This morning we will engage with Inland Fisheries Ireland to examine the 2023 financial statements. The committee will also examine the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Special Report 118 – Governance Internal Control and Value for Money Issues in Inland Fisheries Ireland. We are joined by the following officials from Inland Fisheries Ireland: Mr. Barry Fox, deputy chief executive officer, Ms Suzanne Campion, head of finance and corporate services, Dr. Fiona Kelly, head of research, policy and risk, Mr. Milton Matthews, acting head of operations, and Mr. Michael Cusack, field services manager. We are also joined by an official from the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment who is here in a representative capacity, namely, Ms Martina Hennessy, assistant secretary general. Finally, we are joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General: the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee and Ms Ruth Foley, deputy director of audit. They are all very welcome.

I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that you should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

I now call on the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, for his opening statement.

As members are aware, the remit of Inland Fisheries Ireland is to protect, manage and conserve Ireland’s inland fisheries and sea-angling resources. IFI’s income in 2023 amounted to €40.5 million. More than 90% of its income comes from State funding sources. Most of the remaining income is derived from fee income for permits, licences and fishery rates.

IFI’s expenditure in 2023 amounted to €41.2 million. More than 70% of the expenditure, or €29.3 million, was in respect of remuneration and other pay and pension costs. Some €9.9 million was spent on field operations, with €2.3 million spent on administration expenses.

I certified the 2023 financial statements on 13 December 2024 and issued a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention in my audit report to issues of concern regarding IFI’s governance arrangements and the adequacy of its internal control systems that are dealt with in more detail in the special report that is before the committee this morning. I had drawn attention to some of the same concerns in my reports on the 2022 and 2021 audits, and because the matters remained ongoing, I felt a more in-depth examination was required.

The board of a State agency is the principal decision-making body in relation to the organisation’s strategic direction and oversees the performance of its operations. It is also responsible for ensuring the safeguarding of the assets it controls and compliance with governance norms. The chairperson of the IFI board resigned in April 2022. A new chairperson was appointed in May 2022 but resigned in January 2023. A further four resignations from the board occurred during 2022 and in January 2023. As a result, the board effectively became unable to reach the required quorum to meet and to make decisions, including approval of the annual financial statements.

In February 2023, the remaining board members were stood down by the then Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications on a no-fault basis. Using statutory provisions in the relevant legislation, the Minister appointed two persons on a temporary basis to perform the functions of IFI. As well as day-to-day oversight, they commissioned an independent review of IFI’s governance, which resulted in a December 2023 report setting out recommendations for change. A new board commenced operations in January 2024.

The main reason IFI exists is to secure the protection and conservation of fisheries resources, including both fish stocks and their habitats. IFI’s capacity to achieve this through active patrolling on Irish waters diminished in 2019, when the number of staff qualified to lead such patrols dropped sharply due to a decrease in the number of staff trained to the required standard along with the retirement and departure of trained staff from the organisation. IFI’s capacity to undertake patrolling was gradually restored through training of additional personnel, and the fleet of 12 patrol boats was replaced at a cost of €3.5 million. By 2023, IFI was achieving around 81% of its target of 25 patrols per boat per year.

IFI has the power to initiate prosecutions for serious fisheries and environmental offences, including fish kills and water pollution. However, in March 2023, it discovered that formal delegated authority from the board allowing its officers to initiate these prosecutions was not in place. Because of that gap, IFI had to withdraw many live prosecution cases. This had a significant impact on IFI’s ability to carry out its protection role and created a risk of financial loss and additional legal costs for the organisation. Prosecutions recommenced in June 2023 when formal delegated sanction was put in place.

Between 2019 and 2021, IFI received around €1.2 million from the Dormant Accounts Fund.

There were weaknesses in how IFI managed this funding. Internal audit reviews commissioned by the board showed that, in some cases, it was not clear that the spending fully matched the purpose of the funding. As a result, IFI repaid over €28,000 to its parent Department in 2022.

IFI owns a substantial period property called Aasleagh Lodge adjacent to the Erriff river in County Mayo. The grounds of the lodge encompass two self-catering cottages and an IFI operations base, which limits the income potential of the property. Over several years, there were significant deficiencies in control over the letting and management of the lodge and cottages. This exposed IFI to unnecessary financial risk.

Between November 2021 and February 2023, the then CEO's work base was changed from IFI's headquarters at Citywest to the regional offices in Ballyshannon, County Donegal. There is no evidence that a proper analysis was carried out or a formal business case prepared to support this change, or that the change was properly authorised. During that period, the CEO received over €7,900 in subsistence expenses due to the change, of which €1,000 was repaid to IFI after the change was reversed.

The work carried out by IFI staff is mostly field based, with a range of vehicles needed to perform its statutory functions. Notwithstanding this, the vehicle fleet operated by IFI appears to have been excessive in scale when compared to the number of staff. There were also benefit-in-kind tax issues in respect of vehicles used by IFI staff, resulting in settlements with the Revenue Commissioners totalling around €296,000.

In addition, an administrative error in July 2021 led to some of IFI's vehicle fleet being uninsured for a period. This only came to light when one of the vehicles was involved in a road traffic accident. The direct costs incurred by IFI in relation to the road traffic accident totalled almost €230,000 by the end of 2023.

Taken together, the many issues raised in the report indicate the development of an inadequate and inappropriate system of control, which seriously undermines public confidence in IFI's ability to carry out the important functions with which it is charged. The findings from the audit by my office of the draft 2024 financial statements are currently being reviewed. I expect to complete the audit by the end of the year.

I thank Mr. McCarthy. I now ask the deputy chief executive officer to give the opening statement on behalf of Inland Fisheries Ireland. As set out in the letter of invitation, he has five minutes to make his opening statement.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis an gcoiste ar an ócáid seo and for the opportunity to appear before the committee today to discuss the Comptroller and Auditor General's Special Report 118 and the financial statements for 2023.

We are pleased to discuss our work, the challenges we have faced, and the new opportunities ahead, as Inland Fisheries Ireland looks to the future with confidence. I am the deputy chief executive of IFI, serving in this role on an interim basis. The recruitment process for a chief executive is currently under way through the Public Appointments Service. I am joined by supporting witnesses, Ms Suzanne Campion, head of finance and corporate services; Dr. Milton Matthews, acting head of operations; Dr. Fiona Kelly, head of research, policy and risk; and Mr. Michael Cusack, field services manager.

I acknowledge at the outset the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which highlighted a number of governance and control weaknesses within the organisation, the regularity of certain transactions and value-for-money issues. Inland Fisheries Ireland fully accepts the findings of this report, and we recognise the importance of addressing these shortcomings comprehensively and transparently.

In February 2023, under section 20(5) of the Inland Fisheries Act 2010, the then Minister, Eamon Ryan, removed the IFI board on a no-fault basis, following a series of resignations that had left it unable to function effectively. The Minister subsequently appointed Mr. Seamus Neely and Mr. Tom Barry under section 18 of the Act to perform the functions of IFI during the period in which a new board was being appointed. Their professionalism, independence and applied expertise significantly strengthened accountability, accelerated the pace of reform and stabilised organisational governance. During their term, a comprehensive independent governance review was commissioned. A key development in progressing governance reform was the appointment of a new board of Inland Fisheries Ireland in January 2024. This board brings substantial expertise in governance, environmental management, finance and public administration. Its oversight, strategic direction and commitment to the highest standards of public sector governance, along with extremely hard-working and dedicated staff, have been central to driving organisational renewal.

The governance review, completed by Ernst & Young, provided a detailed examination of governance structures, organisational culture and operational processes, and presented a clear blueprint for reform. The executive has acted swiftly and decisively on its recommendations, with robust oversight provided by the new board.

IFI has published its governance assurance framework, which demonstrates the strengthened internal controls, clarified governance roles and responsibilities, improved risk management and compliance frameworks, and enhanced oversight across the organisation. Updated procedures, revised governance documentation and clearer reporting lines are now firmly in place, supporting robust, transparent and accountable decision-making.

Inland Fisheries Ireland safeguards one of the State's most valuable natural assets: the network of rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal ecosystems that support fish populations, biodiversity and healthy aquatic communities. As the national agency with statutory responsibility for the protection, development and management of these resources, we operate within a comprehensive legislative framework.

The organisation continues to deliver a high-quality public service in fulfilling its statutory mandate. IFI has statutory responsibility for Ireland's 74,000 km of rivers and streams and 128,000 ha of lakes and exercises patrol jurisdiction along the coastline out to 12 nautical miles from the baselines. The scale and geographical breadth of our remit is extensive. IFI's dedicated staff work professionally and diligently to protect, conserve and manage Ireland's freshwater species and their habitats in an increasingly unpredictable and rapidly changing environmental landscape.

It is important to note that while IFI is a high-performing organisation, our ability to fully realise our ambitions has been constrained for many years by limited financial and human resources and updating of our statutory powers.

IFI is pleased to lead the National Barrier Mitigation Programme, NBMP, 2024–2027, funded by the Department of housing and the Department of the environment. A total of €100 million has been approved to remove or mitigate river barriers affecting species such as Atlantic salmon, European eel and lamprey. The programme aims to address 257 barriers over its lifetime, with planning and environmental consents central to delivery. The NBMP is addressing a key commitment in the Government's Water Action Plan 2024 and aligns with the EU water framework directive, the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 and the emerging nature restoration regulation. IFI will invest €14 million in the first 103 projects nationwide, with agreements now being issued.

The withdrawal of prosecution cases underscored the need for consistent adherence to governance, oversight and stronger internal checks. It also highlighted the requirement for clearly defined authority structures, properly recorded decision-making and stronger governance documentation. The organisation took decisive action to resolve this issue. I can provide assurance to the committee that these processes are now in place.

In relation to Aasleagh Lodge and cottages, IFI has consistently sought to identify and pursue solutions that maximise the return to the taxpayer from this unique State asset. We are satisfied that the board was kept fully informed of all expenditure associated with the complex. A board resolution has now been agreed to proceed with the sale of Aasleagh cottages. In line with this decision and following the required work to split the folio and provide separate services for the cottages, we expect the disposal process to be completed by the end of 2026. Concurrently, IFI intends to upgrade and repurpose Aasleagh Lodge to deliver enhanced public value. The proposed development includes the establishment of an international research hub for the national salmonid index catchment on the River Erriff, the provision of office accommodation and the creation of a training and education centre for IFI.

Aquatic environments are increasingly threatened by pollution, nutrient enrichment, biodiversity loss, climate change and invasive species. The spread of invasives remains a serious national concern, and without stronger legislation, adequate resources and co-ordinated enforcement, the long-term ecological and economic impacts will be significant. IFI has first-hand experience of this challenge through its long-term management of Lagarosiphon major on Lough Corrib. At the same time, IFI is actively restoring freshwater habitats by reconnecting rivers, improving spawning streams, removing migration barriers and restoring natural channel processes to build ecosystem resilience. Yet, despite these efforts, key native species continue to decline. The European eel is now critically endangered and wild salmon returns have fallen from 1.76 million in 1975 to a provisional 153,460 in 2025, a catastrophic collapse within one generation. These trends highlight the urgency of IFI's restoration and protection work and the need for strengthened cross-government action.

Looking ahead, our new statement of strategy for the period 2026 to 2030 sets a clear direction for the organisation and reflects our development into an agile, outward-looking and evidence-based fisheries environmental agency. We are operating in a period of significant ecological pressure. Climate impacts are accelerating, water quality is declining in many catchments and native fish species are increasingly vulnerable. These challenges reinforce the need for us to adapt quickly, strengthen our environmental leadership role and adopt more integrated and technology-enabled approaches across our remit.

Our team will address the committee’s questions, and we will share with members any written information they request thereafter. I thank the Chair and the committee for their attention this morning.

I thank Mr. Fox for his opening statement. We will suspend the meeting for ten to 15 minutes at 12 noon and resume shortly thereafter. I will now open the floor to members. The lead speaker today is Deputy Boland. The Deputy has 15 minutes. All other members will have ten minutes. If time permits, I will allow members back in for a second round.

The witnesses are all very welcome, although to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts for a third consecutive year in a row following issues highlighted by the Comptroller and Auditor General is not something to be proud of. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the financial statements reveal serious governance issues, internal control weaknesses and poor value-for-money practices. How many employees does IFI have?

There are 329 permanent employees. We range from about 50 to 70 contract staff depending on external projects and the temporary staff allocation in a given year.

When did Mr. Fox join IFI?

I joined IFI in July 2022.

Some 90% of IFI's income comes from the State. It received €33.43 million from the State in 2023. That is a huge sum. Does the taxpayer get value for that money? Who evaluates the work of IFI? Mr. Fox said the organisation is high performing. How does it demonstrate that this is the case?

We are a very high-performing organisation. We punch well above our weight in fisheries protection and environmental protection. Our results-----

In comparison with whom is IFI punching above its weight against?

We are punching above our weight in comparison with other enforcement bodies in the area of water pollution.

In Ireland or internationally.

In Ireland.

Mr. Fox might give me an example of one of these bodies.

We complete in excess of 40 environmental prosecutions every year and in excess of about 70 fishery protection-----

How many?

It is 40, and between 50 to 70 fishery protection cases on an annual basis. They would be completed in the courts.

With whom is Mr. Fox comparing IFI when he says it punches well above its weight?

We would be comparing ourselves with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, county councils and other fisheries bodies on a cross-Border basis. I believe we are punching above our weight.

Has Mr. Fox documented this comparison?

No, I have not.

It is his opinion. In terms of the prosecutions, we have 40 environmental prosecutions and 50 to 70 other prosecutions.

That is on average, yes.

What about last year?

In 2024, we had 99 prosecutions initiated. Some 39 of those related to environmental offences. Prosecutions concluded for fisheries offences numbered 64 and prosecutions concluded for environmental offences numbered 27.

When Mr. Fox say concluded, what does that mean?

Finalised in court with an outcome.

Were they successful?

Yes.

There were 99 in total. Were all of those successful?

Yes.

Did the IFI win all 99 cases?

Yes, we did.

That was in 2024. In 2023, obviously, we had the issue regarding the delegated authority. Mr. Fox might talk to me about that. Under whose remit or under which part of the organisation should the processes of delegated authority have fallen and how were processes not put in place to ensure that prosecuting officials had valid warrants?

The prosecution officials had valid warrants. The organisation at the executive level did not have the delegated authority to approve and bring forward the prosecution. The way the functions of IFI work, they are all with the board. They have to be formally delegated to the executive.

Therefore, the warrants were not valid because the delegating authority was not there.

Yes, correct.

How many cases had to be withdrawn and what was the total cost to the taxpayer?

There were 61 cases that had to be withdrawn. The cost to date is just above €230,000. However, there are three cases being finalised that will lead to that cost being revised.

I have a figure of €240,000.

I am sorry; it is €240,000. Excuse me.

There is more to come, however.

Yes.

Have any of the defendants taken cases against IFI for wrongful prosecution?

No.

None of the people IFI has prosecuted has made a claim against it.

No. The statutes of limitations work very similarly, so people had six months from when the delegation issue was identified to actually appeal the case. Nobody appealed any of the cases that were heard previous to that.

I do not mean in terms of appealing the cases; I mean where IFI has to withdraw cases.

Where we have to withdraw cases, finalising the costs on these specific three cases is where the additional cost will come in. We have had no challenges to the prosecution that would have been pending from the 61 cases that were withdrawn.

To what do the three cases that are pending relate?

They relate to costs. The cases have been running since-----

Only.

Yes. They have been running since 2017.

There has been no counterclaim against IFI.

No, not that I am aware of.

Fisheries protection activity is one of IFI's core activities.

Yes.

How many patrols per year would IFI undertake?

The patrols per year would be quite significant. Total vehicle and foot patrols in 2024 would have been 49,036. If we want to break that down into hours, the types of patrols would be lake, river, sea, coastal and estuary patrols, sea bass patrols, bluefin tuna patrols and foot patrols. We also carry out a number of inspections of commercial-----

In terms of patrols using the RIBs IFI bought, how many are carried out on average?

For 2018, there were 60. For 2019-----

I am sorry. How many RIBs?

There were 60.

How many boats does IFI have?

I am sorry, we have 12 Delta RIBs.

IFI has 12 RIBs and there were only 60 patrols.

In 2018, we were only taking delivery of these boats. Between 2018 and 2019, they came into service.

Mr. Fox might give me the figures for 2023 and 2024.

There were 243 in 2023 and 206 in 2024.

Do we need 12 RIBs for that limited number of patrols?

These vessels were originally bought for salmon protection activity. Our area of responsibility has expanded into bluefin tuna and sea bass. We are also going to have new duties, potentially in 2026, which will extend our area of responsibility to the entire marine zone right around the coast. Therefore, I would say that we do need these boats. Salmon protection is still an issue in many areas around the coast, and these boats are an essential tool in deterring people from illegal activity.

How many patrols per year is each of these boats involved in?

We kind of aim for 20, but some of them slip below that due to staff issues and being available. However, roughly-----

It seems very low. It is 20 per year per boat. I am a sailor. I would hope to get out at least 20 times during the summer, not on an annual basis.

That is when these boats are utilised. It is during the salmon window. When the Atlantic salmon reach our shores, these boats come into operation to protect the salmon while they are off the coast. One of the drawbacks we have with these boats is that it is like seeing a fire engine going down the road. The minute these boats are hitched up to a trailer and taken out onto the public highway, word gets around the coastal areas very quickly that we are on route. Therefore, we tend to deploy them as a deterrent and as a kind of rapid response in certain covert situations in which we use them. However, we have other tools we use. We are now using deploying jet skis-----

What was the lowest level of use of one of these boats?

In 2023 and 2024.

Yes.

It was 14.

It was 14.

In 2024, yes.

How many people would be on that RIB?

There would be at least three people on the RIB, and one person driving a jeep as shore backup.

What are they doing if they are not going out on the RIB? Going out 14 times in a year is very low. I would not call that "high-performing".

The team we are talking about is a very high-performing team. In fact, they probably generate more prosecutions than most of the districts in the country. They had a very low staff base at the time and to operate these RIBs safely and within our SOP, they require four staff available for a boat to go to sea.

Yes, it is a low number but there are reasons for that. They would have been deployed to other areas or used other technology or equipment to do that coastal work at the time.

Does Mr. Fox think the State is getting value for money?

Yes, I do. This is a vessel that is needed on the coast. It can operate out to 12 miles from baselines, which is potentially 30 miles offshore. There are significant safety risks at play there and these boats are state-of-the-art to allow our staff to have single-boat patrols off the coast.

Regarding the Dormant Accounts Fund, this is a bit more historical, but I find it staggering that €1.18 million was given to the IFI. Am I right in saying that 89% of it went on administrative costs?

No, Deputy, that would not be the case.

Was it staff and administrative costs?

The staffing cost was purely for animators, no administration, and they delivered the project. All administration was taken up by IFI itself.

What was this money spent on? Give me a breakdown of the €1.18 million.

There was €20,000 on an angling strategy, roughly €20,000 on angling activation through third parties, €139,000 on the AFA grants, which were the angling for all grants that were given out to grassroots angling organisations-----

There were issues there with some of the grants awarded.

There was. It was €4,000.

How did the IFI demonstrate good governance around that?

We did not particularly demonstrate good governance but we tried to ensure that the programme was delivered. We departed from the procedures, which we accept we should not have done. However, we are happy that the equipment got to the right place and is still in use. It was checked only recently.

That is not a lot - €20,000, €20,000 and €139,000.

As regards the code of conduct for employees December 2020, under whose remit or what pillar within the IFI was this drafted?

A new one has been drafted.

I should hope so.

It comes under finance and corporate services where the compliance team sits.

Was this under Ms Campion in 2020?

I was not in that position in 2020.

What position was Ms Campion in during 2020?

Business development.

When you look at this, you can have the most beautifully drafted codes you want, but as we have seen from issues with delegated authority, dormant accounts, money being misspent and there being over 400 vehicles but far fewer staff, there have been huge breaches of this code over time. Has there been any disciplinary action arising out of the various different breaches highlighted by the C and AG?

No, not that I am aware of.

There is no consequence for breaching the IFI's own code.

I cannot speak to the issues that happened at that time but certainly, looking forward, we will be-----

What guarantee can Mr. Fox give the committee that there are going to be consequences? He is talking about widening the IFI's remit-----

I can give the committee an undertaking from the executive and the board that the oversight and controls are in place in the organisation now. That has been demonstrated through the delivery of the 11 recommendations of the EY governance review. The organisation has moved to a much stronger place in terms of governance, accountability and the processes required to deliver for the public purse and to provide value for money.

We are all aware of the issues that have occurred and are very conscious of them in doing our work. Several of the issues have been played out in the public arena, which has impacted the organisation.

As well as confidence in the organisation.

Including the staff.

Briefly, in the time I have left, I want to ask Mr. Fox about these unsociable hours payments. What are they and when can an employee claim them?

UHA is a payment that is made to field staff who work outside the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. or 8 p.m.

Does prior approval have to be sought?

No, it is an annual allowance. There is a rate of hours you have to achieve to get paid the unsocial hours. You get 50% up to 200 hours and 100% of the payment up to 400 hours.

Does anyone go over the amount they are supposed to work?

Pardon?

As in, if I am supposed to work ten hours and I decide to work 20, can I still claim for the 20?

I am not aware of anybody in the organisation who would be working 20 consecutive hours. There certainly are surveillance operations that take place where significant time is put into surveillance of illegal activity, but outside of that-----

Would people go over their annual quota of hours?

Absolutely. We have staff who work well in excess of 400 hours.

That is not controlled or signed off in advance.

It is the nature of the work we do, Deputy. Most of the work of our fisheries staff is out of hours.

I have worked overtime many times in my career and I have always sought permission from my managers or executives in advance of that. It seems to be uncontrolled.

I do not agree. These are fisheries enforcement officers. They are rostered in and out of work, but on occasion, when there is surveillance of illegal activity - known illegal activity - staff spend significant hours surveying those issues and trying to hold people to account. There are times where they will exceed the hours but their line managers on the ground will be aware of the hours they do. It is not just that the fisheries staff on the ground decide they will stay there for the next 20 hours. They will be in constant contact with their line managers, assistant inspectors and inspectors.

A very tight control needs to be kept on that, to be honest with you. The organisation has demonstrated a serious lack of control over the years. To have something that does not need to be authorised, that someone can just work and claim, seems to be a repeat of this.

To clarify, we work seven days a week, 365 days of the year. Much of our work and engagement with our stakeholders are on weekends - Saturdays and Sundays - and those are also included in the unsocial hours allowance. It is not just night-time work. It is weekend and night-time work. There are no additional payments for those times.

What are the controls around this? I am not getting any real comfort on this.

It is rostered and fully supervised by their line managers.

That has not worked well so far.

I do not believe there was any impact on the unsocial hours allowance in the audit.

I mean across the organisation.

On the other issues, I would accept that, Deputy.

I thank the witnesses for coming in.

The importance, or potential importance, of the IFI was demonstrated by the recent Blackwater fish kill, where 32,000 fish were killed in a river already depleted in terms of fish stock, which was devastating. They were obviously killed by some form of pollution but no source of that pollution was found, which means that nothing has been done to prevent something like that happening again. Is that a fair summary of where we are at with the Blackwater?

What happened on the Blackwater was a significant environmental event, one of the biggest in the State's history. It has had a huge impact on local users, clubs and businesses. There is no question about it. It is something that the IFI is fully aware of and we are already engaging with the local stakeholder groups. We have plans in place to go down and do a full assessment of the catchment in 2026 to look at habitat restoration to produce more juvenile-----

The witnesses did not find the source of what happened.

No, we did not. As I said at the environmental committee, we are successful in about 75% of our detections. The nature of water pollution is that it can be discharged into a water body days before anybody becomes aware of it. If it is not being discharged when our officers attend on site, under the legislation, we cannot bring forward a prosecution.

When was the first sample taken from the river?

There were samples taken on the evening of the report but they were not processed-----

Sorry, what date was that?

That was 11 August.

That was the first day the IFI was present. There were samples taken then.

They were not taken by IFI, but by the council. We take statutory samples to prosecute an offender, so we have to locate the discharge to take that prosecution. That is the process IFI follows.

Why does Mr. Fox think the source was not identified if he thinks it took place a week before-----

We suspect it may have taken place and a plume may have been discharged into the water body about 72 hours before the first detection of dead fish.

Okay. When you go through the financial stuff, it is not just a can of worms but a barrel of worms of one thing after another, including a CEO relocating and getting huge expenses, one in five members of staff having a credit card, uninsured cars and more cars than there are staff. It is a litany things but from Mr. Fox's perspective, that is in the past and before his time. He is saying that a significant change has now taken place. He does not think there is anything similar currently taking place. Is there nothing he would like to disclose or to say IFI still has this significant issue it is looking at in regard to poor governance, poor culture, not having control of spending or things like that?

There is nothing on the spend that I am aware of that would appear in the public accounts. There is certainly one issue we are investigating that we have not closed out yet but I am not sure whether it merits discussion here. We have had a number of issues, as the Deputy is aware from the report. On the credit card issue, we have now reduced credit cards in the organisation down to five and we will be reviewing that again in the new year.

When did the former CEO stop getting paid?

I will ask Ms Campion to speak on that. I am not aware of that detail. It is something that would be a matter for the board, generally, from a financial side.

Is it appropriate to deal with this? It is. The CEO left the organisation on 4 June this year.

When did they stop working?

They stopped working on 4 or 5 March 2024.

They got paid while not working for a year and three months or something.

Not for the entire time but yes.

What sort of leave were they on? How is it the case that they were not working and they were still getting paid?

They were on leave and the executive was not party to it. The CEO reports to the board, so all details in relation to the CEO are with the board.

None of the witnesses know on what basis the former CEO was getting paid while not working.

No. That was a matter for the board. It is his employer.

Was there a termination or severance payment made?

No.

Okay. In regard to this being before the witnesses' time, was it before their time or were they not, in some sense, in the organisation when all this stuff was happening?

I can say I was not. I started in July 2022. We are taking ownership of these issues. We have addressed them. We have put the controls in place and the governance is absolutely in place. I can confidently say the organisation is in a much better place now than it was.

There is a reference in the C and AG report to the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, issuing an adjudication relating to a case in December 2023 involving the suspension and subsequent dismissal of an employee. The WRC found that unfair dismissal had occurred and awarded the complainant €38,500. Did Mr. Fox have any role in that case?

I did. I undertook the appeal.

Mr. Fox turned down the appeal, presumably, if the complainant went to the WRC.

That is correct.

In light of the WRC decision, which was pretty strong, does Mr. Fox think he made a mistake with regard to that appeal?

No, I do not think I did. The case heard before the WRC involved much more information than the act to dismiss and the appeal information that the organisation acted upon. The primary reason we took the decision was the use of equipment while on suspension and the allowance of a taxed vehicle to be used on the public highway by a juvenile. They were the reasons.

Mr. Fox is saying the complainant then brought more information to the WRC.

Yes, there was much more detail, I believe, from reading it after the fact.

Therefore, Mr. Fox is saying that if he had been in possession of the information that was presented at the WRC he would have made a different decision on appeal stage?

No, I would not have.

Okay, so then it is not about the information.

No but I think that ruling would describe a much bigger picture.

Okay. Mr. Fox does not consider it problematic that IFI has an internal process which finds something and then the WRC fines and costs the public €38,500.

I accept and understand where the Deputy is coming from on this but my view is that there are so many tragedies on the road with the misuse of vehicles and accidents. Allowing a juvenile to use a State asset on a public highway, I believe, is gross misconduct.

Okay.

In relation to one other issue, in June 2021 an IFI staff member requested funding for the completion of a two-year master of business administration, MBA. The MBA course was paid for them and cost us about €20,000. They were not in a management position but the business case for it was that in the future, they might be in a management position. Is that staff member still with IFI?

Yes. That staff member is still with us.

Are they playing a management role?

I can report they actually are. They are an assistant principal, AP, standard in the organisation and doing an excellent job.

It seems like a peculiar situation whereby someone - I am casting no aspersions on this individual and I do not know who they are - is able to get an expensive course paid for that does not have any immediate relevance to their actual current job and there is nothing to stop them. It is good to hear they are still there and we are getting the benefit of that but they could have gone off somewhere else and we would have effectively paid for their training. Are there controls put in place to ensure something like that will not happen again?

Yes. At the time, you had to put forward a business case to make a case for the training. I can advise the committee that the training was reviewed by the head of HR and the learning and development manager at the time. I am advised that a verbal commitment was given. There is email evidence to say that the approval to pay a deposit happened in July but due to issues with authorisations on online payments between the app and the credit card of the particular person who was approving it, that did not happen until September. That is my information on the issue.

Consultancy costs of almost €2 million are disclosed. What is that? What sort of consultancy is being paid for?

I will pass to the head of finance and corporate services on that issue, if the Deputy does not mind.

We use quite a lot of consultancy. I have a breakdown for 2023. Business improvement was €128,000, capital €97,000, consultant engineers €159,000, eel survey €26,000, environmental consultants €262,000, financial €105,000, HR and pensions €120,000 and legal €918,000, with legal shown separately in our accounts as well. Medical services were €22,800. Marketing, which is more like promotion and communications, was €76,000. Property and planning was €47,000 and veterinary services €24,000.

To finish, €1 million on legal fees or close to it.

We are a regulatory body.

Yes. This is paying for prosecutions and stuff, effectively, like paying for a senior counsel or whoever.

Yes but in 2023 we had a judicial review going on, for which €416,000 of an entire €656,000 bill was paid.

Okay. I thank Ms Campion.

I thank the witnesses for joining us today. I want to move on to dormant accounts funding. Between 2019 and 2021, IFI received over €1.1 million, which led to an internal review in 2022. This saw IFI having to pay back €28,000 to the Dormant Accounts Fund. Have there been any additional reviews since 2021 and has IFI had to pay any funding back since then?

The head of finance and corporate services can correct me here but I am not aware of any other areas where we had to pay back funding we had received.

Has IFI done any additional reviews since 2021 on the spending of this funding?

We delivered a go fishing fund in 2024 and 2025 through the dormant accounts process.

We received a satisfactory audit with three - I will hand over to Ms Campion.

Could she please be very brief?

We did not have to pay back any further funds. We did a further audit, on one grant, of the angling for all fund, which was for €4,000. It found that there were weaknesses in our evaluation, but no moneys were paid back. We since received €500,000 in 2024 from the Dormant Accounts Fund for structures, stands and angling access.

Could Ms Campion elaborate on the weaknesses that were identified?

In angling for all, it was one particular club, which was a new club when it applied, and we awarded it money but afterwards we realised that it did not have a bank account so it was facilitated in drawing down the award through the national governing body. As a result, the national governing body did the procurement, purchased the goods, drew down the money and then transferred the goods to the club in question.

The internal audit in 2022 highlighted that in some cases the expenditure was not really going on what the funding was designed for. In Ms Campion's opinion, was any angling organisation negatively affected by the management of these funds?

I do not think so. What we were trying to do was get the money to the grassroots so that people could deliver different programmes themselves. The money that was returned was €28,800 in total. It related to a stand we had at the ploughing match, in the Government of Ireland stand, which was for general access to make it open to everybody to be able to take up angling.

Does Ms Campion feel that any clubs lost out through the way IFI managed the fund?

No.

I am going to go back to 2018. There was an announcement by the then Minister of State, Deputy Canney, that €70,000 from the Dormant Accounts Fund would be awarded to the Angling Council of Ireland, which was never disbursed to it. Does Ms Campion know why?

I will take that one.

Yes, please. Again, could Mr. Fox be brief?

Yes. Some €20,000 of the dormant accounts funding that was being progressed at that stage was for the marketing and development of packs for new entrants to angling. The sum of €50,000 was split between the National Coarse Fishing Federation of Ireland, NCFFI, and the Angling Council of Ireland. The National Coarse Fishing Federation took up the funding of approximately €19,000 and the Angling Council of Ireland did not. It is on record at the previous hearing of the Committee of Public Accounts. A statement was made that it was committed to one particular organisation and the assistant secretary at the time confirmed that no explicit agreement was in place with that organisation.

There was an announcement by the then Minister of State of €70,000 in funding but no official commitment or agreement was in place for-----

For one organisation to receive the money.

-----one to receive it. The Minister of State made an announcement for a headline and there was no intention to follow it through in this instance. Is it not the case that there was a service level agreement, SLA, with the Angling Council of Ireland for €70,000?

I am not aware of an SLA for the €70,000 with the ACI.

There was a service level agreement, of which I have a copy. It was not followed through and then the distribution process moved from an SLA to an etender process. Despite the SLA being for a value of €70,000, the etender process for the distribution of this fund of €70,000 that was earmarked by the Minister of State only advertised for €50,000. There seems to be a discrepancy not only between the Minister of State making the announcement to one club – that is a different issue for the Minister of State to account for – but in the total amount that was agreed in the SLA and what was available later on in the etender.

I will ask Ms Campion to answer that question as she was involved in it at the time.

The announcement made by the Minister of State said that IFI works with AFYDI, ACI and other organisations. The award to IFI at the time was for €20,000 and €50,000. The sum of €20,000 was for a national angling strategy and €50,000 for novice angler activation.

The SLA the Deputy mentioned was in discussion with the ACI previous to all of that but it was never signed off or agreed upon. The €70,000 from the Dormant Accounts Fund is a completely separate issue. Of that, €20,000 went to the angling strategy and it was decided by the board and the Minister at the time that the €50,000 would be distributed in a fair manner through the etenders process.

Am I correct that the only organisation awarded that funding at the time was the NCFFI?

That is correct.

No, I am sorry. The award was made to both the NCFFI and the ACI, but the ACI turned down the award on the basis of intellectual property.

Did the NCFFI at the time have its accreditation programme in place? Was it qualified to deliver the tender specifications that it was awarded?

The NCFFI was part of the ACI up to pretty much before the applications were made, and they split, which is not unusual in angling clubs or organisations.

Did it have its accreditation in place?

It was a national governing body.

So at the time of being awarded that funding in 2021, it had its accreditation programme in place.

I believe so. It was a national governing body with-----

Sport Ireland confirmed in February 2021 that it did not.

I will have to check that for the Deputy.

I would appreciate if Ms Campion could do that and clarify it to the committee.

I am tight on time but in my last couple of minutes of this round I would like to raise some local issues pertaining to where I come from. There are concerns about the fish count on the River Boyne being inaccurate. The counters are placed at Blackcastle in Navan, County Meath, where the river is quite wide. Is there a case to move the counters to a narrower part of the River Boyne to the ensure accuracy of the fish count? Is Mr. Fox concerned about that in any way?

No, I am not concerned about it. For us to establish a new fish counter on the Boyne would involve us putting in a crump weir or something similar in the river, which would impede protected species from migrating through the river, so it is not a policy I would advise pursuing.

To put it in context, in particular around salmon, our national conservation limit for salmon is 258,414. We are now sitting at 155,000, so while some rivers still have surpluses, most of the rivers in the State are under the conservation limit. There are a lot of issues around the management advice for 2026, but it needs to be taken in the context that salmon are in rapid decline. There are a lot of reasons for that. We do not blame anglers or commercial fishermen, but we have to take action to try to arrest the decline and that is what we are trying to do. Unfortunately, the Boyne is well below its conservation limit. There are merger issues in the Boyne. Some 53% of it is arterially drained, so production is lower than it should be for a catchment of that size. In recent years, we have been making significant investment in the Boyne to restore the habitats in the river. Hopefully, in the coming years we will see a reverse in the decline and an increase in fish.

The annual report states that in June 2023 there was illegal net fishing in the River Boyne Estuary at Baltray. Somebody was caught and fined for that. Have there been more instances of illegal net fishing going on in the river since then? Could Mr. Fox briefly comment on whether he sees a time when licensed draft net fishermen will be allowed to operate on the river or other rivers that they traditionally fished, or are those days gone?

They are certainly reducing for a number of geographical areas around the country. There are potentially seven areas where the commercial draft net fishing licences will be removed in 2026 if the Minister accepts the advice. The view at the time when the high seas drift-net fishing was removed was that there had to be an equal share of the stock between the commercial fishermen and the recreational anglers. If we move to a position where there are surplus stocks above the conservation limits in any catchment in the country, we would have look at how it would be shared out again in the future.

I thank Mr. Fox.

Our next questioner is Deputy Kenny.

I welcome the witnesses. I thank the C and AG for a comprehensive report, which I appreciate. I have a "Yes" or "No" question. Is the role of the deputy CEO set out in statute?

Yes.

Was there a previous deputy CEO?

There were three previous deputy CEOs on a six-month basis. There was a recruitment undertaken in September for a three-year deputy CEO as the board wanted to ensure that there was longevity and consistency to it.

Very good.

I wish to focus on the uninsured vehicles. Following a road traffic accident in August 2021, the IFI discovered that 15 hired vehicles, including the vehicle involved in the accident, had been uninsured for a period. All the uninsured vehicles had been hired between 1 June and 27 July 2021. The IFI subsequently changed its insurance arrangements so that its vehicles no longer have to be insured on an individual basis. With the vehicle that was involved in the crash in Donegal, An Garda Síochána would have been involved. I have another "Yes" or "No" question. Was there any false documentation provided to An Garda Síochána in relation to this?

We did not knowingly present any, but the insurance certificate that was presented was not a valid insurance certificate. We know that now.

On 6 July 2023, why did the ex-CEO, Francis O'Donnell, say at the public accounts committee that he knew on the day of the accident?

I do not have an answer for that. We have a comprehensive timeline of the events and when we were made aware by our insurers that they were not accepting liability.

When was the IFI made aware by the insurance company?

I will pass this to the field services manager, Mr. Cusack, to give the Deputy that update.

We were made aware of this in mid-November of that year.

The IFI had a six-month legal obligation to make An Garda Síochána and the person who was in the accident - the staff member of the IFI - aware of this. It did not.

I am not aware of that statutory obligation.

The IFI did not make gardaí aware.

We did not engage with gardaí on that.

Why?

I am not aware that we had the obligation that the Deputy referred to.

The IFI allowed a staff member to receive a summons from An Garda Síochána in relation to no insurance even though the IFI was acutely aware of the fact that the vehicle was not insured.

My understanding is that the employee may have received a summons but not at the time when we became aware of the event as being uninsured.

Will Mr. Cusack go into that in further detail?

While we notified the insurers of the incident on the day of the incident in August, it was in mid-November when they came back to the IFI and confirmed that there was a declare nature of the liability on the policy.

Was Mr. Cusack employed by the IFI at that stage?

Yes.

Why did the ex-CEO Francis O'Donnell, at a previous public accounts committee meeting, inform the committee and a colleague, Deputy Alan Dillon - now Minister of State - that he knew on the day of the accident that the cars were uninsured?

I cannot detail why he was expressing that opinion. He may have misunderstood.

That is not an opinion. It was a fact. The car was uninsured.

The fact that the car was uninsured became a fact to the IFI in mid-November of 2021. There was engagement with the insurer-----

That is incorrect. Francis O'Donnell, who was the ex-CEO, made the committee aware that he knew on the day of the accident. Official documentation was provided to the IFI on 16 November that the car was uninsured but Mr. O'Donnell informed the committee on 6 July 2023 that the car uninsured. He knew on the day of the accident.

I cannot second guess his thought process at that time. He may have confused the declaration of the vehicle with whether it was insured or not.

When the IFI received the official documentation on 16 November 2021 from the insurers, why was it not produced to An Garda Síochána?

We were not aware we had a legal obligation to do so.