there are the staff numbers for each of the four programmes. Under the animal health, food safety and plant health programme we identify 1,600 staff as being involved. That includes a huge swathe of our inspection staff, veterinary staff, many of our agricultural officers and the administrative staff who work with them. Members should see the eight staff in the SIU, or investigations division as it is now called, in that context.

Have those eight people changed much over the years?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

When the process was changed, we appointed a head of division and established a steering committee.

What about before the change?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There has been some change in staff numbers. It is true that some of the staff have been there a long time. This is a feature of the veterinary staff of the Department. For a variety of reasons, including specialist expertise and geographic location, our veterinary staff are scattered throughout the country in individual locations. This makes rotation of staff in areas a little more challenging on the veterinary side. Furthermore, in the case of the investigations division, the issue of corporate memory arises and is particularly acute. Cases take a long time to investigate, and, especially if they go to prosecution, to come to court. In fact, delays in this area are among the criticisms made of the State, with some justification. Changing staff can be challenging in that respect.

Nevertheless, the Department has a mobility policy in respect of its staff and it is a question of rolling that out. There are new staffing arrangements. Within the past two weeks we have got what is termed "delegated sanction" from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of our staffing. I can go into what that means if the committee wishes, but basically it promises a somewhat more flexible arrangement than the existing or previous scenario with a moratorium on staff recruitment. Obviously, a moratorium on staff recruitment makes any mobility of staff doubly difficult. We need to bring people in and double up staff in some of more the complex areas rather than simply moving someone out and moving someone else in on the same day.

Let us consider those eight people. Mr. O'Driscoll made the point that a good deal of memory has been built up and it is a historical thing. One of the issues we have heard about is to the effect that this group is out of control, that it is a small group of people who work among themselves, that they are answerable to no one and that they are left on their own to do their own business. This adds to the feeling that these people have been there for a long time, they have a grudge against someone at this stage and that they can continue to work in any way they see fit.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, I have seen those allegations. No unit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is out of control or operates on its own. We are a chain of command, like every Department. I am the Secretary General. I have my Assistant Secretaries and chief veterinary officers reporting to me. These people work within a chain of command.

I set out in my opening statement how significantly misleading information has been given to the committee about the powers of the SIU and how it operates. For example, the impression is given that the SIU makes a decision to prosecute and, therefore, is in a position to, as it were, go after people, but it does not make that decision on its own. This is made clear in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor statement to the Committee of Public Accounts. In the case of prosecutions generally what happens is that a file goes to the CSSO or the Director of Public Prosecutions, in which case it is the DPP who makes the decision to prosecute. If it goes to the CSSO, counsel is appointed by the Attorney General. The counsel examines the case and recommends whether it is fit for prosecution.

It has also been suggested to the committee that the unit has special powers, far beyond what everyone else has. This is completely untrue. Those involved have the same powers as all authorised officers in the Department in respect of the legislation for which the Department is responsible, no more and no less. They are significant powers. We are protecting food safety and animal health. They include powers of search and so on. That is why I said in my statement they are similar to the Garda but not as extensive - they cannot arrest people. They cannot search a house without getting a search warrant, except in a very rare circumstance.

There would be a major difference between an inspector coming onto a farm in a case of land eligibility issues as opposed to a person from the SIU.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The subject matter would be different.

It is completely different.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The subject matter would be different. Land eligibility is an important issue. One of the reasons we are facing a potential disallowance - a large one - is because of land eligibility issues. The committee may raise this with me at some point. The initial estimate from the Commission was over €180 million. Therefore, it is a very important issue.

With land eligibility, the issue is mapping or something like that. If members of the SIU arrive at the door of the farmer, they are basically suggesting they think the farmer is up to something he should not be up to.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is true that if the SIU or investigations division is deployed, it means a decision has been made to conduct an investigation.

How does that start?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Typically, an issue will emerge. In one of the cases referred to, a sample taken from a pig in a factory was found to contain a banned substance, a carcinogen. That triggered a question and the need for an investigation. Typically, that is the type of case that would be referred to investigations division.

In that case, did the SIU arrive out on the basis of that result straightaway or was there a step in between that we have not heard about?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. That would have been informed into the SIU. Under the system we now have in place, with the steering committee and the investigations division, a case would come into the steering committee, unless it was very urgent. Some things might need immediate action. For example, sometimes the Garda might approach us, in which case we need to react on the spot and quite quickly. The head of division would do that and subsequently refer the case to the steering committee.

One of the important changes we have introduced is that the steering committee takes on two core functions. One is to decide what should be investigated by the investigations division, as opposed to other line divisions of the Department. I will come back to this in a moment. The second function is to make a decision about when something should go to prosecution. In the case of a question of whether something should be done by a line division of the Department, investigations are also conducted by our local veterinary structures. This happens all the time. One particular case has received a good deal of publicity. It is relatively recent and is, therefore, in my mind. However, it has nothing to do with the SIU or investigations division. It was conducted by our district veterinary office staff and regional veterinary office staff. They can conduct investigations as well.

The reason the investigations division was set up originally related to angel dust. One of key motivating factors was the recognition that our staff did not generally have the kind of skills needed to ensure, for example, a good chain of evidence and the type of things that gardaí are meticulous about and have experience of. An officer might take a sample. If the case is going to end up in court, not alone does he have to take the sample in the right way and test it in the right way and so on but there must be a meticulous chain of evidence. He must know where the sample was at every moment and so on. He would also need to know clearly what his powers of search are and so on. In the particular circumstances around the angel dust scare, the view was that it would be useful to establish a division that had particular technical expertise in the veterinary area as well as expertise in gathering evidence and working with the Garda.

A number of the cases the committee heard about involved the illegal movement of animals. If one hears of somebody moving animals in a way that is not in accordance with the rules I can understand that to the layman in particular it may not sound that serious, but our animal identification and movement system is the heart and soul of our controls of animal health. Illegal animal movements were at the heart of some of the most costly major outbreaks of disease this country has seen. Animal identification and movement controls are absolutely central to all of this. Some of the cases are connected with a real concern that existed at one point about a good deal of breaching of that going on, so much so that my predecessor's predecessor took the unusual step of writing to the Chief State Solicitor's office, CSSO, identifying this as a significant concern and stating we would need to take strong action in the area to protect our animal identification and movement systems. Some of the cases the committee has heard of directly related to this era. It is some time ago now, and there has been quite a bit of water under the bridge since then.

I stand to be corrected, but none of the cases we sent on had to do with angel dust.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is what I am saying.

The examples we submitted had nothing to do with angel dust.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

They did not have to do with angel dust, but they did have to do with the illegal use of growth promoters which is what angel dust was, and the illegal use of antibiotics which is a very important issue. A list of strategic risks facing the country was released recently by the Government. I believe there are approximately 20. One of them is a food safety breakdown. One, identified on its own as a major risk facing the country, is antimicrobial resistance, which is about antibiotics and their overuse in human health and also the illegal use of antibiotics in foodstuffs. This is a major global concern because it creates antimicrobial resistance in human beings. Angel dust was a growth promoter. Other growth promoters were involved in the cases mentioned and so were antibiotics, giving rise to the risk of antimicrobial resistance.

As I said, I come from a farming background. After a TB test, the vet returns after four days. The animal may have a high reading and the lumps are there. My experience of this a number of years ago was the vet said there was a problem and within a couple of days somebody came to destroy the animal. The story we got in some of these cases was this procedure was not followed and there was a heavy-handed approach with lads piling in on top of cattle and farms within hours. I am trying to distinguish between what the witnesses were told and how the process started. What I have just explained happens on many farms throughout the country because of TB and brucellosis. Unfortunately, it is a daily occurrence. At what point did the Department make the decision in one or two of these cases that there was much more going on and that it had to get in much quicker?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is why I mentioned the letter from one of my predecessors to the CSSO, which was around the time of these cases. I think it preceded them slightly. We had a genuine worry about our animal identification and movement systems being circumvented. We acted on this. We wrote to the CSSO and said we would move to prosecutions in the area and we alerted the CSSO to the need for legal support for this. The Deputy is right. We identified there was a significant problem in the area and we had to move to solve it. Much of this subsequently centred on the activities of one company and people and farmers associated with it. Successful prosecutions were brought against the company and a range of farmers.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will get to the individual if the Deputy likes. Successful prosecutions were brought against the company and several farmers relating to the issue of movement, thanks to the work of the special investigations unit, SIU, as it then was. In the case of one individual who was centrally involved, he had a 50% share as I understand it and was director of the company involved. The company was successfully prosecuted on five counts, so he was, in that sense, convicted. In his individual cases, he took a long series of legal challenges against the legal basis on which he was charged and a series of other technical legal challenges over a long period of time. This very substantially delayed the cases against him. As the Deputy knows, it finally became the subject of a settlement which I would be happy to-----

I know. Even outside the case, and I do not want to get into individual cases if I can help it, the point I am trying to make is when there is obviously a body of evidence building up and the Department makes a decision, it must be 100% certain it has it right.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

How come many of the cases we had were thrown out of court?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is very interesting because, as I said, we have a 90% success rate with convictions. The particular group of cases the committee has is very interesting.

Maybe they make up the 10%.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

They do not. There were many successful prosecutions in the cases that came before the committee.

They then got struck out.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

A lot of them were convicted.

Were they not thrown out on appeal?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. Let me talk about the appeal that we did not defend. In the case of one of the individuals who appeared before the committee, he was convicted of a very serious offence. Again, we are speaking about the use of illegal products, in this case in pigs. Pigmeat is very widely eaten in this country and everybody has sausages and rashers for breakfast. We are talking about illegal products, a carcinogenic and a genotoxic. We are talking about a product that the EU decided was a cancer-causing agent. We are talking about something that was genotoxic. Thalidomide was genotoxic. This is serious stuff. Let us be very clear about this. This is why I am adamant on certain issues. In this particular case, he was charged and convicted. To be perfectly honest, it was an open and shut case. It went to appeal and we did not defend the appeal. The reason we did not defend the appeal has nothing to do with the substance of the case. It was because in the intervening period the Supreme Court had decided the Minister did not have the right under the legislation to make and amend regulations. It was a legal point. Therefore, the legal basis on which the conviction had been secured no longer existed. We could not defend the appeal. I want to make it very clear the decision had nothing to do with the substance of the case. When the substance of the case was tried in court he was found guilty.

While we are on this case, the most disturbing part of the story we heard was the issue of the destruction of the pigs, and that the bolt gun was used at the start but it stopped working and we were informed a Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine official handed the farmer a lump hammer and told him to finish the job. Did that happen?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No.

How come there is a video of it then?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There is not. I looked at the video yesterday.

Who was the official we were told was in the DVD?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is just completely untrue. The committee was again told an absolute untruth and lots of them. I will speak about the case, which is particularly disturbing, and I can understand that anybody looking at the video would be disturbed. Most lay people would never have seen animals slaughtered. I have in my career from time to time. It is never a pleasant experience, to be frank. It is certainly particularly difficult for somebody who is not used to it.

We had found that the farmer had used a carcinogenic and genotoxic product on the pigs. He agreed, in a statement made under caution, that he had done so. This was not contested. The animals had to be taken out of the food chain. They could not possibly be put into the food chain so they had to be taken out of it.

I was out of the chain on all of these issues. However, I have gone back over the papers on this as best I can. The Department wrote to the individual concerned and told him that the animals had to be taken out of the food chain and should be slaughtered in an approved slaughter plant. The farmer concerned then took actions in the High Court and the Supreme Court to try to overturn our decisions. He lost and then approached us - I have the letter, which I have read - saying that he wished to carry out the slaughter on the farm using a humane killer, a captive bolt gun, and that he had the skills to do this. We then assessed him as best we could, that is to say, some of our vets visited the farm and observed him killing pigs. There were, I believe, about 4,000 pigs on the farm. I should say that on a farm of that size the farmer would be well used to killing pigs. It is normal practice if there is a sick pig or whatever that a farmer will kill it. Therefore, one would expect him to be reasonably expert in using a bolt gun of this sort. The farmer was assessed by our staff and found to be very capable of doing the job, both physically and mentally, as much as our staff could observe the mental issue. He certainly had the expertise and certainly carried out the task correctly when observed.

We then moved to agree to the farmer doing it and we supervised as much of the slaughter as it was possible for us to do at the time. My understanding is that we directly supervised about 25% of the slaughter. During that time, he carried out the work meticulously. In fact, our assessment from staff was that he achieved, if one likes, a hit rate on the animals, that is to say, immediate slaughter with the first shot, of between 98% and 99%, which is extremely high. This is similar, as I understand it, to what would have been achieved in approved slaughter plants at the time. He was also observed to carry out the slaughter very correctly. There is material on file at the time of him approaching the pig from behind, stabilising the pig, applying the humane killer and firing.

The humane killer he was using was a particularly powerful one. It was sufficient to kill a 600 kg bovine and the maximum charge was being used. The maximum chance of an immediate kill was achieved with what was being done and he was doing it properly. Of course, this does not accord with what is depicted on the video. The video is approximately six and a half minutes long and from my observation yesterday, the clip in which the farmer is shown killing a group of pigs is one minute long. It shows six pigs in the killing pen. Our staff observed the farmer normally having about ten or even 12 pigs in that pen. Obviously, if one has more pigs in the pen, they are more stable because they are up against one another and it, therefore, makes it easier to apply the humane killer and kill. In that video, he got one of the shots obviously badly wrong. This could have been one of the 1% that we had observed him getting wrong, which happens, I am afraid. He shot another pig once and then very quickly shot it a second time. He obviously made a decision that he may have not completed the task but there is no evidence that the pig was in any particular distress or whatever, at least I could not see any such evidence. I am not a professional but our professional staff have looked at this.

Can I say something else? This is an important point for anybody who may, unfortunately, have to watch that video. I am informed by our expert staff that when one kills a pig, it is completely normal for it to make a paddling motion with its four legs. This is known as a clonic movement. It is normal and does not mean the pig is alive. It is a particular feature of pigs that immediately after death, they make this paddling motion with their legs. That, in itself, is not a concern. In so far as we can see what he was doing, the farmer was doing the job well and correctly and showed no personal signs of distress. He also did not complain to our staff at the time. He had requested to do this in the first place and displayed a capacity to do it. As far as we could see, therefore, the thing was being done right. The video shows at least one pig being slaughtered improperly but more than 4,000 pigs were slaughtered.

The official did not ask the farmer to use a lump hammer.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

God, no. The lump hammer issue is a complete untruth, as I stated. On the contrary, our staff took a lump hammer off him when he threatened to kill pigs with one.

Is any of the evidence we submitted to the Department true?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Very little, although obviously there are basic facts. A good example is what I have just said about the appeal. It is not untrue to say that the case failed on appeal but it is very important to understand why that happened. We did not contest the appeal because the legal provision had failed at that point. We could not contest the appeal if it was not about the substance. This is an area where a kind of truth was told to the committee but without context. However, some very serious and scandalous stuff was said about some of our staff.

It is for that reason that I am not in the business of naming names. A couple of names were mentioned repeatedly but I will not refer to them because in one way it is their word against the word of Mr. O'Driscoll. As far as Mr. O'Driscoll is concerned, since its inception, the special investigations unit has done the job the Department and State asked it to do and has not done anything wrong.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It has done an outstanding job. I would not say it has never done anything wrong. I would not say that about myself and I am sure the Deputy would not say it about himself. I am sure the unit has made mistakes in the hundreds of cases it has handled.

What happens in such cases?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

One of the important things is that we have an appeals process. This process was airily dismissed in some of the evidence given to the committee. Every year, thousands of farmers use our internal appeals process, as the Deputy will know, on payments and so on. In the case of payments, 34% of appeals on our internal appeals system are successful. Very importantly, there are also independent appeals systems. The Ombudsman is available. It has been argued that an agriculture ombudsman should be established. The Ombudsman is in place and has the remit. What then are we talking about?

To address an extremely important issue, some of the allegations made by these people against our staff are criminal offences. We have the Garda to investigate criminal offences. Did they go to the Garda? Did members ask them? This is an interesting point. I know of one of them who went to the Garda but the complaint was dismissed. In some of the other cases, the issues have been raised in various forums and thrown out. These issues have been recycled again and again and I understand the reason they make headlines.

Why was a change made in the special investigations unit last year?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

From a departmental point of view, we pride ourselves on engaging in a constant process of improvement. I talked about the aspiration to excellence in the Department.

In fact, since I took over as Secretary General, one of the things I did was to say very specifically that our two big operational areas - our payments and control systems and our animal health and food safety issue - should aspire to operational excellence, as I call it. I define that as being the best in the EU. We operate in a part of the world with the highest standards in this area so if we are the best in the EU we are probably the best in the world. We think we have done that. We think the SIU has contributed enormously to that but I am never going to say it has never made a mistake.

Why was the change at that time? It was reported that these concerns were taken on board and we should have changes now.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Regarding all of this commentary, the Department does respond. We are not deaf. As part of our approach to constant improvement in the Department, it is quite possible that these changes would have been brought in anyway.

The first of the two areas where I have given some emphasis to the role of the new steering committee is the reference for the case for investigation. As it happens, when this issue was discussed by senior management in the Department, it was I who raised it. I suggested it would be an important function. It was put into the terms of reference of the steering committee. The second area was the decision to prosecute, about which, again, there has been a lot of public commentary. The public commentary is without merit because we prosecute in so few cases. With regard to investigations division cases, one is looking at in the order of ten prosecutions per year. Given the kind of stuff it investigates, the number is very low. In the great majority of cases, the decision is taken not to prosecute. Why? The view is taken that while something may have happened here, the nature of it is such that it would not merit a prosecution. There might be some other kind of sanction we could impose, or it might be that the evidence is not strong enough, or we might find, on investigation, that we believe there was nothing happening. We prosecute in very few cases. However, we did put the steering committee in place to act as a second pair of eyes to reassure people.

I have a final question, for the Chief State Solicitor’s office. Was there any case where it advised against prosecution but in which the Department went ahead with it? Was there any individual case in which the office advised that there should be no prosecution but where the Department prosecuted anyway?

Ms Maria Browne

I do not have particulars. It would be a question of going through each file. To the best of my knowledge, the answer is “No”. I do not have that information.

Ms Browne has not seen the seven cases which we talked about at a previous meeting.

Ms Maria Browne

No, I have not.

I welcome Mr. O’Driscoll and his officials. For how long is he in position?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Since the beginning of the year, or shortly thereafter.

Prior to that, did he work for the Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

For how long has he worked for the Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I first joined in 1977. I was out of the Department for about 13 or 14 years.

Did Mr. O’Driscoll have any involvement with the investigation unit at any stage? Did he work in it?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. On the retirement of an assistant secretary, I took over his area temporarily for about four months. That was in the animal health and food safety area. Technically, I would have had some experience for that brief period.

But only for that period.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

Listening to Mr. O'Driscoll, one would wonder why on earth any change was made at all given the stellar performance of the SIU, as my colleague was saying. That contradicts not only the six or seven cases we heard, to which I will come back in a moment, but also the views of the current IFA president, Mr. Eddie Downey. He has stated in public repeatedly that the unit that Mr. O’Driscoll lauds “rode roughshod over the rights of hard-working farmers”. That was a view held by his predecessor, Mr. John Bryan, who was very critical of the unit. I have a report from the end of 2013 and it is stated the Minister, Deputy Coveney, was at an IFA meeting in Cork, heard the many complaints and the reiteration of the IFA position and told the delegation that such conduct by the SIU was not acceptable and that he would have matters fully investigated. I want to put it to Mr. O’Driscoll and put on the record that the account he has given of the SIU certainly does not reflect the account or experience of many others. I refer to the cases we have heard about directly and more broadly within the farming community. Does Mr. O’Driscoll accept that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I accept the statements were made by the IFA leadership. Let me try to put this in context.

I do not want Mr. O’Driscoll to do so because time is limited and he needs to answer me directly.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

While I accept the statements were made, I do not agree with them.

Mr. Aidan accepts that there has been criticism of the unit.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

By the IFA. Yes, I do.

And I presume he regards it as unfounded.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I regard it as not merited by the evidence when one takes the whole lot in the round. As I said to Deputy Connaughton, I am not saying the unit has never made a mistake. I could not possibly say that.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll accept that this level of criticism, irrespective of his view on it, was a factor in the Minister’s decision to stand down the SIU, as it was?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The SIU was incorporated into the investigations division. That is what the Minister’s statement says.

Does Mr. O’Driscoll accept that the Minister accepted and understood that there was widespread criticism of the unit?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Obviously, we are aware there is widespread criticism. The Minister will be aware of it and I am aware of it.

Does Mr. O’Driscoll also accept that Ms Justice Reynolds, the judge in the case of County Cavan farmer Douglas Fannin, whom I name because his name is in the public domain, whom I believe would wish to be named and who won, was also very critical of the behaviour of the SIU? Does Mr. O’Driscoll recall that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do. I recall it very well.

I presume that in Mr. O’Driscoll’s interpretation of the IFA or individual cases, he does not dismiss the criticism of Ms Justice Reynolds.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not at all.

He accepts that Ms Justice Reynolds found the modus operandi of the unit to be deeply flawed and objectionable. She went so far as to say the integrity of the gentleman Mr. Douglas Fannin was intact and placed a question mark over that of the investigation unit.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. May I respond on the issue of that particular case? Would that be okay?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As the Deputy said, the case failed. It was one of the 10% of cases that fail. Why did it fail? It failed in the court because an issue in relation to a brucellosis test arose. The State’s case was actually about a TB test but, in the course of the court case, matters took a swerve towards a brucellosis test which was never part of the State’s case, and ultimately the case collapsed around the issue of the brucellosis test. I have read significant sections of the court transcript – not all of it – and that seems clear. The judge did make two core negative comments, in my view. First, she said the approach by the Department had been heavy-handed. Second, she criticised one of our key Department witnesses-----

One of Mr. O’Driscoll’s officials.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

-----as being very difficult. She said he was one of the most difficult witnesses she had come across.

The record reflects that eight charges of interference and eight charges of criminal fraud were rejected by the courts.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The fraud cases were, of course, being prosecuted by the Garda.

That is what the record states. I am sure Mr. O'Driscoll is not presuming to second guess the judgment.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Of course I am not. In that case, however, I am explaining why the court case failed. I am in some difficulty as this is sub judice and Mr. Fannin is taking action. Nevertheless I will say as much as I think we can. You mentioned those comments by the judge but other judges have made other comments, though they were probably not put in front of you. I have a list of comments by judges here.

If you do not mind, one of the reasons you are before us, and why I am raising these issues with you, is that we have heard from a range of people, against a backdrop of more general criticism of the investigation unit, some things that are very troubling, some of it corroborated and other parts not. In the case of this gentleman, Mr. Douglas Fannin, it has been through the courts, he has been vindicated and you can take whatever view you take on this matter but that is, with the greatest respect, largely irrelevant at this juncture. What he had to say about the carry-on of the investigations unit in this case was very shocking. Judge Reynolds took the view also that the officials were, as you say, heavy handed. Mr. Fannin gave us chapter and verse of what it looks like when this unit is heavy handed and it did not make for pleasant listening. Mr. Fannin gave evidence of the impact that it had on him, his family and his, son who is also a farmer but now in New Zealand and not contributing to this strategic sector in this country.

I understand that you are anxious to give the context for this but I find your approach not just defensive but dismissive of what happened to this man.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Maybe I can have a few minutes on this point, because it is important. I am not in any way dismissive of the comments of Judge Reynolds. They are important comments. I fully take them on board and I do not contest them in any way. In referring to the brucellosis I was trying to give the Deputy an understanding of why the case fell. As well as knowing that it fell, it is also important to know why the case fell.

Is it not also important to note, for the purposes of this discussion and for your job, that the judge noted heavy-handed conduct and that your official, the witness, was not alone difficult but caused the judge some concerns over the accuracy of his testimony?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

She did not say that.

Are they not important matters?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

They are very important matters. There are allegations in the report of your meeting that our witness gave false information. That is not true. It is true, the judge said he was a very difficult witness but there is a world of difference between those two things. What happened with our witness is that over four and a half hours of questioning it is clear he became entangled in an argumentative relationship with the defence counsel - that is uncontested and that is what the difficulty refers to. As to the heavy handedness, the judge was not specific as to what she meant by that or what exact aspect of the issue she was referring to. It is relevant that a whole series of judges, State solicitors, etc., have complimented the SIU.

I am sure they have.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have here a letter from one State solicitor talking about the particularly even-handed approach of the SIU.

I am struggling with the basic logic of what has occurred and the decision taken by the Minister. The understanding was not that it would involve incorporation but a brand new dawn for investigations. The Minister was moved to that action for some reason. I have already cited the IFA who, I think we both acknowledge, are experts in the field of agriculture and the experiences of farmers. He was moved also by the outcome of this particular case, that of Mr. Douglas Fannin in Cavan, and made the changes which some now regard as cosmetic and which Mr. O'Driscoll has described in detail. We do not seem to be getting off first base here because there is a fundamental clash, not just in the evidence of the cases we have heard but in the actions of the Minister, the views of the IFA and your contention that actually everything was fine and there was no need to make any changes as the unit was exemplary. That is your position.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No.

The unit made a couple of mistakes but it was grand. Do you think the Minister made a mistake?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, I do not. What I said is that we are constantly making improvements in the Department and this is another set of improvements we are making, in terms of the extent of the responsibilities of the new investigation division and the governance structure of that division. These are significant improvements and we want to strengthen our investigative capacity in the Department. If you look at the Minister's statement you will see that he paid specific tribute to the investigations that had been carried out by our staff up to that point. He also said the new investigation division was designed to bring all investigation capability, both internal and external, into one division headed by a senior supervisory veterinary officer supported by a team of investigators, some of whom are core members of the team while others are drawn from areas where their expertise will be beneficial. I have said that we have not been able to fully implement that, though we have implemented the new governance structure around the investigations division and it is a very good governance structure. I have not said at all that the change was not needed - change is always needed and we are constantly changing and improving our systems in the Department and this is one such area. I would very much like to continue that process of change by expanding the skill range within the division and by setting up the arrangement as it was originally envisaged with a core group of staff and staff drawn from other areas of the Department. For the time being, we have not been able to do that but I am all in favour of these changes.

Who is in charge of the new set-up?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have a senior supervisory veterinary inspector, Mr. Pat Flanagan, who is the head of the division and we also have a steering committee.

Who was in charge of the old regime?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

A person who has now retired.

You indicated earlier on that there has not been a change in staff.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There has been some change in staff but I agree the change has been very limited.

So the old unit has been incorporated into a new regime with the same staff.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is with very similar staff. There has been some change, such as the fact that the former head has retired. What has really happened is that the steering group has been put in place. It has not been possible to deal with the staffing arrangements yet.

We have heard about the heavy-handed behaviour of officials and what was described by some people as a very ignorant approach towards different individuals, including pregnant women. We have heard of a very aggressive approach, with complaints being made about the ill-treatment of animals in the aggressive way in which those animals were tested. Allegations were made of entry into premises that was dramatic, forceful and obnoxious.

We do not have the scope here to go through each individual case, although if it now seems that the Department can test the detail of these allegations so energetically, it should really have submitted a point-by-point rebuttal to us in advance. I assume it will do so. Without going through all the details, we can say that at least in Mr. Fannin's case, the judge agreed that the officials had been heavy-handed.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

Mr. O'Driscoll accepts that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Totally.

Would Mr. O'Driscoll like to take the opportunity to acknowledge that in the case of Mr. Fannin, the unit was wrong and that this gentleman is due an apology from it?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In the case of Mr. Fannin, I accept the judge's conclusions completely. I explained the context in respect of the conclusion that our witness was difficult. The judge concluded that our approach was heavy-handed. My difficulty with that conclusion, although I fully accept it, is that it is not clear from the judge's comments precisely what she was referring to. I have looked at the text to try to determine that.

Nonetheless, without second guessing her, that is the conclusion she arrived at.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It was.

As we heard, Mr. Fannin and his wider family suffered incredible personal distress and stress. He reported feelings of exclusion even within his broader community. He told us that his physical health has suffered. Without Mr. O'Driscoll second guessing the judge given that it is a finding of the court, I invite him to at least make an apology to Mr. Douglas Fannin.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am quite prepared to apologise for what the judge referred to. In other words, our witness should have not been difficult in court, which was true, and we should not have been heavy-handed. However, I must say that-----

I would prefer if Mr. O'Driscoll did not qualify it.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I appreciate that but I think it reasonable that I say this. I am prepared to apologise for the fact that a judge found it necessary to find that our approach in that one case was heavy-handed but, unfortunately, in apologising for that, I do not know what I am apologising for because it is not clear from the court record what precisely that referred to.

The Department did not apologise.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am saying that I would be quite prepared to but I would need to know-----

Stop dressing it up then. Mr. O'Driscoll should either apologise or not.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am answering the question as best I can.

Do not dress something up as an apology when it is not one and do not say, "I don't know what I'm apologising for". I would certainly offer an apology if I knew what it was about. If Mr. O'Driscoll does not know what it is about, he should tell Deputy McDonald.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I think that is what I have attempted to do. I have apologised for one aspect of it quite clearly, which is that our witness should not have been difficult. That is quite clear in the court case. I did explain that he was four and a half hours in the witness box and got into a tangle with the defence barrister who, I am sure, was also being robust. In respect of the heavy-handedness, which I think is the thing the Deputy is pursuing, I am fully prepared to apologise for anything a judge has found in a particular case but I am just making the point that on that particular issue, I am not clear what she was referring to. That is all.

So Mr. O'Driscoll is not apologising for it. I will remain with this particular case. I understand that in the course of the case, it came to light that a senior vet associated with the special investigations unit seized animals on 24 March 2009 and that these animals were put into the food chain. The same vet subsequently made a sworn statement under oath at Bailieboro Garda Station on 7 July 2009 that the animals contained a toxic substance. How did animals that were suspected of containing a toxic substance find their way into the food chain?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It was never alleged that they contained a toxic substance.

Could Mr. O'Driscoll explain this to me?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The issue in this case was that Mr. Fannin had been in receipt of very large sums of money for reactors and income supplement. In the previous period, he received quite substantial sums. The allegation in the State's case was that there was an attempt to produce false positives in a TB test. False positives can be produced through all kinds of methods. A TB test is carried out when tuberculin is injected into the animal's skin by a vet and a lump develops. That lump is then measured. We have come across many cases of all kinds of products being injected into animals to produce false positives, including water. It does not necessarily need to be toxic. I do not think there was ever a suggestion that a particular toxic substance was used. The animals in this case passed both ante and post-mortem examinations and were deemed fit for the food chain. There is nothing wrong with an animal which has had water or some other product like that injected under its skin.

I appreciate that but I presume that when Mr. O'Driscoll gives us the point-by-point rebuttal, he can show us paperwork that demonstrates the point he is making.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We will be happy to do so. I am very happy to provide the point-by-point rebuttal, which will deal with as much of the detail of these cases as possible.

It is because that would be an important point.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In respect of the Fannin case, I must again make the point that it is sub judice. I have gone quite far in what I have said. Even when we send a paper to the committee, I am not sure whether we will be able to say much on that case.

Would Mr. O'Driscoll be able to answer this particular question in terms of the false-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I would have to get legal advice as to whether or not that aspect would be sub judice. I am speaking here under privilege. A note going to the committee would be a different issue.

Mr. O'Driscoll also said that the appeal mechanism the Department employs had been airily set aside. Can he describe for us in as brief a fashion as possible how that appeal process works?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In respect of a decision by or the activities of the special investigations unit, the first line of appeal would be to the manager of the unit. This is normal with all our processes. The second line of appeal would be to our quality service unit, which resides in our corporate affairs area - a completely different line of the Department. If somebody was not satisfied with that, they could go to the Ombudsman and, ultimately, the courts.

In his opening remarks, Mr. O'Driscoll said that generally, the individuals to whom the Department's report referred had not accessed that appeal mechanism. What did he mean by "generally"?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is a bit difficult for me to track down everything because these are, by and large, very old cases. I am aware of at least one of the Deputy's interlocutors who went to one of our senior staff and who could have been described as having made an appeal. He directly contacted one of the most senior vets in the Department, which could be regarded as an appeal. It was investigated by that senior vet and dismissed. The individual did not really go through the process but it could reasonably be regarded as an appeal. I do not know who goes to the Ombudsman unless the Ombudsman contacts us and looks for evidence but in the cases in front of the Deputy - she mentioned Mr. Fannin - we found nothing in our complaints or Ombudsman folders. We have found FOIs on that and a data protection case. In the case of another case involving a pig farmer, there are no files in our complaints or Ombudsman folders from him. In the case of another gentleman, no files were found in the complaints or Ombudsman folders. The same is true in other cases and the last one. It is very fair to say that they have not used the system.

We can see that documentation.

In respect of the slaughter of the pigs, is Mr. O'Driscoll saying categorically that the events as we heard them about did not happen? He viewed the video evidence.

Mr. O'Driscoll is categorically saying an official did not give the farmer in question a lump hammer to slaughter pigs.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

Mr. O'Driscoll said he supervised as much as 25% of the slaughter at the time. I take it this means an official was present for only 25%.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The vet, yes.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll have a paper trail which establishes this?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We are dealing with issues going back a while. Over a period of days, our two vets visited the farm for an hour or two each morning. The slaughter went on through the morning and afternoon. Our estimate is that they were present for approximately 25% of the slaughter.

Is there a documentary basis for the figure?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In 2005, our senior vet, who was not involved in it, did a review of the issue, and I have his report. The senior vet reviewed all the evidence he could find internally in the Department and spoke to department staff. Unfortunately, Mr. Galvin did not co-operate with the review. I will append the report to the information I provide to the committee.

Up to now, has the document been public?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not think so.

Has it ever been published?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not think so.

Will Mr. O'Driscoll publish it?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I think I will. I will take legal advice. Subject to such advice, I am minded to give it to the committee.

Mr. O'Driscoll also said an assessment had been made that the farmer had sufficient expertise and was in a position to carry out the slaughter of his 4,000 pigs.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have a letter from the farmer in which he said he was capable of it. We then assessed him and found him capable.

I heard that. I was listening very carefully to Mr. O'Driscoll and I am aware that he has the letter, that it was not his first option and that he had suggested a different route. Why on earth would Mr. O'Driscoll have accepted the farmer's offer to slaughter 4,000 of his own pigs?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Deputy asked about mistakes. The special investigations unit, SIU, would not have made the decision; it would have been made at a higher level. We made the decision because of a lack of options. We had initially asked the farmer to slaughter at a registered plant. He said he could not do it. The reason is not entirely clear to me. Probably, he could not find a plant that would do it, given that they would not want pigs that had carcinogens in them. It also would have been costly for him to pay for it, and I do not think he was in a position to do it. Therefore, I can understand why he approached us as he did and suggested to us that he was fit for it, had the expertise and could do it. On-farm slaughter is normal. During the 2000 swine fever outbreak in the UK, there was much on-farm slaughter of pigs. There is nothing unusual about it.

We understand that.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

A farmer such as Mr. Galvin would often have carried out such a slaughter, although not on the same scale.

I know, and Mr. O'Driscoll gave some evocative detail as to the precision and mastery Mr. Galvin had of it, according to Mr. O'Driscoll. However, I am still troubled by the fact that we have been told that a proportion of the herd was killed by being bludgeoned to death.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We are aware of a small number of pigs, approximately ten we think, where our officer intervened and removed a lump hammer from the farmer.

At what stage in the slaughter did it happen?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not have that information immediately in front of me.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll think ten pigs were bludgeoned?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know. I cannot guarantee that at other times, when unsupervised, the farmer did not do something. He had two humane killers.

I want to stay with the bludgeoning, and then we will come to the humane killing. It was alleged that 50 pigs were bludgeoned. Presumably, on the ten occasions a veterinary official was present to witness it.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No.

Therefore, where did Mr. O'Driscoll get the figure of ten?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We had a person who was not a vet on site to supervise the-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, only a vet would supervise the slaughter. Our officer was there to supervise the removal of the carcasses. We were very concerned that the carcasses should not enter the food chain. We had an agricultural officer present to supervise the removal of the carcasses, and he intervened to stop the use of a hammer. Clearly, it would have been unacceptable to us. No vet would have approved of it.

Mr. O'Driscoll's account is that an official who was there for the purposes of carcass removal witnessed ten pigs being bludgeoned.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Although I cannot say he was there for all ten, his evidence is that the farmer killed ten pigs before he removed the hammer. The hammer was later returned to the farmer.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll have records to support his account?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have a record of the fact the hammer was returned to the farmer at the end of the whole slaughter. When we confiscate something, we have to decide what to do with it.

I find it all very strange. There is a direct contradiction between what the farmer has told us and what Mr. O'Driscoll is telling us. The farmer produced video evidence, which Mr. O'Driscoll has seen.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That has nothing to do with hammering.

Mr. O'Driscoll has conceded that ten animals were bludgeoned, not 50, and that it did not happen under supervision, although an official was present, saw it happen and intervened by removing the lump hammer. I do not know how we can get to the bottom of something like this. We can safely say that, in any event, no animal ought to have been bludgeoned.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Absolutely.

The Chairman will have to assist me as to how to proceed.

When the official removed the lump hammer from Mr. Galvin, confiscated it and directed that it was not the way to slaughter a pig, did the Department's presence increase for the subsequent slaughter of the rest of the pigs?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Deputy McDonald asked me when exactly it happened, and I would have to check the specific point and what other action was taken. I am not aware of it.

Mr. O'Driscoll understands my point.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I understand the Deputy's point and it is very fair. We supervised only approximately 25% of the slaughter and we were very satisfied with how the farmer did it. In retrospect, we would not do it again, and we have said this publicly. There are many aspects of it we would not handle in the same way. I would have reservations about a farmer and his assistants slaughtering 4,000 pigs. The farmer had a number of assistants working with them and handling the pigs. I cannot say we could never allow it again, given that one does not know what circumstances might arise. However, if it were being done, the biggest difference, as recommended in the report, is that it should be under full supervision.

It was not my turn to speak. Thank you very much.

I am not convinced by Mr. O'Driscoll's account of events. In fairness to Mr. O'Driscoll, this might be because he does not have the paperwork in front of him or for other reasons.

I am not immediately drawing a negative in that respect, but to me it is a garbled, half account of what seems to have happened here. As part of the information the Department returns to the committee, I ask it in particular to look at the issue of the slaughter of those animals and to establish precisely if it can the sequence of who, why, what, when and where of relevant events. Concerns around animal welfare, which loom large in the Department's objectives, are a serious consideration here.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am not clear what the Deputy thinks was garbled and I would be happy to try to clarify anything she thinks is garbled right now.

I ask for a clear sequence of events.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The only thing I have not given the committee a clear sequence on is the timing of the issue of the hammered pigs. I will definitely have to check on it.

That is the issue. The Department was there for 25%.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Can I just say something about animal welfare, because that is a key issue here, and the allegation made against our veterinary staff? To allege that a vet is involved in bad animal welfare practice is extremely serious.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The veterinary profession exists to protect animals and treat them. This was all aired at the Veterinary Council. This whole issue of this slaughter was dealt with at the Veterinary Council. The farmer was heard and our vets were fully exonerated.

What was the Department's interaction with the Veterinary Council in that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The relevant officials regarding the case would have given evidence. The Veterinary Council proceedings are not a trial.

I presume Mr. O'Driscoll has had sight of the report of the conclusions of that investigation.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have. They were fully exonerated, as I say.

Given that they had all of the persons concerned co-operating and giving evidence, I presume that report has a clear sequence of what happened and when.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I presume it does.

They could hardly have reached a conclusion that exonerated the Department if they did not. Can we have access to that also?

The Deputy is over time.

I may come back afterwards.

I welcome the officials. I want to turn to the appropriation accounts on which I have a number of questions. Section 5.1 deals with allowances and overtime payments. It sets out that 873 people were in receipt of overtime payments, with 83 receiving payments in excess of €10,000. The maximum payment was €35,519. Can the Department provide me with some guidance on that? What person in the organisation and at what rank gets overtime to the tune of €35,519?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The individual is involved in the supervision of a poultry plant which sometimes slaughters over a number of shifts. My understanding in this case is that some of these shifts go through the night. These are scheduled by the factory and someone from the Department must be present to supervise them.

Is €35,519 not excessive? Could not another position have been created to avoid paying that level of overtime?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I agree with the Deputy that it is excessive.

What are the other 82 people on more than €10,000 per year in overtime payments doing?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The problem in many cases is that in order to solve the problem with permanent staff, one would have to roster two shifts. As such, we would be paying permanently for two shifts and the cost could easily be more than the €35,000 in that case. The same applies in the other cases. Many of the payments relate to this kind of instance. Where an individual received €35,000, I take the Deputy's point. It seems slightly high.

In the previous year, the maximum payment was €30,000. Was that payment made to the same person?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot answer that. Can the Deputy repeat that point?

According to the accounts, the maximum individual payment in 2012 was €30,835. In 2013, it was €35,519.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I would have to double check whether it is the same individual.

Does the Secretary General agree that it is excessive?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I agree that it is undesirable to have overtime payments of that level, yes. I make the point, however, that management has to make an assessment as to whether it would cost more to have two shifts.

What basic salary is the individual on, given that the overtime is €35,000?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I hazard the guess that the person is on a little under €50,000.

It is about 80% more.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The thrust of the Deputy's point is that €35,000 is a very high percentage of his salary. That is true.

Without labouring that individual, there are 82 other people on more than €10,000. What is the Department's plan to reduce that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In fact, we have reduced overtime in the Department significantly in recent years.

From what level has it been reduced? How many people were getting more than €10,000 in 2012?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It appears we do not have the previous year's figures. We have had a significant drive and reduced overtime quite substantially in recent years in the Department. In fact, this is true in all Departments because of the constraints on administrative budgets. However, in individual cases like this, we are not fully in command of the situation. I do not want to lay too much emphasis on the individual case-----

I do not have an issue with the individual. Good luck to him. My issue is that the Department has 83 people getting more than €10,000 a year in overtime. Surely, there is a possibility for the Department to create additional positions with the agreement of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Has that even been discussed?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am happy the Deputy says that. We are constantly discussing with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform the possibility of increasing our staff numbers. As the Deputy knows, we have been working under a moratorium.

Is that not lifted now?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Literally in the last couple of weeks, we have received something called a "delegated sanction". I agree that it should provide us with more flexibility. One of the things we will try to do is deal with issues like this.

As such, will we see a major reduction in the 2014 outturn based on that development with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The development is only in the past two weeks and, as such, it will not have any impact on 2014.

Sorry, I meant 2015.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I hope that we could see that for 2015.

How soon does the Department expect to see that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is the middle of June and we have only just received the sanction.

With the agreement of the Chairman, I ask Mr. Maher what the view of the Department of Public Expenditure is regarding the fact that 83 people in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine are getting more than €10,000 a year in overtime.

Mr. Philip Maher

I am not that familiar with why the 83 people are getting that. It sounds unusual. I can talk to agriculture officials and come back with a note on it. I am not aware of the details.

Does Mr. Maher's Department have a plan to reduce it?

Mr. Philip Maher

I do not have a plan. I am not aware of it. We will discuss it as the Deputy has brought it up.

The report also states that €68,710 was paid to two retired civil servants in receipt of Civil Service pensions who were re-engaged on a fee basis. What is the story there?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

From time to time, it makes sense to re-engage people who have particular skills and expertise that we need in the short term.

What skills did these two have?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

On a regular basis, we re-engage some of our veterinary staff. It is likely that these were retired vets. I cannot identify the particular two. From time to time, we have to do this to fill gaps. It has become more of an issue in recent years with the moratorium.

Did the Department advertise the gaps to be filled?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We keep a roster for temporary veterinary inspectors, or TVIs. That is advertised.

How many of those TVIs are from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There are 42 retired vets on the TVI panels.

How many vets in total are on the TVI panel?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Some 1,600.

Therefore, the 42 retired vets are pensioners from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

What is the total cost in respect of those 42 vets?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not have that information to hand, but I will arrange to obtain it for the committee.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll know how soon after retiring the two individuals were back with the Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know, but I imagine it was pretty quick because-----

Did they leave on a Friday and come back on the following Monday?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot say that, but when somebody retires and goes out the door with particular skills and when at the same time there is a moratorium on staff recruitment, a need can arise very quickly.

The reason I ask this question of Mr. O'Driscoll is we recently had his counterpart from the HSE at the committee discussing a similar scenario where people who had left the service found themselves back, miraculously, a short time after leaving because they had a unique skills set. I asked at the time and I ask again now is a person with that skills set advertised for? Are these services procured? Have the Office of Government Procurement and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform made observations on the issue?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As the TVI panel is open, vets can volunteer to be on it. When the Department lost local veterinary staff at some locations and they were not replaced because of the moratorium on recruitment, we had no option but to take experienced, retired Department veterinarians back into our cohort. It is not desirable and not normally done, but in the circumstances there was no another practical option.

Is the thrust of Mr. O' Driscoll's contribution that the moratorium has been very beneficial to certain retired civil servants?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It has been very difficult for us to manage.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll. agree that the moratorium has been very lucrative for a retired civil servant with a particular skills set-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot say that; I would need to look at the figures.

The figure of €68,710 is not a small sum of money.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I agree.

I wish to return to paragraph 5.1 - allowances and overtime payments. There is a maximum other allowance figure of €20,599. What is that for?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

A number of our staff receive various allowances. Private secretaries to Ministers, for example, receive allowances for the very long hours they have to work. IT personnel sometimes receive allowances because there are some who work very significant hours. We give an allowance to higher executive officers who take on responsibilities in organising activities in a region of the country. There are allowances for operating the Synchrolift at Howth Harbour. There are other more minor allowances, but they are the main ones - the regional HEO allowance, the Synchrolift allowances and the private secretaries allowances.

An analysis of administrative expenditure is included in page 8 of the appropriation accounts. There is a figure of €6.3 million for office premises expenses and €121,000 for consultancy services. On consultancy services, are the Department's consultancy services given a clean bill of health by the Office of Government Procurement or is there anything of which the committee should be aware?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As the Comptroller and Auditor General has pointed out, there are some issues we have declared in the accounts, as in the case of the figure of €4.99 million-----

Which relates to 19 projects.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, 19 contracts.

Have they been rectified?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have set up a central procurement unit. There is a major effort to improve procurement throughout the public service with the establishment of the Office of Government Procurement. Of the 19 contracts, the figure for which amounts to €4.99 million, processes have been advertised for 59% of that value. In the case of 23% of it, legal advice has been sought from the Chief State Solicitor's office on issues arising from procurement. In the case of 6.5%, it relates to emergency actions such as the removal of horses on animal welfare grounds and harbour works as a result of severe winter conditions. In the case of 5.8%, it relates to the purchase of test kits for laboratories where there is only one suitable supplier. In the case of 5.5%, we are consulting the Office of Government Procurement. It relates mainly to the removal of hazardous clinical and biological waste and whether the contractors the Office of Government Procurement has engaged are suitable.

On the figures of €4.99 million and €121,000, are instances where services were procured by the Department from former departmental officials?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not think so; to the best of my knowledge, no.

Does Mr. O'Driscoll have a pathway to try to reduce the level of non-compliance with procurement guidelines?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Substantially, yes. As I said, processes representing 59% of the money value have been advertised.

What about the rest?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have just gone through them, but if the Deputy wishes, I can-----

I mean when does the Department expect to see-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As we are taking legal advice on some of the issues involved, we must wait and see if we should go to tender. I cannot see how the emergency actions such as the removal of horses and the harbour works could be-----

What is the value of those contracts?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

They represent 6.5% of the figure of €4.99 million - €324,000.

Will Mr. O'Driscoll talk us through what is involved in the case of office premises expenses? The figure is €6.3 million.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Cleaning and security.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, it seems to cover contract cleaning, furniture and fittings and energy costs.

Is any of it related to rent?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, the figure for property rental was €510,000.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The budget was €645,000. I do not have the figures for previous years. We are in regular discussions with the Office of Public Works, particularly in Portlaoise, about our staff who are scattered in a number of offices. This is undesirable from a management perspective and we are trying to concentrate them in one office. The most likely office is Government Buildings which is in the ownership of the OPW, which would mean cutting the figure for rent.

I have two more issues to raise-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

Let me add something. If the committee looks at note 1.1 on net allied services expenditure, there is a cost borne by the OPW of €4.5 million which I believe is predominantly for office accommodation. Therefore, the OPW carries the cost of a lot of the accommodation used.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General. On the overall grant to Teagasc, does it cover the running costs of the agricultural colleges?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It does.

I know that Deputy Paul J. Connaughton also has an interest in this issue as it relates to our constituencies.

I presume that with the increased numbers attending agricultural colleges, there is increased strain on resources, for example, in the college in Pallaskenry, County Limerick, in my constituency. Is there any plan to increase funding to ensure the stress and strain on teaching staff are ameliorated or is there a plan to work through the difficulty?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot comment on a particular college. That is a matter for Teagasc and I must leave it to its management to decide how it should manage the pressures on it. We are conscious that Teagasc has been under pressure, a matter about which its director has spoken publicly. We have sanctioned approximately 50 posts-----

I am sorry for interrupting, but there is a Vote in the House. We will take a 30 minute break.

Sitting suspended at 12.40 p.m. and resumed at 1.20 p.m.

I want to ask Mr. O'Driscoll about non-compliance in Natura areas. He will be aware that large areas in my county of Limerick have been designated as special areas of conservation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has imposed specific practices on land to protect certain habitats such as that of the hen harrier. Will Mr. O'Driscoll tell me how many times the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has imposed penalties on farmers for failing to carry out particular things required by the Department or doing things that the National Parks and Wildlife Service states they should not do? If he does not have the details to hand, perhaps he might revert to me.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will revert to the Deputy with the exact figures, if he does not mind. I know that he is well aware that this has been a very troubled issue. The new hen harrier provisions under the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme are much more generous to a much larger number of farmers than the old measures under the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I think representatives of the service would fully agree with that assessment. The new provisions will give a large number of farmers access to a sum up to €7,000.

I know that. I am specifically-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

On the penalties, I would have to check-----

If someone is unfortunate enough to own some land in a special area of conservation, most of which is bad and very heavy in nature, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine will ask why he or she has not cut the rushes or done this or that. If his or her defence is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has told him or her to protect the habitat of the hen harrier, the Department will slap a penalty on him or her. The European Commission told us in Brussels as recently as six months ago that no farmer should be penalised for practices on his or her lands put in place for the protection of habitats. That is not happening in Ireland. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is penalising farmers where habitats have been imposed on them.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Deputy will be aware that we issued a land eligibility booklet to all 130,000 farmers a few months ago. The issue he is raising was directly addressed in the booklet. He is right in what he says about the provision; that is to say we should not penalise farmers who undertake things in special areas of conservation in accordance with the requirement of the National Parks and Wildlife Service which, in turn, are informed by EU law on special areas of conservation.

Why then have penalties been imposed?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I invite the Deputy to give me-----

When we visited officials in the European Commission, that was not their assessment. They firmly believed this should not be happening. The understanding I received was that they had communicated this to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is reflected in the eligibility booklet.

That is why I asked.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

If the Deputy can give me details of individual cases and wants to send them to me, I will send him anything I can find on figures for penalties imposed in Natura areas for non-compliance.

Has the Department had discussions with the European Commission in this regard?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We had a huge amount with discussion with stakeholders and the Commission prior to the agreement of the new land eligibility rules.

We spoke to people who gave us anecdotal evidence that the potential liability to the State for failing to treat landowners in accordance with the wishes of the European Commission in the handing down of these directives to protect habitats could be up to €130 million.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know from where that figure comes, but the Deputy is absolutely right when he says we have to comply completely with the requirements of the birds and habitats directives. That is what we are doing and what we have built into our systems.

The Department is aware of penalties being imposed on farmers for non-compliance with National Parks and Wildlife Service regulations.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. I will get the Deputy information on the penalties we have imposed for non-compliance in Natura areas generally and any other information we have on the reasons in that regard. If he can identify any case in which the Department has specifically applied a penalty on a farmer where he or she was following the guidance of the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the birds and habitats directives, I would like to see the details. I agree with his interpretation that we cannot do this.

I would like to raise three specific issues. The targeted agricultural modernisation scheme for young farmers was announced this week under the CAP deal. When will the 40% scheme for other farmers be announced? I have been contacted by dairy farmers who want to get the work done in the next couple of months in the interests of meeting the specifications for Bord Bia inspections. Do we have any timeframe as to when it will be announced?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We are gradually rolling out the different elements of the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme which is an on-farm investment measure. I do not have the details of the roll-out order with me. The various elements of the programme are the dairy equipment scheme, the one in which the Deputy is interested; the low emissions slurry spreading equipment scheme; the animal welfare, safety and nutrient storage scheme; the pig and poultry investment scheme; the organic capital investment scheme and the young farmer scheme. We have decided to pursue the young farmer scheme first, for obvious reasons. A 60% grant rate is associated with the scheme. I cannot give the Deputy a specific date for the dairy equipment scheme. We are trying to stagger them in order that farmers, planners and departmental officials can deal with them. I can say the dairy equipment scheme will be introduced quite soon. I just do not have a-----

I know. Many are saying they need to do the work while the cows are out. They want to have it finished before October or November.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I see the point.

It would make sense to open it up sooner rather than later.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

I raise the issue of planners under the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, a matter on which I have been very parochial. I understand the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine raised an issue about the level of a qualification provided by Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology at Mountbellew Agricultural College. I am aware that meetings have taken place about the possibility of providing a two week add-on course. Has it been signed off on? The college cannot run the course until the Department states it has the go-ahead for it.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot tell the Deputy offhand whether it has been signed off on. I am, however, familiar with the discussions. The issue is that to be an approved planner under the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, a course must have covered a number of elements. These elements are covered in the normal level 8 courses in the main universities such as UCD, but they were not present in all of the courses undertaken in other colleges, including Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology.

We had a process of discussion with them to define what additional training they would need to provide to their graduates or their current undergraduates. My understanding is that we have got agreement on that, and I will check whether it has been absolutely signed off on.

That is perfect. The last issue relates to tagging and its procurement within the Department. What role does the Department play in that or is it all done through the Office of Government Procurement? I refer to the tagging for the beef genomics scheme and the general cattle tags contract.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is by public tender but it is through the Department.

It goes through the Department. Have concerns been raised with the Department on the quality of the tags by other companies that wish to get involved in the procurement process?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There have been comments from time to time about the quality of tags and the loss of tags from animals, but when a tender is held the tags are tested to destruction. They are tested very thoroughly in the assessment process. No tag is perfect. Obviously, companies that lose a tender are always going to feel, maybe genuinely, that their tag is better than the one that won, but all I can do is assure the Deputy that the process of testing is very thorough. Lost tags are a significant issue. I was present at the final negotiations on the farmers charter and this was an issue right up to the very end before agreement was reached with the farming organisations. The issue was how many lost tags we would regard as minor if a farmer had ordered replacements.

I thank Mr. O'Driscoll.

I welcome Mr. O'Driscoll and his officials. I will go back to the case that was raised earlier concerning Tom Galvin in 2002. I am dealing with the case. Mr. O’Driscoll made a couple of points in response to Deputy McDonald. He was asked if a similar situation occurred again whether he would act and conduct affairs in a similar way. He suggested that he would probably not do that but one never knows. That is significant.

Mr. O’Driscoll said the Veterinary Council vets were exonerated. That is fair enough too. It is a serious body of people. That does not mean that things that happened were not done properly. The fact that the vets were exonerated means they did not do anything wrong, but that does not mean things should have happened the way they did. Locally, Tom Galvin is someone who is very well regarded. The feeling locally is that the Department treated him poorly. How a Department deals with issues is subjective. Mr. O’Driscoll mentioned the risks and the threat when it comes to moving animals, whether they should be moved and general issues relating to disease, but there is also the question of treating someone fairly. My subjective view having looked at the evidence is that he was treated poorly, regardless of the constraints the Department’s officials might have been under when it comes to the rules and regulations dealing with animals suspected of being diseased or being allegedly fed things that would affect the food chain adversely.

The case has been in court for the past 13 years. I suggest that we should deal with the issue in a non-adversarial manner. I will deal with the facts as they occurred 13 years ago. Mr. Galvin deserves that. It might be the first time to deal with matters on that basis. Perhaps Mr. O’Driscoll could paint the picture of when the Department officials first entered the farm and the reasons they did so. As Mr. O’Driscoll starts to paint the picture, I will ask him some questions along the way about testing, decisions made once the alleged carcinogen was detected, and the events that ensued following that.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I thank Deputy Deasy. I will preface my remarks by saying something about Mr. Galvin himself. I have no axe to grind in relation to the person.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Deputy Deasy said he is a fine person and he could well be. I do not take that away from him. That is not an issue for me. Deputy Deasy is correct that I have also said that if we did this again, I am quite sure we would not do it in the same way in the same circumstances. In particular, if we did allow on-farm slaughter by the farmer I think we would supervise the entire thing. As to whether we would allow on-farm slaughter by the farmer at all, I do not know. I am unwilling to say definitely not.

Could I stop Mr. O’Driscoll on the first point? It strikes me that when all of this was being explained, nothing as weighty as that was considered. I do not just refer to the threat of what could go into the food chain. It amazes me that when it comes to the obvious and potentially devastating financial result that did occur, only 25% of the slaughter was supervised.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will start with that. It really surprised me when I found that out. That is a fair point. I will just take that point. I will make a point that relates to our responsibilities, namely, 100% of the disposal of the carcases was supervised. That is why our non-veterinary staff-----

That is compounded by the fact that on one occasion – as Deputy McDonald alluded to – lump hammers were allegedly taken away by officials from Tom Galvin, the farmer in question, but there was no change in procedure with regard to the subsequent slaughter that occurred after the fact. Notwithstanding the fact that it was potentially a very serious case in terms of the food chain and the devastation to the individual, there was no change in procedure when that occurred.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I take that point. The Deputy should understand the implication of that is that we should have been even tougher than we were. The Deputy should realise that Mr. Galvin himself applied to us to do that.

Mr. O’Driscoll said earlier that he could not understand why he approached the Department in the way he did to slaughter the animals in the manner in which he did. It is fairly understandable. My understanding is that he went to a couple of abattoirs and they would not take the animals for the obvious reason that they probably said they did not want any potentially contaminated pigs going into the food chain and they did not really know what they were dealing with. Ultimately, when it came right down to it, the Department constructively made that individual slaughter those pigs himself. It was a question of money as well. It was probably the case that if he brought the pigs to an abattoir that was willing to take them, it probably would have cost him an awful lot of money to have the 4,000 pigs slaughtered. It was probably the cheaper option at the time, once the decree was issued by the Department to the farmer in question. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have no problem with that. In fact, I think that is what I said in reply to Deputy McDonald. It is difficult at this distance in time to be absolutely certain about these things but my understanding is that either it was too costly for him to go to a plant or a plant was not willing to do it because of the implications.

Does Mr. O’Driscoll think that was fair?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The animals had to be slaughtered. The one other option I can think of was to bring in a professional slaughterer on to the farm. If we were doing it again, that option would be quite a prominent one.

Frankly, this would not have occurred the way it did if it occurred today.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The key error we made was not to have 100% supervision. I do not know the exact reasons for that now. There could have been staffing restrictions and other factors. In any case, the one thing I will take on board from the Department’s point of view is that I would have preferred if there was 100% supervision.

It was not the only mistake. When that pig was tested, it remained in a state of limbo for three months. If those pigs got sick, it must be noted that medicines were taken away from the farmer. As was alluded to by the Department, he moved animals in that interim period, probably because he needed cash to keep going. How many pigs were tested on day one? Of the 4,000 pigs, how many pigs were tested by the Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

For?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

For what?

How many pigs were tested for the so-called carcinogen that was found in the singular pig?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

To roll back, the issue arose through routine inspection. The farmer was not being targeted or anything else.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It was a routine sampling at a plant. That is why there was a delay, a significant one between the day that pig was slaughtered and the testing because there was no particular issue about it. It turned out to be positive for carbadox. Our staff went to the farm. They found carbadox - several bags of it, including bags open with a scoop in them. They took a statement from the farmer.

I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to go back to the finding of carbadox, as clarity is needed on this. It is a substance that was legal up to 1999. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is right.

This was in 2002. It is a substance that is still legal when it comes to feeding pigs in the United States. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, there is a lot that is legal in the United States.

Fair enough. The Department is not the FDA. It is interesting that in those circumstances it has led to a situation where a man is basically out of pocket to the tune of €0.75 million, notwithstanding the animal rights issues here. That substance is legal in the United States to this day and was legal here up to three years prior to the event. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to continue as far as the testing is concerned.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Deputy is absolutely right about those points, as I understand it. Nevertheless, the reason the EU banned it was because it found that it was a carcinogen and, as I said, it was also genotoxic. That is what it found.

The farmer admitted that he had made this available to pigs. He talked about it being spread on the floors of the pig-pens - pigs would lick a product off floors. Once that admission was made, effectively, the pigs had to be slaughtered. There was no testing to be done. The farmer contested this and he went to the High Court and, I think, to the Supreme Court, but he certainly went to the High Court-----

The High Court

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

-----and the High Court found against him.

Regarding the delay, to which the Deputy referred, between when our officers originally went on the farm and when the animals were finally slaughtered, a lot of it related to those legal issues that were going on. Also, in that period a discussion was going on with the farmer about how to deal with this.

I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to stick to the issue, namely, the substance. Did the Department test any pigs for traces of this substance?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. To the best of my knowledge, we did not.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

From our point of view, it was clear that the pigs had to be slaughtered under the-----

Surely, for completeness and for the sake of having absolute clarity on the issue, why would the Department not have done that? Is there a test that it could have done?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Clearly there was because the first pig had been tested, so there must have been a test that we could have done. All I can say, with the distance of time since then and I am interpreting things, nothing would have been served by testing the pigs. I realise and I accept that Mr. Galvin wanted that-----

I disagree with that point.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Okay.

If the Department tested 20 pigs and found that substance among those pigs, I do not think, ultimately, that it would have been in the High Court. I think, basically, it was incontrovertible evidence with regard to what might have gone into the food chain; and having regard to that, it would have solved an awful lot of problems subsequently. The Department made a mistake by not going down that road. That is just my opinion. The Department left a gap and a grey area when it came to the potential state of those pigs. That is my opinion. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to continue.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is a reasonable interpretation. I am not questioning it; I am just trying to explain the sequence of events as I understood it at the time. I think the view would have been that the pigs had to be slaughtered and removed from the food chain no matter what test was done because of what the farmer had admitted.

I accept that once that was said the Department was put in a position that it had to act.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We had to act.

That is fair enough.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The key sequence after that is the agreement to allow the slaughter on the farm and to allow the farmer to do it. As I said, he applied; he explained his abilities in this regard. He was assessed by our vets. Two of our vets, including an animal welfare expert, observed him, I think, over a period of days.

To be clear on this, Mr. O'Driscoll said previously that, with the benefit of hindsight, that would not occur. The Department would have probably got professional slaughterers in to do the job.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It would be my personal view that probably that would have been better.

He would contend that the manner in which those pigs were slaughtered was not correct. There are a number of different ways that a pig can be slaughtered. It can be done with an electric current and it can be done with a bolt, etc., where there is bleeding. He would contend, as would Mr. O'Driscoll and the Department officials, that the bolt element part was done correctly. Those pigs should have been bled singularly, individually, and given time, but that was not conducted properly. Is it still the Department's contention that the slaughter was done absolutely correctly?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

In what we observed, I think we would say "Yes". I would make the point that he was quite specific in his application in terms of what he wanted to do and what he proposed to do.

That is a difference between him being specific and definite at the time and the actual correct slaughtering of a pig.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I agree completely. We have a clear responsibility. Just to understand that point, this is not a point against Mr. Galvin. The Deputy is standing Mr. Galvin and the Department together in the dock on this issue.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is all I am saying. Again, I am not a veterinary expert but my clear understanding, and I have talked to all our senior veterinary experts about this, is that the use of a humane killer, as it is called, and as Mr. Galvin called it, for putting down a pig is normal, but one normally also has to hand what are called pithing rods. Quite specifically in the report of our vets on the spot, they noted that he had pithing rods available to him.

Did he use them?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

He may have done.

I do not think he did.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As I said, our vets' assessment is that 97% to 98% of his pigs were killed with the first shot. What he did where this did not work was to immediately apply a second shot. That can be seen on the video where with one pig it is not even clear that the first shot did not work but, clearly, he is looking at the pig and he fired a second shot.

I am not talking about the video and I am not talking about the slaughter of that particular pig. I am talking about the general slaughtering of the pigs and whether it was done correctly.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The method he used was the method that was very widely used in the UK in 2000 during the swine fever in farms all over the UK.

Yes. When the Department thought about a resolution in terms of what it needed to do and what transpired after that, in those three months the farmer was left in a situation where obviously he could not trade. Did the Department second-guess or have any thoughts with regard to what occurred after the fact, medicines being taken away from him, the fact that disease was spreading among those animals and the financial situation he was left in which ultimately led to his financial ruin?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

What is evident from the documents I have examined is that our vets concluded there were welfare issues emerging on the farm in that period. One should remember that the Department had already asked him - I am certain of this - to slaughter the pigs.

What I cannot understand is, if it was so important and crucial that those pigs be slaughtered, why the Department waited three months? If it was the case that the immediacy of this issue deserved quick action, I do not understand why the Department would let those pigs remain on that farm for three months. Ultimately, it seems it was quite a haphazard approach by the Department when it came to, as Mr. O'Driscoll talked about earlier, threat and the absolute need to act to deal with matters, even back in 2002 when the late Mr. Joe Walsh was the Minister. We know what the late Mr. Walsh dealt with in his Ministry. The Department left these pigs on a farm for three months, barely monitoring it in some cases, took medicines away from him and allowed disease to spread.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, there is no way that we would have had difficulty at all with him having medicines to treat sick pigs. That just would not be possible, but here is the option we would have had and it is another option. We could have taken over the pigs and got them slaughtered, probably. However, if we did that, our legal advice, as I understand it, at the time was that if we took over the pigs, we would end up having to pay compensation.

One should think of the situation that the Department was in. From our point of view, we had found somebody who, innocently or otherwise, and I take Deputy Deasy's point about 1999-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

-----nevertheless had fed an illegal substance to pigs. If we then had taken over the pigs, incurred the cost and paid large sums of compensation to the farmer, I think I would be in here on a very different and much stickier wicket. To be perfectly honest, I can imagine the Comptroller and Auditor General doing an interesting examination of that decision.

In a case with animals where dioxins are involved, does the Department pay for the slaughter of those animals and the compensation that goes with that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Where, as was followed in this case, we find something wrong and animals have to be slaughtered, it is at the expense of the farmer. That is the normal way of doing things.

It would have been an option for us to take it over ourselves, assuming we could have got a plant - we could certainly have located a slaughterman at the very minimum - and then undertaken the work in that way ourselves. Would that have been better? Let us assume the legal advice was correct. I cannot second-guess that. It was from our legal affairs division. Given that we would have had to pay significant compensation to the farmer, would that have been a better outcome?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Not for the taxpayer, maybe for the farmer.

I understand. One could make the argument that, for fairness reasons, it might have been the best option. I do not expect Mr. O'Driscoll to comment on that but it might have been the fairer outcome.

I will tell Mr. O'Driscoll where I am going with this. I understand he was not dealing with this in 2002 and some of the officials probably were not around or dealt with any of this. I understand he has to act as the person who is making the case for the Department. I did not realise a review was done in 2005. I do not know what is in that review, but what is interesting for me is finding out today that Mr. Tom Galvin did not involve himself in that review. My guess is that - I have not asked him about it - maybe there was a legal case pending. Maybe there were issues and he was advised not to. The new steering group should take another look at this. The Department probably should take a look at the events surrounding this for the sake of fairness for the individual in question who was put out of business. The pigs cost him €690,000 and the disposal of them €45,000, none of which has been recovered. The Department at least should offer him the opportunity outside of an adversarial court setting to make his case in the new steering group that Mr. O'Driscoll has set up within the Department.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have no difficulty with that. Thinking on my feet here, maybe the best I could do is to refer the report that was done in 2005 without Mr. Galvin's co-operation - I am not in any way signing him up for it - to the steering group for its consideration. If Mr. Galvin wishes to make a further submission in his own right - he can see the report because I will be giving it to the committee - and if he wants to contest anything that is in the report or only present his own narrative, then I would be quite happy to ask the steering group to have a look at that.

I appreciate that. I might come in with different issues afterwards. I thank Mr. O'Driscoll for his candour.

On a point of information, could Ms Browne from the Chief State Solicitor's office take me through what happens when a Department, in this case the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, refers cases to the Chief State Solicitor's office? The Department does the analysis, it comes to the point where it believes there is a case and it gives Ms Browne's office the file. What happens then?

Ms Maria Browne

Counsel is briefed in all cases. The investigation that comes in from the Department would be forwarded to counsel after counsel is nominated by the Attorney General. Then a decision is made as to whether the prosecution should proceed or not. In the cases outside of Dublin, they would be sent to the State solicitor in the relevant district and he or she would conduct the case then.

Does every case that Ms Browne's office receives go directly to a senior counsel?

Ms Maria Browne

Not senior, initially. There is counsel involved in drafting summons in every case.

Is that in-house counsel or is it brought in?

Ms Maria Browne

It is external counsel.

Therefore, all the cases that would have been referred to Ms Browne's office go for further counsel advice and then, based on that, her office decides on what action to take. How long does it take for the Chief State Solicitor's office to go through that process, from the point of getting the file to referring it for a counsel opinion?

Ms Maria Browne

I have given average times in the letter that we sent in to the committee. It would usually be a quick turnaround.

What then is the cost for counsel opinion? Is that factored into the figures that we have here before us?

Ms Maria Browne

It is.

There were two files that did not proceed to issue of summons at a total cost of €2,381. These are counsel fees only. There would be no other fees, although there must be fees attached to it from the Chief State Solicitor's office. Ms Browne would have time involved there, but not much. Is that correct?

Ms Maria Browne

It would depend on what was the detail of those cases, but the staff who would be working on these would be working on other files as well and I do not have a separate figure for our costs.

That is the point I am coming to, that in each of the cases, not only these ones but other ones, there would be a cost. There is not a total cost per case, as one would find in a solicitor's office.

Ms Maria Browne

Not in respect of the information that we are able to provide.

The costs that Ms Browne has provided are not the total costs.

Ms Maria Browne

Not the overall cost. These are the costs of the external legal advice and the State solicitor's involvement.

These figures do not represent the total cost. That is the important point, at any rate, from my perspective.

If it comes to it, who decides not to go forward with the case? Is it the Department or the Chief State Solicitor's office that would decide not proceed with this? Does Ms Browne's office tell the Department if something happens in court or along the line? Is that the way it works? Has the Department ever come to Ms Browne's office and told it to stop a case as it did not want to proceed with it.

Ms Maria Browne

It would be the Department's decision whether or not to proceed, based on the legal advice it had received in respect of the particular case.

The Department gets the counsel opinion.

Ms Maria Browne

No.

Ms Browne's office gets the counsel opinion.

Ms Maria Browne

Yes.

Ms Browne's office tells the Department and the Department decides whether to go ahead with that case or not.

Ms Maria Browne

Yes, and also in conjunction with the State solicitor who would have been nominated.

How many cases has the Department, maybe on counsel opinion, decided not to go ahead with?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not have any figures for that. As I said, in the case of the investigations division only a small proportion of cases move to prosecution in the first instance. One can take it, therefore, that in those cases, we think the evidence is very strong. It is possible that some counsel over the years have told us they do not think the evidence is strong and recommend against prosecuting, in which case I imagine we would follow counsel opinion. I am not aware of such a case.

Can you give us a breakdown of all that activity? It is not just one Department. It is the Chief State Solicitor's office going for counsel opinion and going back to the Department. I am trying to find out how many cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office. In how many of those cases was counsel opinion sought? How many cases thereafter did the Department decide to go ahead with? I am trying to define the cost and yet neither the Department nor the Chief State Solicitor's office has a very definite overall cost of what these cases ran to in the course of time.

Ms Maria Browne

On the information as to which cases did not go ahead, our letter refers to the period we looked at, which was the last ten years. Of that, there were two files that did not proceed to issue of summonses. That is on page two of the letter. There is additional information on withdrawals for various reasons, further down in the letter. I am not sure if that answers part of the question.

Is that the one where it says "Ten files resulting in strike-out or dismissal"?

Ms Maria Browne

Yes and then the cases that were withdrawn as well. That is accounting for all of those 165 files that we identified as going ahead to prosecution.

Roughly 32 files were withdrawn prior to full court hearing-----

Ms Maria Browne

Yes.

-----and ten files resulting in strike-out or dismissal.

Ms Maria Browne

Yes, that would have been on the day.

The next question is about compensation. How many cases did Ms Browne's office have where compensation was agreed whereby the person being brought to court, or who had charges against them, received compensation, because something went wrong with the case or whatever? Was there anything such as that?

Ms Maria Browne

Not in the context of the case being dismissed - there would not be compensation there in terms of the prosecution. If somebody chose to take a case against the State later, that is a different matter but I do not have information relative to those.

In terms of the Department settling with someone arising from a court case, is there such a case and why is a confidentiality clause applied? Who asks for that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Apparently, our side, Chairman. I think it was a mistake, frankly. I have already instructed my staff to consult the Chief State Solicitor's office with a view to approaching the other side in that to delete the confidentiality clause in the agreement.

Is there only one such case?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is only one in the cases that have been brought to my attention. I am sure there are other cases. There is one other one, I am told.

Would you do the same with that one?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. To be honest, as a civil servant, I just do not understand how we could have confidentiality clauses. For example, if the Comptroller and Auditor General wants to examine a settlement, there is no possibility that I would say "No". Equally, he could bring a report here to the Committee of Public Accounts, so I cannot see the purpose of a confidentiality clause.

Have you put to the Chief State Solicitor's office the possibility of approaching one party?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The particular one that has arisen.

Have you had a reply to that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Not yet. We did get a reply to indicate the terms of the settlement. If I understand correctly, the Chief State Solicitor's office, on our behalf, has indicated to the other side that I may outline here today what is in the so-called confidential settlement.

That you may outline it.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will, if the Chairman wants me to.

What is Ms Browne's advice on that?

Ms Maria Browne

I am here to deal with the cost aspect of cases. I am not really here to give legal advice or to discuss legal advice. I am precluded from doing that.

There are two cases where a confidentiality clause has been applied. Will you outline both cases?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am told that there was not a confidentiality clause in the other case. I am only aware of one confidentiality clause. It is the case that the Chairman is well aware of.

You might come back and tell us if the other side has agreed to the confidentiality clause aspect of it being removed.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Absolutely.

As regards another case that went to court - I think it ended up in the High Court, then went back to the European Court and there was compensation of €1 million or so involved - are you aware of that case?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There is no case where we paid compensation like that.

No, you did not pay it. That is the point, but the court said that compensation should be paid.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

If a court says we have to pay compensation, we pay and that is it.

You have no problem paying the compensation.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We do not because it has not happened.

I will give you details of that case before you leave.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

This is my last question on the legal side of it. If product is confiscated, particularly in relation to a veterinary practice, and for some reason the case is dismissed, falls or is not proceeded with, what happens to that product? Where does it go? Is there a store in the Department where all this confiscated product is held, or is it destroyed or sold on?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We would not sell it on, Chairman.

I am not saying that the Department would do so. I am asking whether it would be sold on generally.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not think so. As I understand it, we will hold on to confiscated goods. They arise in two cases. Where the product might be legitimate in itself but it is of some evidential value, just as the gardaí would, we would take it and hold it as evidence. The other case is where a product itself is not legitimate. As regards the first of those cases, that is, a product which is legitimate but is held for evidential purposes, we would hold on to it as long as we need to for evidential purposes - it might be the court case or some other purpose - and then return it. In the case of a product which is illegal, we would arrange for its destruction.

In one particular case, the Department took product worth in excess of €1,000. No case proceeded and, in fact, nothing happened. Where is that product?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Chairman would have to give me the details of that case. I am not aware of it.

It was located in Kilkenny.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

A case in Kilkenny?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There is a case in Kilkenny that is still being investigated. I do not know if it is the same case to be quite honest. I am not terribly sure what case we are on here but if it is the same case it is still under investigation and, therefore, product might be retained.

You might say it is under investigation but there is nothing happening. When is it not being investigated? When does it end?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That is a fair question. I think an investigation can take a significant length of time.

I know that.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I have said that we can improve things in a number of areas.

One of the areas where the State, not specifically the SIU, can improve things is in terms of delays in cases. In preparing for this meeting, I have gone through the papers, as best I can, on the seven cases identified.

Where is that product now?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

If we hold it, then it would be held-----

The Department confiscated the product.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Then it would be held by our investigation division, I imagine.

The SIU. Is there anyone here from the SIU?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The head of the investigation division is here.

Does the investigation division have the product?

Mr. Pat Flanagan

I am unclear about which case the Chairman is referring to because there are a couple of cases.

Kilkenny Pharmacy.

Mr. Pat Flanagan

I do not have any direct knowledge of the case but I can tell the Chairman that any product we would have seized-----

The same as Mr. O'Driscoll.

Mr. Pat Flanagan

Any produce we would have seized-----

Will Mr. Flanagan find out where it is-----

Mr. Pat Flanagan

I will.

-----and when the Department will give it back, if it will give it back? Will Mr. Flanagan do that?

Mr. Pat Flanagan

Yes, if it is appropriate to hand it back.

Will he tell us what kind of product it is and the circumstances behind same? In another case, the Department took €8,000 worth of product, which was some time ago. Where is the product? It was a Monaghan case, the Byrne case.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I cannot give the Chairman the details but I will certainly check where the product is. If we still have it, and if it was an illegal product, then we would have destroyed it. If it is legal and we are still holding on to it, then it must have some further evidential value.

The judge said he had no case to answer.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It was undue delay on the part of the State and that is what the judge said.

That does not make any difference. The case did not proceed against the individual.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, and I am not contesting that fact.

Does that individual, company or business not deserve to have the product returned? Is it an illegal product? Has the Department explained that aspect to him, her or whomever? Where is the product now? We have been told that €8,000 worth of product and a fridge were confiscated.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

If we still have the product I presume-----

Should the Department not still have the product as it confiscated the product? Unless the product is illegal for some reason or other, then I would understand why it would not be returned. I cannot understand why the Department has not explained that to the individuals in both of the cases that I have mentioned. They have not received an explanation. How long do you think a business can survive without such critical product and of such value? Does he not understand the negative effect that his Department has had on at least two businesses? Neither party received an explanation and you cannot give me an explanation today.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The way I would see it as follows. The Chairman has said these are facts and this is what the gentleman has said. I am perfectly happy to take that as a piece of evidence and to try to pursue the matter in order to see if this is true. If we did take €8,000 worth of product and if we do have €8,000 worth of product, then I will have the matter checked out. If it has no evidential value, then we will return it, or should have returned it, in my view. I cannot take-----

The client in this case was also awarded costs. What does that mean?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, he was not.

You know the case but not where the product is.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not. My brief does not cover the product but I am aware that in all of these cases, no costs were awarded. It was one of the questions raised in the committee's report.

That is right. Why would the person tell us that he was awarded costs when he was not awarded costs?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know.

They are awful men. Are they not?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I would not draw any such conclusion.

How long will it take the Department to respond to those two questions?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We should be able to do so quickly.

How quickly?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I think we could do it within a week. Is that okay?

That is fine. Will you or Mr. Flanagan get back to us with the information?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will get back to the committee.

I wish to return to the 2005 review. Was I correct in my understanding earlier that the review was carried out by the Veterinary Council of Ireland?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No. Allegations were made to the Veterinary Council of Ireland. They were very much the same kind of allegations that have been made to the committee and from the same source. They were examined by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, which had a full hearing. As a result, our vets were exonerated. The review in 2005-----

Does the Department have the report?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know if it is available publicly. That is the Veterinary Council of Ireland's business. I do know if it releases these things publicly.

Mr. Martin Blake

The council does not normally release its reports of negative findings. It issues reports of positive findings. I am sure we can look for it.

I picked up on that when the witness replied to Deputy Deasy. Given the fact that this is a matter for consideration by this committee, I think we need to get a copy of it and the paperwork from the Veterinary Council of Ireland, which examined these matters. Whatever its view of releasing information to the general public, I am sure it will understand that it would be appropriate to provide same to a committee of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Martin Blake

Yes

Can the Secretary General tell me how many vets operate under the remit of his Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Currently, we have 258 vets.

Are there any vets engaged outside of that figure?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have temporary veterinary inspectors, as I mentioned earlier. We have a rota on which there are 1,600 vets registered.

Are they all members of the Veterinary Council of Ireland?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Veterinary Council of Ireland is a regulatory body for the veterinary profession so every vet would be subject to it.

Is it an independent body?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. It is like-----

It is an authority appointed by government. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. It is like the Medical Council.

We have discussed the first review and we will seek it out. What about the second review?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It was an internal review carried out by one of our senior superintending veterinary inspectors, SSVIs, or a very senior vet who was not involved in the incident.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

That person was asked to review what had happened. As I explained earlier, and I not sure whether the Deputy was here at the time, but Mr. Galvin did not co-operate.

You told me that earlier. Which happened first? Was it the Veterinary Council of Ireland review or the internal one?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The internal one.

Was the internal review provided to the Veterinary Council of Ireland?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Veterinary Council of Ireland proceeds on its own.

On its own proceedings.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. It hears evidence and proceeds. I will resist calling it a court but will say it proceeds by taking evidence.

It is like a tribunal. Will you provide us with a copy of the internal review?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

I welcome Mr. O'Driscoll and his team. I wish to ask Dr. Beamish about the Common Fisheries Policy and tuna fishing off the north west of Ireland for recreational purposes. I was at Mullaghmore during the week and know the area has great potential for recreational angling. The pursuit was in decline due to the 2002-2009 reduced commercial quotas. When the Common Fisheries Policy was reviewed did we receive a quota for recreational angling? Can the matter be pursued?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

There are two types of tuna fishing. One is albacore tuna fishing which is just starting its season and we have a substantial quota. Albacore is a summer fishery. Albacore tuna migrate northwards off our zone. We have a quota in albacore tuna fishery and a track record in it. It proceeds as a commercial fishery.

What is the extent of it?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The issue that probably underlies the matters raised by the Deputy relates to bluefin tuna.

That is correct.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Bluefin tuna is an iconic species and is a very valuable and large tuna fish. The stock has been under significant stress globally because bluefin tuna have been overfished. Bluefin tuna is managed by an international body called the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas.

Japan, America, the EU, other countries are party to that body, which operates under a UN mandate. That decides on the global regulations applying to bluefin tuna and other tunas. The EU gets a quota under that, which, under EU law, has been divided out for many years on the same basis as that on which other stocks are divided, known as "relative stability". Under this system, the overall quota available to the EU is distributed on the basis of track record. Ireland has no track record on bluefin tuna fishing and, therefore, we are not allowed to have a directed bluefin tuna fishery. A small quota is set aside at EU level for countries that do not have a directed bluefin tuna quota, which is available to all member states without such a quota for by-catches. However, it is not directed. It applies where one is caught accidentally when a boat is fishing for something else and it is very small. Therefore, we cannot license and permit a directed bluefin tuna fishery. We do not have a legal basis on which to permit such a fishery. That is the overall situation regarding bluefin tuna.

I was at Mullaghmore yesterday and I know this endangered fish comes to the west of Ireland and that, while there is huge potential for developing tourism along the Atlantic corridor, there was a major issue until 2009 regarding sustainability and recreational fishing. It is amazing that we cannot just get a recreational licence for this fish. It just comes to the north west for the summer months. I know there is an application with the Department for a recreational licence for sea angling.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The legal position is quite clear. As it stands at present we cannot license and permit a directed bluefin tuna fishery, whether on a sea angling vessel or otherwise. We have been exploring for some time whether there was any means of securing support at the EU and at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna for the introduction of a scientific tag and release scheme and we have had some correspondence with the EU Commission on that issue. However, no such scheme has been approved at this point.

Can the Department outline its position on getting Ireland a bluefin tuna quota for sports and recreational fishing only? If we are talking about developing tourism, hotels, and so on, catch and release would not be suitable.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The position on fish quotas is that the rules on how these quotas are allocated are determined each time the Common Fisheries Policy is reviewed. The general principles of the system, known as relative stability, whereby the percentages are determined on the historical track record and they are fixed and do not change from year to year-----

Not to labour the point, but Ireland has no quota whatsoever, for-----

Dr. Cecil Beamish

We have access to a by-catch quota, which is available to countries that do not have a directed bluefin tuna quota.

What can be done to deal with the situation at Mullaghmore, off Rosses Point? Many people depend on recreational tourism, tourists who can use this facility. We are on the Atlantic corridor. What answer can we give them?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

There is no basis on which there can be a directed bluefin tuna fishery and we are trying to explore whether it is legally possible to permit a tag and release scheme. Bluefin tuna is iconic and it is highly valuable. There are significant questions as to whether tag and release would result in live fish coming back into the sea. A bluefin is the size of a dolphin.

When they migrate from here, they are captured in big nets. This is for a tag and release scheme off the west coast of Ireland. It is amazing that we do not have some potential there for tag and release.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

There is a question as to whether live fish would be put back in the water with a tag and release scheme-----

That is understandable.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

-----given the size of the fish we are dealing with.

I appreciate that. Does the Department see any opportunity there?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

We have been exploring it. A different Department deals with recreational fisheries, namely, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. We have been in correspondence with that Department regarding the development of sea angling and recreational fisheries.

Could Dr. Beamish send me information on that, about how one makes an application for such a licence? Who has the final approval on this?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The EU Commission governs the terms and conditions under which member states can operate in these kinds of fisheries.

An application could, therefore, be made.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

There is no scheme to apply to. The rules are set down clearly in legislation, so we are trying to see whether there is another way around this.

Can Dr. Beamish send me correspondence on this?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Certainly.

There is one other contentious issue, namely, the situation of the lost at sea scheme and the Byrne family. The Ombudsman's office went to the EU and it was indicated that his widow should be compensated.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The matter was the subject of an Ombudsman's inquiry, which was then the subject of a significant inquiry by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. That came to a conclusion and that is where the matter lies.

This is an appalling case. It has gone on for years and we are talking about outstanding debts. The family was left without their father, lost off the Donegal coast. The Ombudsman's office ruled that the State was entitled to pay the compensation. I cannot understand. It is not a huge amount of money, but it is morally wrong.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

This is a difficult case. I take that on board. The family concerned has been deeply affected by their loss, as have many families up and down the coast.

We will just discuss this case now.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The problem is precisely that. It lies in separating one case from others.

This is the case that went-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I understand that. However, we follow fair procedure. If we paid in one case, it would obviously have implications for others and there was legal advice in respect of that. It is in that context that one must see this issue. I understand the Ombudsman's finding in this case. I have the deepest sympathy and respect for this family and I understand why they are pursuing this, but there is a difficulty regarding its wider implications and there is no point in beating around the bush on it.

This has been raised time and again. It has gone to Europe. The Ombudsman's office found the Department was liable. It was stated in a very clear report that this payment should be made. There may be other cases, but no other case went to this level. If an independent officer of the State makes a recommendation, it is very similar to the Comptroller and Auditor General making a recommendation to the Department, and I sincerely hope that they are taken on board. The liability was clearly established and it was stated that the compensation should be paid.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will let my colleague, Dr. Cecil Beamish, speak in a moment. My understanding is that the Ombudsman did make the finding, as the Deputy said. I am not disputing that. However, there is a process whereby it can go to the Oireachtas. It did go to the Oireachtas. As Dr. Beamish said, it was heard in the Oireachtas committee and so on. There has been a full debate on this.

The problem is that there has been so much debate, but no action. People are tired of the debate.

The recommendations are very clear. Mrs. Byrne, an elderly widow, is still alive. The State has let her down.

Is the Chairman aware of this case?

Yes, I am Deputy.

Regardless of the precedent that has been set, we must ask ourselves what is the decent thing to do.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am aware of this case.

I must press the point that this case has been brought to the attention of several Secretaries General and they all have come back with a stock answer.

It has also been raised with several Ministers.

And as my colleague says, it has been put to several Ministers.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Deputy Perry makes an interesting point. I am only a Secretary General.

Where is the hold up in the process? The Office of the Ombudsman made the recommendation. That recommendation presumably was to pay Mrs. Byrne.

Yes, Chairman. It was very clear.

A clear recommendation was made in the case of this individual. The Revenue Commissioners have come before us in respect of other cases in the past and I know the case was fought but one individual was paid based on what the Office of the Ombudsman said.

Now another Department has received a report from the Office of the Ombudsman but is not paying the individual. What is preventing the Department from paying this person? Has the Department had legal advice that prevents it paying? The Ministers have been mentioned, have the seven or eight Ministers who held office since that recommendation was made refused to pay out?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I made the point that I am merely a Secretary General. There is legal advice on this and the legal advice is important and relevant to the point I made about the implications of one case for another case.

Is the legal advice not to pay it?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not have that information with me. I was not prepared to deal with this issue on this occasion, so I do not have the advice in front of me. This is a delicate issue involving a family. I am quite sincere in saying that I am really conscious of that. As the Chairman states, the Office of the Ombudsman has made a finding after carefully considering an issue and we have received legal advice.

Before I speak fully on this issue I would need to look at all of that.

Can Mr. O'Driscoll come back to the committee secretariat with a note?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

For the benefit of the committee, may I outline the sequence? It was not a case of just an Ombudsman's report and then nothing happened. There was a very full and thorough examination of this issue by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Like issues that have been spoken about before, there is a long history but there was a very lengthy examination of it by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There was a very large transcript of the evidence and information from all the officials going back to the time when the events happened in 1981 or 1982 and a scheme that was run in 1990 to the committee. That committee came to its own conclusion.

Which was?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

The committee supported the position.

Was it put to a vote?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Yes. This is going back up to six years ago, I cannot remember the exact year. There continue to be representations and so on about the case.

Is it a case now that the Department is allowing a vote at an Oireachtas committee to override the report of the Office of the Ombudsman?

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Right through this period, the then Minister and the Department had a position and that position was also subject to legal advice. It went to the Attorney General and successive Attorneys General but the matter has continued to be a live issue and has been looked at again.

At this point, it has remained as it was at the conclusion of the Oireachtas joint committee examination and the position that was presented at that.

The roles have been reversed now in terms of the Government and the Opposition. Perhaps it is a case whereby Dr. Beamish might speak to the Minister.

I think that it is the advice that has been given to the Minister in regard to this case. We saw the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Department and an account of the Department's discussion on legal fees. The family did not take the litigation route because of the cost of legal fees. The Department took legal advice, but this lady could not afford to take the risk of engaging a legal team. With due respect to the family, it would be different if they went down the legal route. They did not because they could not afford it. The family went through the European Union channels and the Office of the Ombudsman who clearly established their case.

I think it is a poor reflection on the role of the Office of the Ombudsman. I have no doubt that the Office of the Ombudsman has a legal team to advise it. I think the case would be statute barred now but morally, the right thing is to pay the money. The sum involved in not significant in any sense.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I do not know how much further we can take this matter. I am not contesting at all that this family have certain rights and the Office of the Ombudsman found in their favour. I want to make that completely clear.

If my memory is correct and I think it is, after the then Minister made the decision he or she did on the recommendation of the Office of the Ombudsman, the next step was that the Ombudsman referred it to the Oireachtas and I think that is what happened. It was a reference from the Ombudsman to the Oireachtas, then the discussion, which Dr. Cecil Beamish has spoken of happened in the committee.

Will Mr. O'Driscoll give us a note on the overall history?

Will Mr. O'Driscoll give us an overview on the process and a potential solution if possible?

I have two items I wish to raise, one of which is the recent BSE scare in light of cattle for breeding being imported into the country.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The case arose because we test all animals over 48 months that die on a farm. That is what happened in this case. There was an over 48 month animal - a "fallen animal" is the expression in the business. We tested it. We found BSE on the initial results. The situation is that we are awaiting two confirmatory tests, but I think they will be in within the next week or so. Also, very importantly, we are undertaking a full epidemiological examination of the case and that might take some time.

One would be amazed that in this day of technology the epidemiological test would take that length of time. Why would it take that length of time for the results of an epidemiological test?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The first step is to track down the cohort of animals, the progeny and so on. All of those have been restricted. These animals will eventually be slaughtered and tested. One can only test for BSE by slaughtering the animal.

Will Mr. O'Driscoll explain how the dead animals are collected? Is there a veterinary officer in all of those areas?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Animals die on farms all of the time. We have a fallen animal scheme. We pay the farmer a significant sum to transport, in the case of animals over 48 months - the animals at risk - to a knackery, where our veterinary officers then take a sample of the brain.

I refer to the rendering process in the knackery yard, from the time of collection to inspection. I refer to the previous case and the absence of veterinary personnel in the factory. How many vets work in the Department?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There are 258 vets.

How many knackeries are in the country?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

There are 40 knackeries.

Who is responsible for reporting the deaths of animals over 48 months?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The farmer has responsibility to report it. It is in the farmer's interest to report it also and that is why we have a subsidy scheme.

Is compensation paid for under 48 months?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No.

What compensation is paid for after 48 months?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is €30 for animal collection and €58 for rendering.

Who gets the €58 payment - the renderer or the farmer?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We specify a maximum contribution to be paid by the farmer of €54.03. If the costs incurred by the farmer were to go higher than that I presume we would adjust our payment.

How many claims have been made?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We normally have about 60,000.

Who makes the claim? Is it the renderer or the farmer?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The payment is made to the person who collects the animal but that then reduces the charge to the farmer.

That is my query. The fee is not paid to the farmer, it is paid to the renderer and that allows the pick-up charge. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is paid directly to the knackery operative, to the collector of the animal. However, what that does is to reduce the charge to the farmer and in effect the benefit goes to the farmer.

It seems to me to be a loose arrangement, to be honest, the fact that it is being paid to the renderer and not to the farmer, to pick up the dead animal.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I said earlier that the number was 60,000. I see they have fallen back to around a more normal level of 50,000 in 2014. The higher numbers were due to a problem in 2013 to which I referred, the fodder crisis. Numbers increased in that period immediately afterwards. The normal number would be about 50,000.

How is the age of the animal verified?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Our animal identification and movement system knows the age and location of every bovine in this country.

Are there plans to tighten up that arrangement?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Our animal identification and movement system is one of the most advanced in Europe. In response to questions about some of the issues on the SIU I said that a key aspect is the protection of that system to keep it state-of-the-art and to prevent any mischievous movement of animals or illegal movement of animals which could give rise to a danger to our animal health status. The protection of that system is a really important function carried out by the Department. That system is the absolute lynchpin of all our animal health systems.

I have a final question about this area. How often is a rendering facility inspected per year?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have a permanent presence there in any case. The issue of inspection does not quite arise.

Is it a permanent presence every day?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

I have a question about the milk quota and the 9,500 extra jobs. What is the Secretary General's view on this topic?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The ending of the milk quota is one of the greatest opportunities ever facing the Irish agrifood sector. I said in my introductory remarks that we had 170,000 people employed in the agrifood sector and that we had reached record exports of €10.5 billion. That is before the removal of the milk quotas. The opportunity arising for this country from the removal of milk quotas is absolutely staggering. It is an enormous opportunity. The Food Harvest 2020 committee estimated that we could increase production by 50% by 2020. Right now what the dairy processors are telling me is that we are heading in that direction. Milk prices are low at the moment and there is significant concern about that. Nevertheless, our dairy farmers are gearing up and all of the indications are that milk production will grow very rapidly.

One core estimate has been done of the potential employment aspects. It was carried out by an independent group chaired by a senior person from Teagasc. The group came up with a figure of 25,000 jobs on average if all of the Food Harvest 2020 targets were met. About 15,000 of those related to the dairy increase. The Deputy will know about another study carried out by the Cork Institute of Technology which estimated the impact in Cork alone of 4,000 jobs. We are currently awaiting the report of the agri-strategy 2025. A committee of the industry carries out ten-year forward strategies every five years and these are done with the support of the Department. We await that strategy which we expect to issue in early July. It will look forward to 2025 and will push out another five years. I have no doubt that there will be employment numbers in that strategy.

I thank Deputy Fleming for allowing me to speak ahead of him. My question relates to Bord na gCon and the Indecon report and what seems to be a decision by the Department to close down Harold's Cross race track which is a profitable race track, one of the few profitable race tracks out of the total of 17 in the country. The implementation of the Indecon report seems to be very selective. Why should the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine want to close down one of the two race tracks in Dublin, considering other counties with far smaller populations have two race tracks, such as Cork and Tipperary? Why close down a profit-making race track which had a 22% increase in profitability in the first quarter of 2015? How does the Department expect the smaller loss-making race tracks will be funded considering that the surplus profit from the three profitable race tracks was ploughed into the loss-making tracks? Why is there this requirement that Limerick race track must be saved at all costs? Why was there such an extravagant expenditure there in the first place? Why should Harold's Cross be going for the high jump because of wrong decisions in respect of other areas?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Deputy's questions relate to a number of different issues. The Limerick stadium has been the subject of a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General and I have given some reaction to that report. The Comptroller and Auditor General made significant findings many of which related to a period before our Department took over the responsibility for the track. That is not to say I am washing my hands of it - rather, that those are the facts. That report stands, as does our response to it. The issue raised by the Deputy is more fundamental. It relates to Harold's Cross but it relates more broadly to Bord na gCon.

Bord na gCon moved from having a surplus of €525,000 in 2011 to a deficit of €986,000 in 2014. I think it has debts of about €22 million. In the light of all the issues that had arisen in Limerick and other issues, Indecon was brought in to conduct a study and make recommendations. I think it made 27 recommendations, among which was a programme of asset disposals, clearly to improve the finances of Bord na gCon and its balance sheet. To be absolutely clear, no decision has been taken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine. It is for Bord na gCon to go through the Indecon report and develop an implementation plan, which it has done. It is working through it. Among the things it will have to do is to make decisions on what it wants to do on the proposed sale of assets. Under the 1999 Act, it has to obtain the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the disposal of any property. The sale of the track at Harold's Cross has been recommended by Indecon. We have not at this point received any request from Bord na gCon. We are well aware that it is considering the proposal and will eventually come to us with a proposal, but so far the Minister has not made a decision on the matter. It has not come to him for decision.

What is Mr. O'Driscoll's thinking on the recommendation made in this respect in the Indecon report?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I would be reluctant to say since the Minister has a role to make a decision on any recommendation from Bord na gCon. It is for Bord na gCon to do this.

If the recommendation comes from Bord na gCon that it wishes to dispose of that asset, will it be Mr. O'Driscoll's function to recommend a course of action to the Minister?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We would. Obviously, as normal, the Civil Service would examine the proposal and bring it to the Ministers in the two Departments. For that reason-----

When is a decision expected to be made?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am not aware of a specific timing. It would be up to Bord na gCon to decide when it should make a proposal, assuming it will make one. I do not have any indication of a specific timing in that regard.

I thank Mr. O'Driscoll. I told the Chairman that I would be speedy.

I welcome Mr. O'Driscoll and his colleagues. I have a few issues to raise and if they were specifically covered while I was attending other meetings, well and good.

Twice on the first page of his opening script Mr. O'Driscoll referred to the successfully negotiated agreement on the reform of Common Agricultural Policy which included the end of milk quotas. Given that we were in the driving seat during the negotiations, was Mr. O'Driscoll aware at that stage, based on projections and knowing that the agriculture and dairy industry was gearing up to increase production to take advantage of this reform, that we were facing a superlevy bill of about €69 million? In the negotiations what did he expect the hit to be on farmers? I would be shocked if he did not contemplate this possibility. From responses to parliamentary questions, I know that there is an arrangement in place allowing the superlevy to be paid by the Department over a three-year period. That is an issue for cash flow, but there is still a figure of €69 million. How many farmers are affected and what is the breakdown? If Mr. O'Driscoll does not have it, he may be able to supply a chart showing how many farmers are affected.

I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to explain the recovery method. Does the State have to pay the superlevy, with the Department collecting it from the co-operatives which collect it from farmers? I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to give us a note because I have not heard anything on this aspect of the matter. Does the Department collect the superlevy that it pays over to the European Union? I ask Mr. O'Driscoll to talk me though the big issue.

I will be upfront. I fundamentally disagree with Mr. O'Driscoll's opening remarks in which he said it was a successful conclusion to the Common Agricultural Policy negotiations which resulted in a bill of €69 million for farmers. I do not describe that a success. It may have been a success for officialdom to have an agreement, but it is not a success for farmers. It had to be contemplated that the regime was coming to an end and people could not have been expected to wait until 1 April, the end of the superlevy year, before starting to increase output. If we were to reach the targets mentioned, Mr. O'Driscoll must have known that there would be a build-up. Surely it had to be within the Department's ability during Ireland's Presidency to secure some transitional arrangements to ease off on superlevy payments. He might outline what the experience has been in other places.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, we would still genuinely regard the achievement in terms of CAP reform as being very significant. I will mention just two aspects. One is the confirmation of the abolition of milk quotas which was fought for right up to the end of the negotiations, and the abolition of sugar quota at the same time. That is significant. The other is the defence of our huge transfers. If one looks at the transfers to Ireland in agriculture and compares them with those in other countries, we are completely at one end of the spectrum.

Ireland is a net contributor, is it not?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, not in agriculture.

Ireland is a net contributor.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

As somebody who comes from an agricultural constituency, I am sure the Deputy will let me finish the point. This is really important, especially with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform listening. If it were not for the huge transfers we receive in agriculture, if in the morning the Common Agricultural Policy was abolished and everything was renationalised, Ireland would be a massive net contributor to the European Union. The reason we are more or less in balance is that we receive massive transfers in agriculture. We get €3 for every €1 we put in into agriculture. I see my colleague from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform taking notes. I am glad about that.

The issue the Deputy has raised is completely reasonable in terms of whether we tried to secure resolution of the issue of the superlevy in 2014 during the negotiations. We did. We fought very hard for this, even beyond the Irish Presidency and into the following one. There was a major meeting of the Council of Ministers - my memory is that it was held in Luxembourg - at which this was battled for. We sought to get the Commission, under the previous Commissioner, to make a proposal to adjust the fat level in milk as it was counted. This sounds rather technical.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The net effect would have been to give us an extra milk quota of 2%. We fought really hard for this. The Commissioner had to make the proposal and, in his wisdom, decided he would only make it if he was guaranteed in advance a qualified majority in the Council. We fought very hard with colleagues to get this. We secured a clear majority in the Council but failed to achieve a qualified majority. A number of countries - some very unusual allies - lined up against the proposal. Therefore, we did not secure it. Unfortunately, that was the last chance to avoid this significant superlevy bill.

Personally, as somebody who is deeply involved - as I led the team of officials in the CAP negotiations, I have been up and down the EU policy area for years - the application of a superlevy this year after we abolished quotas truly does not reflect well on the European Union. However, the fact is that we failed to achieve a qualified majority in the Council and we have a bill for €69 million.

There is another committee meeting next door which is complaining about the European Union bullying the banks. Now Mr. O'Driscoll is saying we were bullied in agriculture. I cannot resist making the comparison.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It involved a minority of member states. In fairness, the old Commissioner could have done more.

The new Commissioner put in place a system under which the superlevy could be paid in three instalments. Ireland is one of the countries that made that proposal. As committee members will know, the superlevy bill will be in the region of €69 million, of which milk producers will have to pay one third, or approximately €23 million, up front, with the remaining €46 million to be paid in the following two years. The Deputy is correct in that the State will have to pay a bill upfront. I am sure the Comptroller and Auditor General is making calculations in his head, but in effect the Exchequer will have to carry the borrowing cost of €46 million.

Is that figure included in the Department's Estimates for this year?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is more of an issue for next year and the year after. The amount involved will be approximately €150,000 or thereabouts. The borrowing cost represents the real cost.

That is, the interest cost. To finish on the superlevy, I ask the Department to supply a breakdown of the number of farmers affected by a levy of €5,000 or less, between €5,000 and €10,000 and so on. It must have all of these statistics, but I do not want to delay the meeting by asking the witnesses to read the figures. I ask that they supply the data to the committee secretariat. Is the Department confident that it will recover everything it will pay out?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, I am confident in that regard; it is done through the processors. Approximately 6,000 farmers will be affected.

If 6,000 farmers are carrying a debt of €69 million, it averages out at a sum of around €10,000 per farmer. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, a little more than €10,000.

That is a serous amount of money for those affected. The tragedy is that they are probably our most progressive farmers, the ones who are trying to expand and produce more.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes. They are the ones who put their foot on the pedal first.

On page 3 of the appropriation accounts I was surprised to read that the Department was in breach of national procurement guidelines to the tune of €5 million in 19 specific cases, or an average of €263,000 per case. In addition, there are other local historical supplier arrangements that are outside national procurement guidelines. Of the 19 cases referred to, what was the value of the three biggest cases where procurement guidelines had been breached by the Department in the year under review? Subject to commercial sensitivities, will the Department send us a list of all 19 cases? Why is there this level of non-compliance with procurement guidelines?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I went through some of this earlier-----

I will not ask Mr. O'Driscoll to repeat himself.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am happy to run through it very quickly. I understand the question. The note is included in our accounts and we are being very transparent on this point, as we must be. The actual sum is €4.99 million. We have since undertaken competitive processes for 59% of that value. There are other cases on which we are seeking legal advice. Some of them were for services for which we could not really have tendered such as the emergency removal of horses on welfare grounds or emergency harbour works immediately following a storm. We also have cases in which there is only one supplier of test kits for laboratories. We are seeking the advice of the Office of Government Procurement in one other area, namely, the removal of hazardous clinical and biological waste. It may be the case that the office has a contract which fits that task.

On farm inspections, I received a reply to a parliamentary question from the Department yesterday. In cross-compliance inspections in 2014, of which there were 1,368, 26% of farms were given a clean bill of health, with no breaches; on 36% of farms there were minor breaches, with no financial penalty, while on 38% of farms there were breaches involving penalties. There were 4,743 identification and registration inspections, in which 38% of farms were given the all clear; on 37% of farms there were minor breaches, while on 25% of farms there were breaches involving penalties. What is the total amount in penalties levied by the Department as a result of breaches uncovered through inspections? How does our inspections and fines regime compare with that in other EU countries? Are we the good boys in Europe or are we laggards in that regard? Are the fines extrapolated from these samples? If the Department is only inspecting 5% of farms, are fines being levied on the State based on extrapolations? How are farms picked? Is the selection process random or targeted? Will the witnesses explain the inspections regime and the amounts the country must pay for infringements?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We are required to carry out a certain percentage of inspections every year. For example, in terms of eligibility for the single farm payment, we are obliged to have a 5% inspection rate. Some inspections are made randomly, while others are carried out on a risk basis, which is an EU requirement. Risk based assessments include issues such as whether farmers had previously incurred penalties and so forth. Tolerance levels and levels of penalties are entirely laid down in EU legislation and we have no discretion in that regard. All of this is fully rendered in the farmers' charter which we recently renegotiated with the farming organisations. We completed the negotiations last week on a new charter which sets out tolerance levels and so on.

The percentage rate requirement for the basic payment is 5%; for disadvantaged areas, 5%; for greening, 5%; for cross-compliance, 1%; bovine identification, 3% and so on. Obviously inspections can be doubled in some cases. I will not go through all of the figures, but for the REPS, the rate is 5%, which rate also applies to GLAS and the Burren scheme. For TAMs it is 5% or up to 20% in the case of pre-approval inspections. These percentages are in EU legislation, but they are discussed with the farm organisations and built into the farmers' charter. Also built into the charter are the details on how inspections are actually carried out; in other words, the level of notice we give and so forth. All of the provisions included in the farmers' charter must be within the terms of EU regulations which are detailed in this space. They set out the tolerance levels that apply in different circumstances, including tagging, for example. If we carry out an inspection and find that X% of animals on a farm only have one tag, what happens? In such a scenario the tolerance level is set out clearly in the regulations and the farmer's charter, as is the tolerance level in a scenario where tags are missing from a significant number of animals but the farmer has ordered them, for example.

While farmers, admittedly, will see it differently, we try to be as reasonable as we can within the terms of EU regulations. It is only fair to say that on the issue of land eligibility which has proved to be the trickiest issue for us, in comparison with other countries, we have a much lower disallowance rate. We have consistently been in the bottom four or five countries in the European Union in that regard. Having said that, I am very conscious that there is a very significant disallowance rate hanging over us, with an initial figure from the Commission of €180 million-----

For what year?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

For the five year period 2008 to 2012.

What is the amount per annum and does the Department have a contingent liability included in its figures?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We do not know what the liability is. The Commission has put a figure on the table which we have contested strongly. We have used the conciliation procedure in the European Union.

The conciliation council has made a recommendation which we consider to be positive. The council representatives have made a recommendation that we talk because they believe there is a basis for agreement. I have no wish to overstate this but it certainly means they did not conclude that Ireland has to pay up. They concluded that we should talk more. This implies a lower figure. We are in the throes of those negotiations, which are tricky and difficult. The Commission representatives have asked us to undertake additional audit inspections and have sent over their auditors again.

France got a bill for €1.1 billion in this area.

Have we paid any of the €180 million fine?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No.

We have not paid any of the fines since 2008. Is that the case?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am referring to this particular inspection. There are others. Penalties-----

Under cross-compliance-----

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, the ordinary penalties apply to farmers in the normal way. This is a major disallowance against the country because------

What is it based on?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is based on the Commission's assessment. The implication is that we are not being tough enough on Irish farmers.

That is extrapolated based on the Department's sample. Is that the case?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Commission has extrapolated it.

This is what I am coming at. Is Mr. O'Driscoll saying the Department has collected the fines from the farmer, but the State has not paid the money to Europe yet?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, sorry. I am not being clear. Individual fines are made on farmers from our individual inspections. There is no question about that. That goes into the normal process.

What does that mean? They pay it?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We pay it.

No, they pay the money to the Department.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

They pay it to us.

Does the Department submit that onwards?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes, but this is a different issue. This is where EU auditors come in. These are not fines we have imposed on farmers. EU auditors come in and take the view that our regime is not strong enough in certain respects and that we have not done enough in terms of disallowing farmers. One could interpret the EU audit finding as saying that we should have imposed a further €180 million in fines in that period on farmers. I am using the word "fines". Technically they are not fines, but I accept it is the common word.

We are negotiating with the Commission about that at present. The reason I mention it is because of the question Deputy Fleming asked about how well we compare with others. The one area the Commission has identified as an issue for Ireland is land eligibility, specifically, land eligibility of marginal land. That is the area to which the potential disallowance relates. This is why we did a great deal of work on land eligibility during the previous few years. We issued a land eligibility booklet to every farmer in the country so they could ensure they were declaring the right land.

What this comes down to is the amount of land the farmer declares to us. Does he declare that it is all eligible, or does he decide to draw a line around a given area because he recognises that it is ineligible? That is the crucial thing. Let us suppose the farmer over-claims to us and then we pay. Then the auditors come in and decide that we have overpaid to the farmer. That is how we get in trouble. If we do an inspection of a farmer and find he has over-claimed, we will penalise the farmer in our normal process, but if we do not pick that up in our 5% of inspections - by definition 95% of the farmers are not inspected-----

My question is as simple as this. Cross-compliance inspections are done in 1% of farms. That is the figure Mr. O'Driscoll read out. It amounts to 1,368, and 38% of these had fines. Does Europe not say to the Department that the figure should be extrapolated to everywhere else?

In the other area there is a 5% inspection figure. The Department does 5,000 or 6,000 inspections and finds fines in those areas. Does Europe not decide that if it is in the 5% the Department picked, then, logic would suggest, it is in the remainder in similar proportions, unless the Department can prove otherwise? I simply want to know where the connection lies. Surely the people in Europe cannot be so stupid as to say they will only take the fines for the 5% the Department examined and ignore the other 95%. That is the connection I do not get.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

No, they do not do that. Why do they not do that? It is because the idea of percentage inspections is that we encourage compliance. The idea is that by doing a random percentage of inspections we encourage everyone to correct behaviour. That is the idea. The question of the percentage of inspections that should apply has always been a subject of major debate in Europe. The question of whether 5% is enough or too much is often debated.

When those responsible come to Ireland for this €180 million, is it for a different series of inspections, other than what the Department is doing?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Yes.

What percentage of farms are they doing in their inspections which are not included in the Department inspections such that they have extrapolated up to €180 million?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is an audit process. The Commission representatives can decide to do whatever they want when they arrive. It depends on what they are auditing. They do not go to every country every year. An audit team arrives and, like any audit team, they do not give us much indication in advance of what exactly they want to look at. Then, on day one, they tell us they want to look at this, that and the other. If that involves a sample of farms, we will draw the sample and give it to them. They will travel around the country and visit those firms. I am sure farmers enjoy that experience tremendously.

I know the Department picks the good ones. Anyway, the fines that go in-----

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

If an inspector targets an area and has a risk-based selection process, he cannot extrapolate from it.

I accept that.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

An inspector can only extrapolate from a random sample. This is the type of point we have made in respect of Revenue and the Department of Social Protection. My understanding is that a scheme-wide fine would have to be based on random samples. They would have to turn up that way with 90% having no problem and perhaps 10% problematic, or whatever the figure may be.

This is my last question on this particular point. What fines has the Department collected from farmers? What fines has Department paid over to Europe? Mr. O'Driscoll might send us a note on that.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will send Deputy Fleming a note on that.

I have two other brief points. I realise this is not on the accounts but it is keenly relevant to the Department. How many farm deaths are there per annum, whether farmers, farmers' children or other people? I know it is not a normal thing but farm safety is very important. It may not be strictly under the remit of the officials present. I have heard a good deal about cruelty to animals, but I was thinking that I know a lot of children who have fallen off trailers or bales of hay. I am very interested in the people who have died on farms as well.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Deputy Fleming is absolutely right. We had a horror show last year. If I remember correctly, over 30 people died in farms. That was an exceptionally high figure. We do not know whether it was a blip or the beginning of a disturbing trend, but we have been active in this area. We introduced a farm safety scheme during the year. Deaths on farms come from a variety of sources, for example, from animals, slurry pits - that is a common cause - machinery and so on. There are things that can be done, physical investments that can be made, to make the farm safer.

We introduced a grant scheme for farmers. I am pleased to say it was heavily subscribed. Those moneys have been paid or are being paid. The targeted agricultural modernisation scheme comes under the rural development programme. We have built further grant schemes for the same sort of thing. On top of that, part of the rural development programme involves what we call knowledge transfer groups. This is where we bring farmers together in groups. It has been found to be by far the most effective means of providing advice to farmers. We have built a farm safety element to into the curriculum of those groups

What happened last year is very disturbing and we never want to see anything like it again. The Minister has been particularly keen to make that point. A great deal of work is being done by farm organisations and various other voluntary groups. The Irish Farmers Journal has had major articles on this. There is a serious effort throughout the industry to try to get this down. We had 6,000 applicants for the farm safety scheme last year. We used unspent RDP moneys. The old rural development programme had some unspent money left in the kitty, as it were. There was €12 million. We bundled that up and we are paying it out to the 6,000 farms.

It is an important issue. Our customer service unit has introduced a single point of contact for bereaved families.

On a farm, it is the farmer who can die, leaving the family stranded with all of our schemes, which are not particularly simple. We do not want the family going from Billy to Jack around the State system to try to sort it out.

A one-stop-shop for bereaved families.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Exactly.

I will not ask Mr. O'Driscoll to answer two further questions now, but he can send his answers to the committee in writing. If he wants to answer verbally, though, that would be fine. The Department used to have a role in a great deal of forestry land, much of which it transferred to Coillte down the years. Is it still the registered owner of any of the lands that Coillte believes is its own? In particular, Mr. O'Driscoll might send me a note on Rathlaoise wood in Portarlington. Coillte claims that it owns that, but someone else has said that the Department's name is on the title deeds. Coillte is trying to sell it.

Mr. O'Driscoll might want to give either a detailed note or speak now on my next question. What are the Department's plans for its major office in Portlaoise? It is leasing all over the town. The issue is a hardy annual for this committee. The intriguing point is that there are other Departments in the Department's office in Portlaoise. I am a local Deputy and do not understand why the Departments of Social Protection and Justice and Equality and the Probation Service are in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's building while the Department's own staff are in six or seven other locations. What is the position with the extension? Has it been paused?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I will happily quote the Deputy to the Office of Public Works, OPW.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

Deputy Fleming's views have my complete support. I have been raising this matter since I became Secretary General. That was only in January, but the head of the OPW has heard from me incessantly on this matter. I visited a number of the offices in Portlaoise recently. The Deputy is right. It is a no-brainer, in that we should have the whole building and all of our staff should be in it.

Does the Department need an extension? Has it plans for one? It is working on the matter.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

My view-----

Send me a note.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I would be delighted to do that. The Deputy should also speak to the OPW.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

His point of view is one that I share.

I thank Mr. O'Driscoll.

Does Deputy Deasy wish to ask a question?

I have a couple of questions. The first relates to something that the committee has been addressing in the report that we are finalising, namely, the State fishery ports. We have been back and forth with the Department on this issue. We understand that it and the problems in the system were inherited by the Department. I do not know who in the Department volunteered for this or who ordered the Department to take it, but that is irrelevant now.

From what I know of Dunmore East in Waterford, the Department has made genuine efforts to improve the situation in terms of the buildings there. The local opinion is that matters have improved a great deal, although there are complex issues surrounding arrears. At the outset of the process, there was a suggestion on the future utilisation of the buildings post report and post dealing with the arrears. The suggestion had to do with expertise within government and which agencies might bring some value to the buildings' utilisation, given the fact that the buildings are vital in the processing of shellfish and other seafood for export. Thought was given to Enterprise Ireland, given its long history of supporting the food industry and the expertise that it has at the top. Consider the background of its head, Ms Julie Sinnamon. Mr. O'Driscoll knows her well and I have worked with her previously. I told the Chairman that I was going to meet the head of Enterprise Ireland, which I did last week. Her reaction to the suggestion of Enterprise Ireland having an involvement in this matter was favourable. She understood that there might be some utility in Enterprise Ireland considering the suggestion alongside Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, and the Department. I spoke to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, afterwards and he agreed. Some Ministers around here work on the basis that, if something is not their idea, it is not a good one. Luckily, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, is open to suggestions as to what might be the best way forward for these buildings.

In Dunmore East, we do not have an acute problem with vacant buildings compared with other ports, which might be in worse situations, but it is still an issue. There is agreement around this table about the direction that we are trying to move this matter, which I hope will be positive. Considering that the Minister and the head of Enterprise Ireland have agreed to engage, what is the obvious next step?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I thank the Deputy for his questions. With my colleagues, Dr. Beamish and Mr. Kevin Moriarty, who is up there among the gods, we have been working hard on the harbours issue since we took over responsibility. It is no secret that there was a job of work to be done. We have given some reaction to the committee's draft report. I hope that it will be finalised and that we will see it.

We have made a great deal of progress on many fronts. The issue of the accounts was raised previously. The 2012 accounts have been signed off on by the Comptroller and Auditor General and have gone to the Government. The 2013-14 accounts are ready and have gone to the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is good and we have an understood format, etc. As requested, we have conducted an evaluation of the ports. The value assigned the harbours is an astronomical €492 million. That is striking.

The Deputy raised the issue of properties at the harbours. This is a tangled story in some harbours, albeit less so in others. There are 213 properties in the harbours. Of those, 94 are leased with full agreements and so on. Of the 61 leased without agreements, a significant number are leased to public bodies. Only eight properties across the harbours are vacant and considered ready for tender. Approximately 15 are vacant but not considered suitable for tender, either because of a legal problem or an operational or planning issue. We have the number of vacant properties down to a low level. There are 46 properties in respect of which people are in arrears with us. Some have agreements and some do not. We are trying to sort out all of this. We are making good progress.

The Deputy has suggested the involvement of Enterprise Ireland and BIM in a process with us on the further development of the commercial potential of the harbours. That is an excellent idea. Like the Deputy, I know Ms Sinnamon well. How closely our Department works with Enterprise Ireland is not often appreciated. Everybody thinks of us as just working with Teagasc and Bord Bia, as they report to us and are our semi-State bodies, as it were, but there is a large chunk of Enterprise Ireland to which we provide a great deal of funding. For example, our marketing and processing grants, which are listed in our appropriation account, go through Enterprise Ireland. We work closely with it. It is on our high-level committee, chaired by the Minister, that is in charge of the implementation of Food Harvest 2020.

We work very closely with Enterprise Ireland and I am delighted about the idea of involving it in this process. The valuation figures brings the point home to us. I mentioned the figure of €491 million and a huge proportion of that figure - I would have to add up the individual amounts - relates to the replacement cost of the harbour - in other words, not the properties. When one thinks of the harbours, one is inclined to think of the properties around them. Of the €492 million figure, apparently, the properties are worth about €30 million. Therefore, the harbours are the main real asset. That makes common sense if one thinks about it. The harbours have all kinds of other functions. My colleague sent me a photograph of a cruise liner coming into Killybegs - a fantastic sight. It is a huge resource now not only as a fisheries harbour but as a key to tourism development in Donegal. It is a fantastic resource. Other harbours are being used for the export of stone, one of which is Dingle - An Daingean. Therefore, a variety of different things are happening at harbours. I know Deputy Deasy will be very familiar with Dunmore East and the work we are doing there in regard to the dredging to make it more useable. My view on it is that a huge amount of progress has been made, and huge credit is due to my colleagues who have been working on this, but we can absolutely make further progress on this and we are happy to involve Enterprise Ireland, as the Deputy suggests.

I thank Mr. O'Driscoll for that. When we launch this next week we will reiterate that and mention that there is agreement to engage with it. My experience in my constituency is that many people have approached me about processing shellfish and getting involved in seafood for export in the past six months in particular. Regarding the €400 million odd that the harbours are worth and the buildings being worth €30 million, the value of buildings is a bit more than that because they are the only buildings there. There is an essential need for them to be utilised properly. Given that in many cases they are vacant or there are legal issues surrounding them, the ports need a resolution of those issues. The Department is working very hard on this but in many cases these matters have gone on for way too long. That is the issue in that respect.

I will stick to issues related to Dunmore East. I thank Dr. Beamish and his section for the work they have done in moving forward the dredging issue during the past year. There have been issues with regard to tendering etc. I have a general question for Mr. Beamish regarding funding for infrastructure into the future. The need for that in Dunmore East is critical in two respects. It is a stepping-off point for access for the cruise ships and it is also a busy fishing port. There is not the space there for access for the cruise ships that are vital from an economic and tourism standpoint. It is becoming a potential safety issue and they are not getting any co-operation from the port company in Waterford. That is nothing new. Anyone in Waterford would tell us that. There is an issue there that needs to be examined and perhaps inquired into by the Department.

Another issue relates to a breakwater structure. That is the other essential piece of infrastructure that is missing from Dunmore East to allow for the leisure and the sailing end of activities to be built on and promoted. What ideas has the Department for securing infrastructure funding generally, and I ask that with a caveat? That caveat is that the proceeds for the sale of Aer Lingus have been tagged as going towards a regional connectivity fund. They have said that it is potentially going to ports and airports. Does that include State fishing ports to anyone's knowledge? Has that been discussed with the Department? Is there any suggestion that some of the funding from Aer Lingus might go to some of the fishery ports?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am not aware that there has been. When people talk of ports in that context, I suspect they are generally talking about the big ports, Dublin Port, Rosslare, Cork and so on.

Mr. O'Driscoll does not know about that.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

To be honest, I do not know.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

If we can go fishing in a pot for some money for our harbours, the Deputy can be sure we will be there.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

My colleague, Cecil Beamish, wishes to add a comment.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

On the Deputy's second point, the dredging work is under way this summer, and that has been a longstanding requirement in Dunmore East. The next significant capital project on the line in terms of Dunmore East that is being examined is a breakwater which would provide benefit also to the marine leisure side of the harbour in terms of improved shelter over the winter and perhaps allow the development of small craft berthing on the leisure side of the harbour which has been growing very rapidly. The exploratory work on what type of breakwater, its positioning and the scale and cost of it is getting under way over the next period as we move through the dredging work. We will be deepening the entrance channel as part of the dredging exercise. The overall dredging will be going deeper than was envisaged if had we gone ahead with it last year. We are getting further output this year.

Dr. Beamish is saying that in the next capital funding round the Department is considering a breakwater structure potentially for Dunmore East.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

At the moment we are exploring the engineering and design dimensions of what would be required for a breakwater as there are different versions and considerations of where one would put it, how one would put it in and all of that. In parallel with that, we would be considering perhaps multiannual capital requirements and how to programme that.

The superlevy payment scheme was announced this morning; I think it was Deputy Fleming who mentioned it. Mr. O'Driscoll is probably aware that myself and Deputy Michael Creed suggested the formation of a dairy forum given the post-quota era we are now in, mainly to governmentally manage the volatility that we all know will affect the dairy industry in the years ahead. My understanding is that this forum will meet on 15 July. Is that correct?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It will be in mid-July. We are talking about very senior people in the dairy industry who would be expected to go to that, so we are trying to line them up and have it on whatever date works best for them.

Yes. We have been speaking to a number of people since that suggestion was accepted. The area on which we want the forum to focus and concentrate is the trade element. We think it deserves it, considering that the dairy industry has been locked in a box to a certain extent for the past 30 years and we think that the Government should react accordingly. Every agency and Department within Government should take a hand in that. We have met the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and we would like its involvement in the forum but also some kind of nexus between our missions or industries aboard - specific ones where we think there is potential when it comes to exports of milk and milk ingredients. I was in Vietnam recently and it was an eye opener to learn that the market there is worth US$6 billion every year but we have pretty much got nothing there. The idea has been accepted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that its involvement would be useful. It was heading in that direction to a certain extent. There would also be a reporting requirement from those missions back to the forum on a regular basis so that they can inform the forum and, by extension, the industry, of their capacity and capability when it comes to helping anyone from private industry who might want to get involved in a foreign market.

My own belief is that within ten to 15 years, the Chinese will probably sort themselves out to a certain extent and they will not be as reliant as they are on foreign milk products because they will effectively build up capacity in their own industry. There is an issue in south east Asia but we have real capacity and capability in Africa based on our 50 years' experience, particularly in sub-Saharan and southern Africa. I believe that using this forum, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade really needs to capitalise on that. The taxpayer should expect Government to react accordingly now that quotas are over and because it means such a massive amount to the rural economy around the country.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I strongly agree with the Deputy's final points about the potential in Africa. For what it is worth, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has a presence in either seven or eight embassies. I cannot recall the precise number. Many of us here have worked in those jobs over the years. We have re-orientated those in recent years. For example, we did not replace our person in the embassy in Madrid and our person in the embassy in Warsaw. Instead, we set up posts in Beijing and Moscow. This is a shift from a policy intelligence-based foreign service to a trade-based foreign service. Our presence in the embassies is quite small. I would like to see that continue. In particular, I would like to see us develop a presence in the Middle East and Africa if the Minister approves. I would see that as a priority. I am very familiar with sub-Saharan Africa. I worked there for eight years so I am very conscious of the potential there.

China is one of our biggest markets. I have a list of the top dairy destinations. It is worth €395 million so it is very large. A market in Nigeria, which is worth €138 million and is growing rapidly, offers huge potential. The Minister hopes to visit Nigeria before the end of the year as part of a trade visit to west Africa. The market in Saudi Arabia is worth €126 million. These countries are very significant. A place like Senegal that nobody would think of is worth €51 million. This offers serious potential.

As I said earlier, the prospect of dairy expansion is one of the most important things ever to hit the agri-food industry in this country. It is an enormously important event. In my previous role and since assuming my current role, I have spoken to Bord Bia and the leaders of all the top companies very closely about this and about how they see market developments and whether we will find markets for the product. They are very bullish and see huge potential. In recent years, we have focused heavily on European markets. All our beef products go entirely to European markets and many of our dairy products are focused on European markets. In more recent years, we have begun to concentrate on places like China and Nigeria - the new markets. That is the future. Deputy Deasy is saying that the State needs to adjust to that with its offer and support for companies and I agree with him 100% on that. I have talked to my opposite number, Niall Burgess, in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I am very familiar with ambassadors in some of our key potential markets and have also spoken to them. I must say that our colleagues in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are fully engaged in this. We are also fully engaged in it.

We formed the trade committee some years ago in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It was designed to pull together staff from across the Department and Bord Bia who work on trade issues. There are people in our veterinary division who work on trade issues such as certification of product for trade. We tried to set up a committee that cut right across the Department taking in every bit of the Department that works on trade-related issues to co-ordinate and make it work better. It is a major focus for us and we will certainly work closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Enterprise Ireland and Bord Bia on it.

My final question relates to the online publication of the names of recipients of single farm payments, which, effectively, allows everyone to see them. The farming organisations and individual farmers have raised the risks they fear would accrue as a result of the publication of these figures. The Department must take this seriously considering the number of farms that have been subject to criminal attack and have been victims of crime over the past few years, particularly in isolated areas. Does Mr. O'Driscoll have any view about monitoring it on an ongoing basis? It would be useful if the Department said that it was concerned about it and that it is something it needs to keep an eye on. I think it is a fair point. One can make an argument about transparency in Government but when it comes down to the potential consequences for people who live in the country, it is a very serious issue and a question should be asked about it today.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

It is a requirement of EU legislation so we must do it. We are required to publish the name of the person and the municipality in which they reside. We were wrestling with the word "municipality" for a while regarding what it might mean. Does it mean the full address or part of the address we have on our system? How would that work? Some farmers would have quite detailed addresses with townlands while others would have a much broader address because of the nature of the area. A new Act in 2014 laid down the definition of a municipal district. We now publish the name of the farmer and the municipal district. To give an example, there are only four municipal districts in County Clare so they are pretty big areas. All of west Cork, which is my home area, is one area. If one checks for O'Driscolls in west Cork on our system, one will get a list as long as one's leg. It is no more specific than that. One finds the first name, surname and the fact that they are somewhere in west Cork. That is an important point relating to the issue raised by Deputy Deasy. Genuine concerns have been raised. It is very important. Every time we talk about this, we make it clear that cash does not transact here. These are electronic transfers into people's accounts so for any mischievous people out there who might be listening, there is no question of people having bundles of cash. I take the Deputy's point and we will monitor it. It is EU law, however, and we do not have flexibility on it. The definition of municipality we have used gives the broadest address one could imagine while being fully in accordance with EU law.

Fair enough, there are many O'Driscolls in west Cork. There are many Deasys in west Cork as well but I still would not like to have my name put down.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I know.

My point is that I believe the Department needs to constantly monitor this with regard to what the Garda is investigating when it comes to crimes committed on farms, when it comes to gangs.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We will do that.

It is necessary for this to be constantly monitored and watched. If there is a problem and if the Department connects the two, something would have to be done about it.

On Deputy Deasy's query regarding harbours, a report is being produced and we have had an engagement on the matter with the Department. Since then, however, we have had correspondence in regard to Auction Hall in Howth. I raise the matter because it seems there are queries going back to 2010 in regard to the use of that particular building. The officials might check the background to that and whether the lease on the building is available. I will ask the clerk to forward the correspondence to them, if they do not have it already. I would appreciate a written response on the matter.

Is the Department concerned about Bord na gCon's viability and its potential need for further additional moneys next year and in future budgets?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The board of Bord na gCon has a clear task ahead of it. The Indecon report is there as a basis on which to work on that task. I have concerns in that the body is making losses, has significant debt and there clearly is a job to be done. We have confidence in the board to do that job, but we will be looking at the proposals it makes to us regarding asset disposal and so on. That is the area in which it needs our sanction, and we will look at the totality of what is proposed in the context of the viability of Bord na gCon into the future.

In terms of Bord na gCon's financial statements, the Comptroller and Auditor General has drawn attention to two particular matters. Does the Department have a regular oversight role in respect of the board? Do officials talk to board members regularly about the body's financial situation and their business plan for making things stand up?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We have regular discussions with the board. The line assistant secretary, in particular, has regular contact with Bord na gCon as to how it is proceeding. At the moment, because it is working on an implementation plan for the Indecon report, the board is at a very particular point where it needs to make its decisions before coming to us with the proposals for which it requires sanction.

However, even in its latest statements, attention is drawn, for example, to the need to improve Bord na gCon's procurement functions and so on. It seems the board is fighting on all fronts. Members of the board have stated that the extra money they got in last year's budget was not requested by them but was simply allocated to them. Does Mr. O'Driscoll envisage the same thing happening in the forthcoming budget and, if so, have arrangements been made for that?

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

We will be in negotiations with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of the forthcoming budget on this and all other fronts. There is nothing in particular I can add in regard to Bord na gCon other than that I take the Chairman's point that it has a task to do. Given what I have said about our own issues with procurement, I will not be critical about Bord na gCon's issues with same. Like us, that body must up its game and do procurement properly in all cases and in accordance with requirements. We regularly have meetings with bodies under the Department's remit in line with the code of governance for State bodies. Another process that is there involves the requirement on all State bodies, including Bord na gCon, to have a performance framework in place. That is the formal process. However, what the Chairman is asking, as I understand, is whether we are keeping an eye on things, to which the answer is "Yes".

On the last occasion on which the Secretary General was here, we spoke about a particular case in Donegal. I will not go into the detail but we were told the matter was with the Chief State Solicitor's office. However, it was not until after the meeting that a file was sent to that office. I asked at the time whether the Department would, given the history of the matter and the moneys involved, consider entering into some type of mediation process in another attempt to resolve matters. We are told the case is with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor, as I said. I will give Mr. O'Driscoll the details after the meeting and ask that he examine the matter with a view to coming back to us on it.

I request that he do the same in respect of a couple of other cases. We have had correspondence from a gentleman in west Cork and from another individual who is represented by somebody in Dublin. Again, I will give Mr. O'Driscoll the names after the meeting. We would like to get a final reply on these matters in respect of which we have been dealing with correspondence on an ongoing basis. They seem to be genuine cases. Where mediation might work, we would like to know. If, however, it is the end of the road, the Secretary General might tell us so and outline the exact background and so on. In addition, an issue has arisen in regard to health treatments being administered to horses. There is correspondence on this matter which is not yet before us but which I intend to send to Mr. O'Driscoll. As I said earlier, I will send him the correspondence on the court case where the client argues that payment is due but has not been issued.

The Secretary General mentioned in his opening statement that a lot of what the committee has been told in respect of the special investigations unit is untrue. I do not want to get into a discussion on this today, but we spent a long time listening to a number of individuals who were prepared to come forward and have that conversation with us. It is hard to believe that most of what they told us was untrue. Aside from that, there were other individuals who came forward but, out of fear of how they might be dealt with by the special investigations unit, were afraid to give us the details. One or two of them might very well be still in the process of the investigation.

It is difficult to hear from individuals that they have a fear of an agency of the State to the extent they do not want to discuss their issues in a public way and do not feel comfortable dealing with Members of this Parliament because of that agency. While we have dealt with these matters with the Chief State Solicitor's office and the Department in terms of the costs involved, it seems from what we were told by those who are part of the report given to Mr. O'Driscoll by the clerk, as well as those who were unwilling and afraid to give information on the record, that they have spent considerable sums of money in an attempt to defend themselves. Looking at the figures that were given to us in terms of the cost to date, it is hard to see how it could have cost so much on the private side of it while the cost on the part of the State was so little. There is something not adding up in terms of what we are being told. It is difficult for the committee to deal with the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and then the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on this issue. There is toing and froing all the time as to who is responsible for what. Will Mr. O'Driscoll provide us with a more comprehensive note on these cases, indicating whether compensation or anything else was involved? I cannot equate the figures we were given with what might have been required in some of those court cases. If the figures given do represent all of the cost to the State, the Secretary General might give us the names of the counsels and solicitors involved, because there are very few around whose services are apparently so cheap. I certainly want to know the detail of all of that.

It is wrong of Mr. O'Driscoll to make a broad statement that what we have heard is untrue without providing us with what he refers to as the robust, point-by-point rebuttal of the claims made by the other side.

Once a document is submitted to the committee and becomes a document of that committee, it enjoys privilege. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll if he will respond in the public interest to each and every point raised by the individuals involved. I asked Mr. O'Driscoll why they were not paid and how much they were due but he said they were not due money. That is a substantial conflict of opinion and I want to resolve it and determine where the issues arise in respect of those individuals who came forward.

I cannot reconcile Mr. O'Driscoll's complete defence with the previous evidence presented to us, although I understand he has a job to do as Secretary General and that other Secretaries General do the same thing. My job is to listen to the complaints that are brought before this committee and to investigate the costs that emerge for the State. There are too many stories. Mr. O'Driscoll stated that the Department always acknowledges fair procedure. I will take him at his word but I do not think the special investigations unit follows his word. We have been informed about too many cases, none of which are connected. My experience of the Kilkenny case led me to raise it on the Order of Business one morning because I could not believe what I was being told, and which turned out to be true. A pregnant woman was pushed about and a car was damaged but the officer flashed his credentials and told a garda that he was from the special investigations unit and, therefore, almost beyond the law. In fairness to the garda, he said that was not the case. My knowledge of that case indicates that what is being done on the ground is not compatible with the story that Mr. O'Driscoll is telling. I accept that a job is being done but when I hear about a veterinarian's practice being entered through a window or of veterinarians not being able to renew their insurance because of the activities of the special investigations unit, I have to ask questions. There are too many common strands in these cases to ignore them. I ask Mr. O'Driscoll not to ignore them. I understand that he has to defend them but if I found someone in my business who was acting the cowboy I would hang him out to dry. These inspectors represent the Department. They do not represent the special investigations unit on its own.

Two individuals in different parts of the country gave us similar evidence about how their families were treated. They entered the property of a man in Carlow, who is not represented here, and confronted his mentally challenged son. That was not made up. I urge Mr. O'Driscoll to go beyond the defence he has to offer and investigate what is happening. It is not right. They cannot all be telling us untruths. While I am sure members will agree to dispose of Vote 30, we will not close off the issues that were brought to our attention. They have not been heard fully due to the fact that we have been unable to examine Mr. O'Driscoll's side of the story in the type of detail presented by previous witnesses.

There is another way of doing business. Given the devastation caused by the special investigations unit to a small number of businesses, it is hard to comprehend why the State would invest an endless amount of money to take people through the courts only for nothing to happen. It is hard for a business person to rebuild trust after the State presumed him or her guilty and visited his or her customers as part of its investigation. That is what happened in the case with which I am familiar. Rebuilding trust with customers is difficult when the State believes a business person is guilty. Fair procedure is necessary. The unit's officers are entitled to carry out their investigations but accusations of bullying were made in too many of the accounts I have heard. There are also too many stories about businesses being devastated and family lives being interrupted for me to ignore this issue.

I have listened to the evidence given by Mr. O'Driscoll and others but the committee has not received a written explanation. It is my intention to revisit this matter once we receive the written explanation. I will also inquire into the issue of fines, details of which I will send to Mr. O'Driscoll.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

The Chairman has the right to draw any conclusion he wishes but I need to make one point. He rightly stated that the State should not presume anybody guilty. I must ask the same thing for our staff. Serious personal allegations have been made. The Chairman mentioned some of them. In a court case, a judge described some of the most serious of the allegations mentioned as an attempt at character assassination without evidence. I agree with that judge. Other judges were quoted today but the aforementioned judge made a very important point. The Chairman is correct that I have not provided a point-by-point rebuttal of the document. I would welcome the opportunity to do so. I have answered members' questions as honestly and openly as I am able. We touched on some of the untruths members were told. I have stated clearly that I do not think the special investigations unit or anybody else is perfect. I am sure we have made mistakes but malicious allegations were made against front-line public servants who are doing a difficult job. I will present to the committee clear alternative evidence and I accept that the committee will do what it needs to do with it. However, I have to ask for the same indulgence that the Chairman asked from us, namely, that he does not presume our staff are guilty.

I am not presuming; I am asking Mr. O'Driscoll to give us the evidence.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am happy to do so.

The same malicious comments have been made about the individuals under investigation. Small communities around the country take seriously the presumption of guilt when an official arrives at someone's doorstep, and they wonder why a veterinarian or practice is being investigated.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I appreciate that.

One individual who came before the committee had a breakdown and has not enjoyed good health since this happened. Some of them are financially broken because of what happened. That is why I insist on the document Mr. O'Driscoll received being answered in the greatest detail possible.

Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll

I am happy to do so.

I am delighted to hear that. I also ask Mr. O'Driscoll to ensure that they operate on the basis of fair procedure and, if necessary, that he has a word with those he may want to have a word with regarding that fair procedure.

Is it agreed we dispose of Vote 30?

At the beginning of our meeting the statements before us made mention of the €9 million relating to the HSE. Rather than wait until the HSE comes before the committee, I ask members to agree that we write to the HSE and ask for a full explanation as to how that occurred and what actions it has taken to date in regard to that €9 million and what actions it will take in the future and in what timeframe.

The witnesses withdrew.
The committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. until 10.00 a.m. on Thursday, 25 June 2015.
Barr
Roinn