This morning we will engage with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to examine its Appropriation Account 2024. On behalf of the committee I would like to welcome from the Department: Ms Sinéad McPhillips, Secretary General; Dr. June Fanning, chief veterinary officer; Ms Sinead McSherry, assistant secretary general; Mr. Paul Savage, assistant secretary general; Mr. Bill Callanan, chief inspector; and Mr. Gordon Conroy, assistant secretary general. Attending in a representative capacity from the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation is Mr. Fionn Jenkinson, principal officer. We are also joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Mr. John Crean, the deputy director of audit. You are all very welcome to our meeting this morning.

Before we begin I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references the 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. Witnesses are, however, expected not to abuse this privilege and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity, by name or in such a way 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. I now call on the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach. The 2024 appropriation account for Vote 30 - Agriculture, Food and the Marine records gross expenditure of €2.1 billion. Appropriations-in-aid of the Vote amounted to €476 million. The surplus of the amount provided over the net amount applied in the year was €115.7 million. The Department received permission to carry €31.8 million over to 2025, related to unspent 2024 capital allocations in respect of forestry and bio-energy. The remaining €83.9 million was liable for surrender back to the Exchequer.

The appropriation account is presented under four programme headings. The largest by value is the farming sector support and controls programme, which, with a spend of €1.08 billion, accounted for just over half of the Vote gross expenditure.

Some of the schemes provided for in Vote 30 are co-funded by the EU. That EU funding is brought to account in the Vote as appropriations-in-aid. Separately, the Department is also the accredited paying agency in Ireland for EU payment schemes that are not co-funded by Ireland, including the single farm payment. Those direct EU payments are accounted for separately from the Vote and are not audited by my office. A summary of the EU-related transactions is disclosed in note 6.1 to the appropriation account. In total, the combined direct payments and payments into the Vote funded by the EU amounted to just over €1.6 billion for 2024. This was up 27% from the €1.295 billion received in 2023.

I issued a clear audit opinion in respect of the appropriation account. However, I drew attention to the Accounting Officer’s disclosure of certain instances of non-compliance with procurement rules in respect of certain contracts that operated during 2024.

Subhead C.7 of the appropriation account provides for payments from the Vote to the Horse and Greyhound Fund. The receipts into and payments from the fund are disclosed in note 7. During 2024, €76 million, or 80% of the available funding, issued to Horse Racing Ireland, and €19 million or 20% issued to Rásaíocht Con Éireann.

The report on the bovine TB eradication programme examines how the Department evaluates the effectiveness of the programme, whether the programme is operating as intended, and whether it is efficient in its use of resources. This is a very long-standing programme, which for many years has aimed to eradicate bovine TB in Ireland, to protect Ireland’s access to international markets for beef and dairy output, and to safeguard public health. Unfortunately, since 2017 the detected disease levels have been rising. In 2024, the herd incidence rate of bovine TB was just over 6%. This was the highest herd incidence rate in 21 years, and it continued to increase into 2025. Ireland had the highest bovine TB prevalence rate in 2023 among EU countries where the disease is detectable.

Apart from the disruption and distress caused to farmers by detection of the disease in a herd, bovine TB imposes a significant financial burden on the Exchequer. The cost to the Department in 2024 was just over €100 million, of which €64 million was compensation paid to herd owners. Bovine disease levies paid by farmers in 2024 were equivalent to just 13% of the compensation paid in 2024.

From 2009 to 2023, the EU co-funded Ireland’s bovine TB eradication programme. However, since 2019, the EU has imposed financial penalties on Ireland each year due to missed programme targets, rising incidence rates and no obvious progress in the eradication of the disease. The shortfall in EU funding has been met by the Exchequer with 92% of funding provided by the Exchequer in 2024, compared to just 36% in 2015.

Biosecurity measures on farms have the potential to reduce the spread of disease from wildlife to cattle and herd animals, and such measures can be highly effective when used in combination with other interventions. Many biosecurity measures are affordable and practical. The Department does not link a lack of effective biosecurity measures on a farm to compensation paid when there is a bovine TB outbreak. The report recommends that the Department considers aligning the payment of compensation to effective biosecurity measures.

Although the Department had a target to eradicate bovine TB by 2030, it did not have timelines for implementation of related actions, and there were no interim targets by which to assess progress. The Department has acknowledged that eradication by 2030 is not achievable based on the current disease trajectory.

The report recommends that the Department review the target for achieving eradication and that interim targets should be included in the revised timeline for eradication. The Department should also consider designing a comprehensive set of performance measures, which are achievable and relevant to the strategic aims of the programme. Some policy and procedural changes were being made at the time the report was being completed, and the Accounting Officer will be able to update the members in relation to the expected impacts of these changes. Go raibh maith agat.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that. I will now ask the Secretary General and Accounting Officer, Ms Sinéad McPhillips, to make her opening statement on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Ms McPhillips, as set out in the letter of invitation, will now have five minutes to make her opening statement.

Táim buíoch as an deis chun plé a dhéanamh ar obair agus caiteachas an Roinn Talmhaíochta, Bia agus Mara. As Accounting Officer, I look forward to assisting the committee in its examination of the Department’s 2024 appropriation account. My colleagues and I are happy to engage in answering members’ questions.

The Irish agrifood and fisheries sector continues to demonstrate resilience and innovation, producing high-quality produce in a sustainable manner. Despite significant challenges, farm incomes overall have been positive in recent years as a result of farm gate output prices continuing to grow, alongside reducing input price pressures. The seafood sector has also shown resilience despite increasingly serious challenges.

The sector, which consists of 133,000 farms, 2,000 fishing vessels, aquaculture sites, and over 2,000 food processing and production businesses, continues to make a critical contribution to the Irish economy. In 2024, total agrifood exports amounted to €19 billion, reaching 190 markets worldwide and accounting for 8.6% of Ireland’s merchandised exports. The sector contributed over 6% of modified gross national income, GNI*, and employed 169,300 people as a main occupation, accounting for over 6% of total employment. The Department continues to support farmers, fishers, foresters and the wider agrifood sector, delivering services and supports to enable the production of safe, high quality and nutritious food for both national and international markets.

In 2024, these supports included: payments of over €2.1 billion to around 125,000 farmers, through both EU and national schemes, providing an average payment per farm of over €16,000; the management of just over 177,000 tonnes of fish quotas; funding of €73 million for investment in forestry; the provision of €53 million in research funding of 78 projects; and the awarding of funding of €6 million to animal welfare charities. The Department’s gross Estimate for 2024 was €2.199 billion, which included a carryover of capital savings of €45.6 million from 2023 and a Supplementary Estimate of €200 million. The gross outturn was €2.123 billion.

When voted expenditure is combined with the €1.230 billion in fully EU-funded CAP pillar 1 expenditure, total Department spending amounted to €3.353 billion in 2024. The pillar 1 EU-funded schemes are not included in the Department’s annual appropriations account as they are not voted through the Oireachtas. These payments are, however, subject to a rigorous system of performance and accounting reporting to the European Commission, as well as independent annual audit.

The 2024 Supplementary Estimate enabled the Department to reallocate savings and access additional funding to meet emerging liabilities in several areas. The Department received just over €476 million in appropriations-in-aid, over 80% of which comprised EU receipts in respect of CAP pillar 2, seafood development and animal disease measures. The Department also had a substantial administrative budget covering areas such as staff wages, operational services and laboratory services. This included €21.5 million provided in the Supplementary Estimate to meet the Department’s apportioned share of the costs associated with upgrading Rosslare Europort. This was a critical Brexit-related project to deliver the permanent infrastructure required for border controls. Total expenditure in 2024 under the administrative budget was €381.55 million.

As committee members might be aware, the Department’s Vote is divided into four programmes, each one representing a key policy priority. Programme A relates to food safety, animal health and welfare and plant health programmes. Programme expenditure, excluding staff and administration costs, amounted to €188.5 million in 2024, of which just over €100 million was spent on bovine TB, bTB, eradication. I acknowledge the Comptroller and Auditor General's very useful report on the Department’s bovine TB eradication programme. The Department has agreed with the recommendations contained in this report, and I can provide further updates as we have our discussion.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General's report points out, herd incidence and the number of reactors with bovine TB rose very rapidly, particularly in the period from 2021 to 2024. Over the past year, the Department has intensively focused on key areas to reduce disease levels, and these measures are included in the Department’s TB action plan, which the Minister, Deputy Heydon, launched last September. The action plan is aimed at driving down current TB rates to levels where we will be able to, once again, focus on the eradication of this disease. This is a priority for the Department.

Programme B provides income and targeted supports to approximately 125,000 farmers and others in the agrifood sector. In 2024, family farm incomes increased significantly compared to 2023, with profitability improving across all farm systems. This improvement was supported by €975 million in sectoral supports delivered under programme B in 2024. The funding covered farm support schemes that are EU co-funded, such as the agri-environment measures under Ireland’s CAP strategic plan. Other measures such as forestry supports, for example, are funded nationally.

A significant portion of the expenditure under programme B is dedicated to the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, which is the Department’s flagship agri-environmental scheme. Despite initial challenges in issuing advance payments to 2023 participants, the timeliness of payments has improved significantly. Some €343 million was paid to ACRES participants in 2024. Over the lifetime of the scheme to date, €750 million has been paid to ACRES participants, with almost all eligible participants paid in respect of 2023 and 2024, and over 96% of all participants paid in respect of 2025 to date.

Programme C provides the policy framework to support the sustainable development of the agrifood sector. It includes funding for research and development, supporting innovation and knowledge development and transfer in the agrifood, forestry and bioeconomy sectors. The Department continued to fund competitive research programmes in 2024 to enable Irish researchers to participate in collaborative international research partnerships.

The Supplementary Estimate also allowed the Department to use savings which emerged during the year, as well as additional funds, to provide €35 million to the UN World Food Programme for early payment as part of the strategic partnership agreement 2025-2027. This payment was made in late 2024 following a request from the World Food Programme. Overall expenditure under Programme C, excluding staff and administration costs, for 2024 was €429.3 million.

Programme D supports a sustainable, competitive and innovative seafood sector. Expenditure under Programme D in 2024, excluding staff and administration costs, was €149.75 million. This funding supports a range of measures under Ireland’s seafood development programme, co-funded by the Government and the European Commission under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, 2021–2027 aimed at strengthening and developing the seafood sector. This includes technical services and supports provided through Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, the Marine Institute and the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, as well as vital scientific research and data collection, direct funding for capital investment in the industry and for investment in fishery harbours.

The seafood sector is facing serious challenges in the year ahead following the outcome of the 2026 fishing opportunities negotiations in Brussels in December last year. The Minister, Deputy Heydon, and the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, have established a working group under the auspices of Food Vision 2030 to develop a framework of supports to address the challenges currently facing the sector. The first meeting of that group will take place this month.

I hope that this overview highlights the wide-ranging work carried out by the Department’s 4,000 staff in 2024. Around 54% of my colleagues work in administrative grades, while the remainder are in veterinary inspectorate, agricultural inspectorate, laboratory specialist and technical and industrial grades. Our Department’s mission is to lead, enable and regulate the agrifood and fisheries sector in a way that optimises its contribution to social, economic, and environmental sustainability, ensuring food safety, public health and animal health and welfare. I commend my colleagues on the dedication, professionalism and the high standards they consistently maintain in carrying out that mission. Chairman and committee members, go raibh maith agaibh as bhur n-aird, agus táim ag tnúth le bhur gceisteanna.

I thank Ms McPhillips. Please note we will suspend our meeting at about noon for a short break and resume again shortly afterwards. I will now open the floor to members. I call Deputy Dolan as the lead speaker. He has 15 minutes. All other speakers will then have ten minutes. If time permits on the conclusion of that sequence, I will allow members back in for a short supplementary round of questions.

I welcome the witnesses. We were remarking before the meeting started that I might be the only member of the committee who comes from a farm, so the members were happy to let me be the lead questioner today. I welcome everyone and echo the sentiments of Ms McPhillips at the end of her submission about the 4,000 staff in a massive Department who do a huge body of work to support our farming communities right across the country. There is a lot the Department of agriculture is getting right and doing well and that is to be commended. I thank the Department for the way in which it publishes its purchase order reports and prompt payment reports. It is a really good example of a Department that is doing that really well and it should be commended on that. However, I would advise the Department to communicate with all of the agencies under its aegis and make sure they are doing similarly. Already this year, because of the tracking work we have been doing, 30 bodies have published their data for quarter 4 of 2025 whereas last year a lot of that data did not come out until March or April. It is a case of what gets measured gets managed and what we are trying to do is promote close observing of spending across the country. We are getting great results from right across the State, with more people publishing, which is really good.

Bord Bia is very topical right now and is a huge concern for farmers. I know from speaking to the farmers I represent in Galway East the stress that comes with a Bord Bia inspection. In fairness to the inspectors, they are just doing their job. They are going about it as best they can but farmers on the ground who are working day in, day out, to keep their livelihoods afloat are frustrated right now with the unfolding situation. What was the Department of agriculture's role in the vetting and appointment of the chairperson of Bord Bia?

I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks about the work of my colleagues. I take note of his request in relation to the Department's agencies and purchase orders. That is certainly something we can convey to them. In terms of our own purchasing, as the Deputy can imagine, there is a complex range of procurement there, so it is great to get positive feedback on that.

In relation to Bord Bia, the Deputy's specific question was on the Department's role in the appointment and vetting. The chair of Bord Bia was appointed through a Publicjobs process, specifically the State boards part of Publicjobs. That is done for any appointment to a State body and is independent of the Department. It is run by the Public Appointments Service, PAS, which is commonly known as Publicjobs.

It was a public appointment. Is it considered a conflict of interest if somebody is importing Brazilian beef or beef from any other jurisdiction outside of Ireland? Is that considered a conflict?

This issue was well aired last night in the Dáil and I know that the chairman of Bord Bia will be appearing before another Oireachtas committee today. I am open to guidance from the Cathaoirleach in terms of how far I am going to comment on this.

It is a direct question so it is up to yourself, as Secretary General.

I suppose I would go back to my own experience-----

I might rephrase the question. Is there a conflict of interest register for, or a SIPO obligation on, State board members?

Yes.

For Bord Bia, does the Department make sure that all of the agencies under its aegis are compliant with their SIPO obligations?

The Department requires that all bodies under its aegis are compliant with the code of conduct for State bodies and that includes conflicts of interest.

Does the Department explicitly check that they are SIPO-compliant?

That is a matter for the body itself.

That is a matter for the body. Okay. I appreciate that Bord Bia representatives will appear before the agriculture committee today and I am sure there will be a lot of questions asked there. I just feel that there is an obligation on the Department to ensure that farmers can have confidence in Bord Bia, regardless of who is at the top of the organisation. Farmers must have confidence that the Bord Bia quality mark matters and leads to great outcomes for Irish beef. It allows us to export over 90% of our beef and that is why it is so important that people have confidence in it. I am not going to go any further on that because it is being dealt with at another committee today but if there is a conflict of interest or any other issue it is vital that it is dealt with rapidly and rectified. That applies not just to the chairperson but to all board members.

Yes and I will comment on that, if I may, in the context of my own experience. In a previous role I was the Minister's nominee to the board of Bord Bia. Under the An Bord Bia Act, the board is made up a variety of stakeholders. There is ex-oficio membership for the presidents of the IFA and the ICMSA, as well as roles representing the dairy, meat and horticulture sectors and a number of other members are appointed through the Publicjobs process. Everyone has-----

I appreciate that. I find it interesting that one of the areas where there was an overspend in the Department was on the sustainable beef and lamb scheme. There was €9.9 million of an overspend in 2024, attributed to Bord Bia. That just emphasises the importance of this issue.

I am going to move on to TB. Around €100 million was spent on the management and eradication of TB in 2024. How is that going?

That is an interesting question but I would like to go back to the Deputy's previous point on the sustainable beef and lamb assurance scheme. That payment by the Department is in respect of the audit costs for beef and sheep farmers going through their quality assurance audits so there is no cost arising for the farmer. My colleagues will correct me if I am wrong but in that instance I think there was a prepayment in respect of 2025 which is-----

Okay. I just want to move on the TB eradication programme because it is something that is really affecting farmers in east Galway. Does the Department have a percentage breakdown of the key causes of TB across the State right now?

I will ask Dr. Fanning to contribute on this but one of the issues is that bovine TB is a complex disease. As I have said, the numbers really increased from 2021 to 2024 and that is multifactorial. The transmission of the disease between cattle is an important factor. Wildlife is also a factor and there are issues in relation to testing as well. All of those issues have been comprehensively addressed now in the new TB action plan which tackles the disease on a range of fronts, including communicating to farmers about what they can do in terms of their own biosecurity to reduce their risk. This includes explaining, in terms of buying in animals, trading animals and so on, what the levels of risk are and really stepping up the levels of testing. We have two different ways of testing now and that will really-----

Does Ms McPhillips know what the largest contributor to TB in the country is right now?

I will ask Dr. Fanning to respond to that question.

As the Secretary General has pointed out, TB is a multifactorial disease so attributing it to a cause or determining the largest cause is difficult. The highest percentage of herds and animals affected are dairy cattle currently.

Does the Department know what is the highest contributing factor to that? There has to be something that the Department has identified-----

No, there is a number of different factors. Quota abolition in 2015 led to the expansion of the dairy herd. From an intensification perspective, TB is a population density disease so if there are more animals on farm, then like Covid, it is easier for a respiratory disease to spread. There is a number of different factors. Farming practices have obviously changed with that and there has been an awful lot of movement of animals and cattle being bought in to allow for that expansion.

Does the Department not have one key identified contributor?

No and that is why-----

I know it is a multifaceted disease but farmers are frustrated and wondering why the Department cannot identify what is causing this. Why can we not get to the bottom of it? Spending €100 million a year to try to eradicate a disease is a noble pursuit but it does not seem like we are getting any closer. What was the spend on TB for 2025? I know the accounts have not been published yet but can the witnesses give us any indication of the total cost? I imagine it is even higher.

Yes, it is higher.

The provisional outturn for 2025 was €122.7 million. We fully accept that we are not where we want to be. That is not what we want to be spending money on which is why the TB action plan seeks to address all of the issues. The plan will support herds which are free of TB - the majority of herds - to remain free by giving farmers really solid advice on what steps they can take to protect themselves from TB, to reduce the impact of wildlife on the spread of TB, and to detect and eliminate TB infection and breakdown in herds as early as possible so that they can avoid future breakdowns.

I want to support the Department in its endeavours with the TB action plan and I sincerely hope it works but there are two issues arising at the moment.

The first part is, who is calculating the payments that farmers are receiving when they get locked up? Essentially, have the payments been revised to reflect the fact that beef is at a much higher price now than it was when that price was set? Does the Department have any plans to look at that?

There are ceilings on the payment. I will ask Dr. Fanning when they were last revised. The issue is that with the current rates of disease if we were to increase the ceiling rates, we would be spending a substantial additional amount on compensation without actually getting to the root cause.

Ms McPhillips can imagine how important and vital it is for farmers that this gets tackled swiftly so that there are fewer farmers needing to be compensated. They are losing significant money now when they get locked up. I just want to highlight that.

The second point I want to make is that I have heard from farmers that when they get locked up they do not know what to do. They are bombarded with information and regulations. They genuinely do not know what to do. It is all done through the post and communication in that manner. It can be very overwhelming for farmers. There are two things that the Department needs to do. It must put in place support for the mental health of farmers who suffer a lock-up, because it is incredibly damaging to their well-being and to their ability to go on with their daily lives when they cannot do what they love to do.

The other thing is that somebody from the Department needs to meet with people regularly. I am sure that the IFA, Teagasc and all the organisations are doing that, but I need to know that the Department is going to commit to doing something like that.

I will answer some of the Deputy's questions and then I will hand over to Dr. Fanning. The ceilings for the rates of compensation payments were set in 2023. We are fully aware of the impact on a farming family of a TB outbreak - the concerns about mental health and emotional distress. We are seeking to address those and to be as supportive as we can. Dr. Fanning might want to add to that.

One of the elements under the action plan is that we will have a help line that people can call. It is something that comes up. The first time people think about TB is when they have an outbreak. Part of our communications plan is to have TB front and centre, and biosecurity, when people are thinking of buying in animals and when they are buying water troughs.

Deputy Dolan asked earlier what is the most important thing. The single most important measure that can reduce the risk of getting TB is biosecurity. That is something that the farmer has control of from the perspective of raising water troughs, informed purchasing and not buying from a higher risk herd than they have themselves.

Another action that is in the action plan is to establish a help desk that people can ring with any queries they have in relation to their particular breakdown.

Okay. I am just tight on time. One thing I have to complement the Department on is that it is fantastic at underspending. There was an underspend on agri-environmental schemes of €9.2 million. The underspend on TAMS was €13.8 million. The underspend on forestry and bioenergy was €41.7 million. The underspend on the organic farming scheme was €23.8 million. What is amazing about all those underspends is that they are payments that go directly to farmers. Please do not tell me that the Department of agriculture is gatekeeping payments from farmers.

Obviously we do not want to be a situation where we have significant underspends. That is something we have really focused on in 2025 to ensure that the allocation we have is fully spent. We can go into the reasons for those particular underspends. I might ask my colleague, Mr. Conroy, to comment on those.

The Deputy is right. Historically, we have had challenges in terms of certain areas. He will be aware of the ACRES one, which the Minister, Deputy Heydon, made a priority for us to address. I think it has been addressed satisfactorily, with payments made. That would have been linked to a lot of the other payments we had in previous years.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out, in this particular year there was an underspend of just over €100 million. That surplus was linked to a number of different areas. I might point out some of them. One of them was in relation to receipts. Just under €40 million of that was linked to an additional amount of receipts coming from the EU. The timing of them can be very difficult to predict. You might get them in December or they might come in January. That is notoriously challenging. That would not necessarily be an underspend, but it would link to our overall Exchequer surplus, if the Deputy knows what I mean.

I am about to run out of time so I just want to say, please, if there is money to be given to farmers, ensure that either enough farmers are applying to get it drawn down or that the money is making it down to the farmers. If the budget is there and even if it is coming from Europe, we need to get it out to the farmers.

This is the last thing I am going to say. I met the Minister in an elevator about six or seven months ago when the ACRES payments were seriously delayed, and I asked him how he was getting on with getting the payments out. He said the Department was doing everything it could. It was getting 1,000 payments a week out, so he expected to have it all done in about eight weeks. I said that was fair enough. To this day, I still have constituents for whom I have made representations to the Department who have not been paid. Only last week I had a constituent who got paid for 2023. We are in 2026 now. In any other job, you would not accept it. In any other engagement that people have, when they are waiting for payments from the Department, they make sure that they claim the interest for the delay in the payment. The Department has a job to do there in managing expectations and ensuring that farmers know when they are going to be paid, how much they are going to be paid and what they are being paid for. Those are the basics. If it was any other company, I would be saying thank you to the Department; it now owes me interest. The problem is that farmers do not get any interest for the delay in payments. They are just made to wait.

I have explained that almost all the ACRES payments have been made in respect of 2023 and 2024, with 96% for 2025. There are some complex cases that have been delayed. That is the case with any scheme. Overall, in relationship to the CAP strategic plan schemes, which is the bulk of funding going to farmers, we have a very good record of paying on time. We pay ahead of most other member states in Europe. In terms of our drawdown under those schemes, Ireland is always in the top two in Europe on that basis.

Okay. I thank Ms McPhillips.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in today. All of us know the importance of the bovine TB eradication programme. As my colleague pointed out, the farmers themselves are central to the success of it. However, evidence published by the IFA, supported by IFAC analysis, indicates that cattle farmers are bearing a substantially higher share of the real cost of the TB programme. Exchequer spending is substantially less than the actual cost of trying to engage with the programme and ensure it is a success. The IFA's research shows that farmers incur significant direct and indirect costs, including lost output, genetic loss, additional labour, prolonged restrictions and cash flow pressures in order to comply with the support programmes. These costs are essential to the programme's effectiveness yet they are largely invisible to the Department's financial reporting.

I want to ask a few questions in relation to the programme, the compensation schemes and the mechanisms. I would like to put to the witnesses the IFA's research, with which I am sure they are familiar. It shows that in 2024 the direct cost borne by cattle farmers affected by TB outbreaks exceeded the Exchequer expenditure on the programme. The IFA's research says the cost to farmers was €152 million in 2024, whereas the compensation fund was approximately €90 million. Do the witnesses agree with the IFA research?

I thank the Deputy for the question. Obviously the main costs of any disease outbreak are going to be borne by the farmer. The intention of the support schemes that we have in place is to provide support for farmers in the event of a TB outbreak and also to address the underlying root causes of the disease. As I said to Deputy Dolan, we acknowledge the emotional and financial impact an outbreak has on a farm family. I will ask Dr. Fanning to give more detail on the figures.

There is a number of supports. There is direct compensation, which is based on on-farm market valuation. There is also a hardship grant income supplement. If it is deemed that a herd must be depopulated, there is a depopulation grant as well. All of these grants and supports have been subject to discussion in our TB financial working group where we work through the issues with stakeholders. We discuss the hardships that are caused, not only emotionally and due to the difficulty from a logistics point of view of having a disease outbreak on a farm, but also for example if they end up having to feed more animals over the winter period or other such problems. Those supports are in place.

If the Department does not agree with the figures provided by the IFA, will the witnesses give a breakdown? There are obviously ancillary costs that farmers must pay out and Deputy Dolan used the phrase "locked up". There is the time that farmers must take to facilitate Department of agriculture testing, labour costs, power washing costs and the administration costs of applying for grants and compensation schemes. There is a cost to the farmer for all of the ancillary work they have to do. Does the Department take this into consideration when it is devising these compensation schemes? At the moment they are feeling the pinch and feeling the pain, including the emotional pain.

I thank Deputy Ardagh. We fully accept there are additional costs borne by farmers in relation to the disease that are not compensated for. This is the case in relation to any disease or anything that impacts a business; the State is not in a position to fully compensate for it. In relation to the specifics of the IFA figures, I do not have a direct comparison but I am sure they are in the ballpark.

A lot of the report involves labour costs. Staff costs are not factored into the Exchequer's costs on the Department side. Something worth noting is that with regard to other countries, Ireland has a more generous compensation scheme than elsewhere. A reactor costs the Exchequer just under €2,000. It is €1,900 per reactor when we take into account the salvage value and all of the other income supports that are there for farmers. It is not to say the Department disagrees with the report. There is a huge cost to the Exchequer and this cost to farmers and the Exchequer is why the action plan is aimed at driving down disease rate so fewer herds are affected by disease.

In the same research the IFA highlighted cases where cattle valuations exceeded compensation ceilings, leaving farmers significantly undercompensated, depending on the stage of the life of the cow. In 2024 how many cattle were valued above the ceiling? What was the average shortfall faced by these farmers? The IFA research also points to the impact of payment delays on farms from a cash flow perspective. There was meant to be a three-week period within which payments should be made. How often was this three-week deadline missed in terms of paying out?

In 2025, which are the figures I have to hand, almost 40,000 animals were valued. Of these, 3,500 exceeded the scheme ceilings. To go back to Deputy Dolan's point, the overall amount we are spending on this disease is significant and we want to spend the money correctly, in terms of compensating farmers to the extent we can, and on measures that can drive down the incidence of the disease. I will ask Dr. Fanning to speak on the delays in payments.

Most payments are made on time. Some of the problems with payments are because of an appeals process regarding on-farm market valuation. There were 63 appeals in 2024. Appeals can be taken by the Department, which took about one third of them, and two thirds were taken by farmers. This can delay payments also. For the most part, straightforward payments are made on time.

I want to move on to forestry, which is central to meeting our climate and renewable energy targets. It underpins the land use carbon sink and provides a long-term income option for farmers, including premiums paid over 20 years. Despite this, planting levels remain far below target, with a significant underspend of €41.7 million. This raises very serious concerns about the delivery of our climate targets and our commitments. Given the scale of the incentives available, which are quite significant and include long-term premium payments, why does the Department believe afforestation levels remain so far below the national targets? I read an article last week; I do not come from a farming background but I am interested in renewable energy and how far we can go to meet our climate targets. Is this something that is well publicised among the farming community? Why was it not taken up?

I thank Deputy Ardagh for her questions and I might ask Mr. Savage to speak on them. Overall, I fully accept we are below the very high target of 8,000 ha of planting per year. I would say that we have made a turnaround in planting levels. In 2025, 2,500 ha were planted and paid. This is significantly up on the 1,500 ha planted in 2024. Significant resources have been devoted by the Department to addressing the backlog in forestry licensing, which arose because of the obvious need to comply with environmental assessment requirements. This has been addressed and we have significant resources to do this. There is a comprehensive communication plan under way, using all channels and means of communication to promote the benefits of forestry and its profitability under the forestry programme. The Department continues to expand its engagement programme to talk to farmers about the possibility of combining forestry with agriculture through agroforestry and small planting schemes. I will ask Mr. Savage to comment in more detail.

To follow up on this, in terms of encouraging greater uptake of afforestation what we have been trying to do over the past two years in particular is to try to deal with some of the outstanding issues that have created a negative backdrop to our efforts to increase forestry. For instance, there were issues with the forestry licensing regime, which we dealt with over the past couple of years. We are now at a point where our licensing turnaround times are in keeping with the farmers' charter. We are ahead of our deadlines and our commitment on how quickly we can turn licences around, whether or not they are screened in for environmental assessment. Our licensing system is fixed and there is no issue with it. We have also dealt with what was a long-running issue regarding the response to ash dieback on the part of the Department. A comprehensive and very generous scheme is in place. We are seeing a pick up in the number of farmers involved in this, who can see the benefit of participating in it and dealing definitively with the issue of ash dieback.

In terms of dealing with these two issues we have managed to turn around the more negative outlook. More generally, as the Secretary General mentioned, we have increased the rates across all of the programmes and all of the schemes in the programme. We have extended the period in which farmers can avail of forestry premiums. It has not been followed through in terms of a massive increase in planting, although we saw a very encouraging increase last year, as has been mentioned, of 2,500 ha.

At present we are looking at some of the cultural issues, the cultural barriers and the other things that prevent farmers and other landowners from planting trees. We have seen resistance to it. There is hesitancy. It is a long-term commitment by farmers and they have legitimate concerns about this long-term commitment. We have been trying to engage in a very positive way in terms of promoting its benefits and accentuating the monetary value to farmers and the environmental contribution that planting trees makes. This is very much going to be a focus in 2026, to try to maintain what we see as a spike in planting rates last year. We would like to maintain and build on it this year. The secret to this will be around more constructive and positive engagement, accentuating the positive in the programme and reinforcing the message that the way in which the programme is implemented, and the efficiency with which the Department is processing applications, has massively improved and farmers can expect to receive a much higher and better degree of service than the perception may have been in the past couple of years.

We are still way behind where we need to be. We need to be up at 8,000 ha. Is there any way that people who are not from a farming background might be incentivised as new farmers? I will leave it there as I am eating into my colleague's time but perhaps the witnesses will address this if someone else raises it.

I welcome all of the witnesses. I want to get into Bord Bia and its board. It has been said the board is made up of different stakeholders from the same sector who have a shared ambition in terms of the sector. Does the Department agree it is absolutely necessary and effective to ensure that everybody is pulling in the same direction and that the chair needs to have a decent level of empathy?

I am sorry-----

Does Ms McPhillips believe the chairperson of Bord Bia needs to have a certain amount of empathy?

I believe that the chair of any State body should discharge their functions in a correct manner and to the betterment of the sector. As I explained to Deputy Dolan, there is a variety of stakeholders on the board of Bord Bia. Many of them are selected through the Public Appointments Service.

How many members are on the board of Bord Bia?

There are 15 in all.

Are all those positions filled at the moment?

I think there is one vacancy at the moment.

Ms McPhillips is saying that the Department is standing by the chairperson of Bord Bia despite the comments he made describing the response to his importation of Brazilian beef as "emotional nonsense". The Department stands by him.

It is the Minister's role to appoint or remove a chairperson of Bord Bia. The Minister has made it clear that he has full confidence in the chair.

Does that mean that Ms McPhillips also has full confidence in the chair?

Our role is to implement Government policy.

I will move to conflicts of interest. Are all board members required to declare conflicts of interest to ensure they do not arise?

As I said to Deputy Dolan, under the code of conduct for State bodies, there is a requirement, as there is for all civil and public servants, to declare conflicts of interest through the Standards in Public Office Commission, SIPO, process.

Did Mr. Murrin declare a conflict in relation to his wife, Ms Nora Murrin, and Banqueting Food Systems Ltd., which was in operation and made €135,000 from Bord Bia? Was that declared?

I would prefer to leave those clarifications to the chair himself. He is appearing before another committee.

I am asking Ms McPhillips. The Department takes on the conflicts of interest to ensure that people who are on boards do not have conflicts of interest. I want to know if that conflict was addressed.

As I explained, conflicts of interest returns are made to Bord Bia, in the first instance, and then to SIPO through the normal process. I understand from Bord Bia that the issue mentioned by the Deputy was declared as a conflict of interest.

It was declared. Okay. That was fine. A board member is allowed to make €135,000.

I do not want to get too far into the weeds of this issue. I understand that contract was awarded before Mr. Murrin was appointed as the chair of Bord Bia. It was a three-year contract. Many of the board members are involved as farmers, members of the food industry or academics. They all have various personal interests. The procedure at a board meeting is that if there is a specific issue being discussed where there is a direct conflict of interest, that would be declared at the board meeting and the person concerned would step out for the discussion.

Other members of the board also have conflicts of interest. Is that correct? Is that what Ms McPhillips is saying to me?

The guidance for, say, the Public Appointments Service for those members who are appointed through the State boards process is that they should be people with a knowledge of and interest in the agrifood sector, whatever way it comes about. The nature of it is that we want expert people on that board.

Have other members earned an income through Bord Bia? Have other members of the board earned income through Bord Bia?

I do not have that information.

Does Ms McPhillips not know from the declarations?

I would not see the declarations.

Ms McPhillips does not see them. Perhaps the committee could get a copy of the declarations from Bord Bia. Perhaps we could ask questions to ensure there are no conflicts of interest.

I will move to the €100 million spent on the eradication of TB. What are Ms McPhillips' thoughts in that regard? Does she believe that the Department of agriculture is doing a good job? We have spent €100 million and instances of TB are increasing.

As the Comptroller and Auditor General pointed out, and as I have said to Deputies previously, we are concerned about the levels of TB. We now have a comprehensive action plan to address the factors. As Dr. Fanning has pointed out, it is a multifactorial disease, which is complex to address. The main part of the expenditure relates to compensation for farmers who are affected by TB. Obviously, if rates continue to increase, that expenditure will continue to increase, and that is what we want to avoid. We want to root out the causes and drive down the levels. It is early days in the action plan, but we have had some success. Dr. Fanning might want to comment in more detail on the figures.

What is included in the action plan?

There are five different action areas with 38 different measures. They cover keeping the free herds free, catching infection early and rooting it out to avoid future breakdowns. The problem is that there are limitations with the test. Even if all the animals pass the test, it is likely that 20% of positive animals are left behind. If you have ten positives or eight positive, there are likely to be two animals that have been left behind. In larger herds, they will spread the disease to more animals. That is another factor that has been addressed.

Wildlife is also a factor. For example, badgers need to be dealt with, as do, in localised areas, deer, which have been shown to be a problem in Wicklow. We need to deal with high-risk animals so they are not on the open market and if they are, farmers can be informed as to purchasing them, in particular if they are buying them into a breeding herd. The length of time an animal is in a herd increases its chance, with a chronic disease, of developing TB. That is especially true if they have been present at a breakdown previously.

There are a number of different actions. A big part is communication and empowering farmers to make decisions that mitigate the risks in their herds. On that point, improvement has been seen. We have seen an 11% decrease since September in herd instances and reactor numbers. I would caveat that by saying actions that will be rolled out in quarter 2 of this year in relation to increased blood testing, through the gamma interferon test, GIF, which is how we want to root out more infection in these herds, will lead to an increase in reactors. The idea is to catch those animals earlier.

That is okay. I have read up about CattleBCG and a vaccination that is being researched in other countries. I realise there is a skin test that will show up TB. Are we in Ireland doing any research into a CattleBCG injection that would prevent this?

As the Deputy said, a good bit of research has happened. There has been a lot of research in the UK. We have been liaising with our UK colleagues on that research.

Are we doing any work ourselves here?

No particular work ourselves.

We are spending €100 million a year but we are not doing any research into a vaccination.

There are limitations with the vaccine.

I know there are limitations. Are we not doing our own research here? We are spending €100 million. How much are they spending in other countries? Are they on par with spending of €100 million?

It would be different. If you look at the prevalence levels, there is a prevalence level of 10.7% in Northern Ireland, whereas ours is currently down to 5.71%. It is higher in Wales and England. We can eradicate without vaccination. It is not a silver bullet. We are keeping a close eye on the research. We have said that if there is anything we can do in particular circumstances-----

It would be money well spent if there were research done into a vaccination. It would prevent €100 million being spent per year in the long run.

There is the trade piece, as well.

There is extensive research being carried out-----

Into vaccination.

-----into TB generally and into the multifactorial causes of TB and how we can address them. That research has directly informed the action plan and the actions in it.

In relation to payments and the long processing time for payments, I would like to ask about the Department's IT systems. Is the IT system working or is there a problem there?

I thank the Deputy. I can assure her that our IT system is working. As I mentioned to another Deputy-----

It is not funny.

-----we have a reputation across the EU for-----

It is not funny for the farmers.

No, I do not-----

They are waiting for years to get payments. What is the issue?

The issue for the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, which might be what the Deputy's question in centred on-----

A lot of payments, yes.

-----is that the scheme opened in 2023. It is a new and highly ambitious scheme in terms of the agri-environment. It pays farmers for results by directly measuring the biodiversity on their farms and paying them for improvements in that biodiversity.

That scheme opened in 2023 when the new CAP strategic plan was introduced. It opened and the IT systems to pay for it had to be built at the same time. Mr. Savage may wish to expand on that.

Does the Department believe the IT systems it has are working?

Absolutely. In fact we made some-----

There were huge delays in TAMS and CAP and everything-----

All of our IT systems have undergone significant development over the past two years. As the Secretary General mentioned, part of the problem was a very small time gap between when the Commission approved our CAP strategic plan and when we launched the schemes. Effectively, the schemes were being rolled out at the same the IT systems were being developed. It took some time for us to catch up in getting TAMS approvals out. We also had issues around ACRES payments but again that was because of the huge effort going into what is a much more complex scheme now than had been the case previously. We stuck with it. We tried to make sure the needed changes and improvements were built into the systems so that they were stable-----

Are the IT systems working now?

The IT systems are working very well now. As the Secretary General mentioned, almost 97% of advanced payments for 2025 have already been made. Earlier on, 2023 payments were mentioned and well over 99% of those have been made. For 2024, 99% of payments have been made as well. The effort put into maintaining and developing systems correctly over the past 12 months is paying off now in the resilience of those systems for the rest of the-----

The farmers will be delighted to hear that.

The challenge for this Department is our schemes turn over almost completely every seven years when a new CAP is negotiated. In the CAP reform for post 2027, we want to have enough time and space to ensure all of the systems are in place and the schemes are fully built before we have to start the schemes.

I thank everyone for being here. To change subject slightly to the issue of animal welfare and the Department's role under programme A, where are we with the animal welfare strategy from 2026 to 2030? What is the update on that?

The Department takes animal welfare most seriously. The public consultation on the new animal welfare strategy closed at the beginning of January and is under development.

Is there an estimated timeline for its completion?

There were over 1,200 submissions to that public consultation. We are working our way through them to inform the new animal welfare strategy, which will build on the previous strategy. We are aiming for quarter 2 this year.

Ms McPhillips said the Department takes animal welfare very seriously but when one speaks to rescue centres and animal rights groups, they would argue we have weak enforcement of animal welfare. In the budget, I think €6.4 million was given by the Department to 94 charities working in this area and €2 million was given to local authorities in relation to dog control measures, for example. Does the Department think that is an adequate amount of funding to deal with these critical issues?

This Department has policy responsibility in respect of animal welfare. We take all of those aspects very seriously. The payment to animal welfare charities of €6.4 million was a record at the time. It reflects the need. The operational aspects of animal welfare are a matter for local authorities. The €2 million paid to local authorities was to support the service they provide specifically to support dog wardens.

The Department does not see its role as funding.

Local authorities have their own sources of funding but we are happy to engage.

As someone who has come from a local authority background, I note they would strongly argue they do not have the resources to deal with the issue effectively. The Department sets policy and Ms McPhillips is saying its role is not to provide funding for the oversight and implementation of that policy.

The operational aspects of the policy rest with the local authorities. I will ask Dr. Fanning to add to that.

Before Dr. Fanning comes in, under the new animal welfare strategy, for example, Ms McPhillips does not see any increase in funding necessarily to local authorities so that they can implement the policy in relation to animal control and welfare?

I am sure that is one of the elements we will consider as part of the strategy formation.

As the Secretary General said, we have overall policy responsibility for animal welfare. The operational matters for dogs lie with local authorities and dog wardens. The former local authority veterinary service joined the Department on 1 January 2025. We work closely with it in relation to any animal welfare concerns they might have regarding dogs or horses in particular, as control of horses is also with local authorities. It is not only in the funding; there is assistance and support given there. Our staff are authorised under the Animal Health and Welfare Act, as are An Garda Síochána and a number of members of the NSPCA as well. It is more than just the figures - it is a lot of money - to animal welfare charities and local authorities by way of support.

I think the Department will appreciate that unless there is adequate funding in this area, we are not going to see the improvements we need. Rescue centres say they are overrun with demands in terms of animal welfare. There are significant issues around dogs being abandoned and equine welfare - a whole host of issues. I visited some of the rescue centres. They really are stretched. It is all fine having a welfare strategy but if the funding is not provided, it is not going to be effective.

I fully agree with the Deputy's remarks with regard to the work those charities do. One thing we are already doing but want to reinforce is the message to owners about their responsibilities - dog owners and people considering buying a dog as a pet - making sure they source from the right sources and taking on lifetime responsibility for that animal and in a similar way with horses.

Does the Department have information on the level of prosecutions in recent years regarding animal welfare? Is that data available?

Since the Animal Health and Welfare Act was enacted in 2013, there have been 215 prosecutions.

What is the nature of the prosecutions? Will Ms McPhillips give a breakdown?

I just have to find the specifics so I will come back.

I might change subject while Ms McPhillips is looking for that information. Prosecutions are an important part of this. I wish to turn to the issue the Department is having with Revenue in relation to VAT and PAYE. Will the Department provide information on that issue? I understand it spans a number of years from 2021 to 2024. Is it ongoing? What is the nature of that interaction? Will the Department provide an update?

The PAYE audit is still ongoing by Revenue. There have been a number of interim payments but the matter is not concluded. The PAYE issues relate to a number of relatively small individual issues but they all add up. Mr. Conroy might be able to share more detail.

How did this come to light? What triggered it?

We received notification from Revenue in 2022 that it would conduct an audit in the first instance and in 2023 around PAYE.

Was that a random audit or was it because of a particular reason?

It was a notification that we were in discussion with Revenue about VAT and VAT charges. That led to a Revenue audit. To date, in relation to the VAT audit, we have paid €2.4 million, which concludes that process except for the possibility of additional interest and penalties, which we are currently negotiating.

Is the €2.4 million in relation to VAT?

In challenging circumstances in trying to determine the appropriate rate of VAT, that was largely linked to a calculation in some instances of the incorrect rate of VAT.

That led to that overall payment. It is quite challenging and even Revenue itself was not sure and had to get advice in relation to it. We have taken on additional VAT training across our accounts and rolled that out across the Department to ensure that at all times we are filing the correct rate of VAT.

Was the VAT on particular payments?

It related to goods and services we had procured.

Okay, so €2.4 million was the actual liability. That does not include any penalties or interest.

There will be a small amount. It will not be significant in relation to penalties or interest.

The Department is in discussions on that.

Exactly.

In terms of PAYE, what value are we looking at?

The PAYE related to benefit in kind associated with allowances and fees paid to staff by the Department. For example, to carry on their duties vets need to be registered veterinary practitioners. There is a small payment. That is still ongoing. Approximately €400,000 has been paid in that regard but that process is ongoing..

Does he see a conclusion to that soon? Are we near the end of that?

I think it is a bit early to say. We will probably have sight of the final liability in the next couple of months.

Is €400,000 the ballpark or does Mr. Conroy see that increasing?

I do not have full detail on how many years that covers, but I think it is a significant portion of it.

Okay. It is a bit concerning that there are two issues there related to Revenue, both VAT and PAYE. I note the Department has had to bring in external tax consultants as well to advise on that. How much did that engagement of tax consultants cost?

I do not think we have a figure for that here. I note that some of the VAT issues are probably common to other Departments where there are complex and slightly unusual transactions. What we have done in response to the findings to date is to ensure that there is VAT training for all-----

Ms McPhillips feels it was not possible for her officials and the Revenue to iron these issues out and the Department had to engage the services of external consultants.

I think in specific cases there was a need for targeted advice and that is why there was consultancy.

I will move on to financial management within the organisation. I understand there were also payroll overpayments involving over 423 employees and that amounted to approximately €1 million. Will Ms McPhillips advise how that came about?

The Deputy will be aware that Civil Service pay is paid a fortnight in advance. To take a simple example, when someone goes on sick leave and is on a lower rate of pay they automatically have a slight overpayment. That can accumulate over a large organisation to a significant sum. The Department is working with the National Shared Services Office, which manages payroll. We have dedicated a team to engaging and addressing the legacy cases and ensuring those cases do not recur in the future.

Measures will be put in place to ensure this does not recur.

For most of the individuals concerned these are relatively small amounts.

I understand.

Sometimes the personal circumstances can be difficult.

Full repayment has not taken place at this point in time.

In respect of some of those cases it would have, but there are other cases where people have left the Department, retired and so on. That is a challenge in terms of recouping.

There is not full repayment at this point in time.

No.

I thank all the witnesses. I know Ms McPhillips said that she prefers to allow the chair of Bord Bia to answer the questions, which is a reasonable point of view. However, the matter was raised in this committee, and I think it is fair. An earlier exchange is illustrative of the importance of fair procedure and the power of parliamentary privilege, because an allegation was put to Ms McPhillips that derived from an online news article about a contract involving the spouse of the chair. That is in case it was not heard properly. That news article was put to her, and she explained, if I heard her correctly that the spouse of the chair received that contract from Bord Bia prior to him being appointed. Is that the position?

That is correct and that has been publicly stated by Bord Bia.

I thank Ms McPhillips. The first speaker brought up Bord Bia as well. It seemed to me at least that inferences were put relating to conflicts of interest and how they were managed. I will tease this out a little bit. Questions were put to her about who is on the board and the number of people on the board. The first thing to say is that there is an assistant secretary general of the Department of agriculture on Bord Bia. Is that correct?

That is correct.

It is also correct to say, and this is publicly stated, that in respect of the board it considered all of the issues that are in the public domain and two members of that board, the ICMSA and the IFA, did not agree but every other member of the board expressed their support of the chair having considered all of the matters. Is that correct?

That is correct. I add that the entire board was satisfied and confirmed that there was no evidence or suggestion of wrongdoing or impropriety on the part of the chair.

The IFA and the ICMSA also confirmed that position.

They confirmed that position. Obviously, that is specifically in relation to impropriety or wrongdoing. It was agreed by the entire board that there was no suggestion of that. There was then a discussion of the role of the chair. As the Deputy has stated, two of the board members disagreed with the conclusion that the chair should remain in place.

Am I correct in saying, as I think Ms McPhillips referred to, that every board member is bound by a particular code of practice?

Yes.

In that code of practice there is a requirement to comply with a code of conduct. Board members have to declare any conflicts of interest, and all board members have to complete ethics and conflict-of-interest returns. Corporate governance meetings are held between the Department and Bord Bia in accordance with the code of practice. Is that the position?

That is correct, yes.

Is it correct to say that the board members of Bord Bia were unanimously satisfied that in respect of this issue, there was no breach in the code of conduct by the Chair in respect of the matters we are all familiar with?

I do not know if the discussion went in that particular format. However, the Deputy will have seen in the report Bord Bia provided to the Minister, which he subsequently published, that:

All of the members [of the board] strongly endorsed the integrity of the chairman, the transparency of his business and his invaluable experience that has benefited Bord Bia and the wider food industry. There was acknowledgement that there was no legal or governance issue at play.

The was no governance issue at play. Has the Department considered that the code and the requirements and the code have been fulfilled to its satisfaction?

Yes.

It is the case that the code of conduct I referred to has been fulfilled in full, from the Department's perspective.

Yes. As I outlined to some of the other Deputies, the Department is not in receipt of the conflict-of-interest declarations. They are made through the normal process and returned to SIPO.

There is an assistant secretary general from the Department of agriculture who sits on Bord Bia and satisfied herself presumably as part of this role, as a member of the board independent of being an assistant secretary general of the Department in respect of this issue.

Yes. With regard to corporate governance, a different assistant secretary general holds those corporate governance meetings with Bord Bia up to twice a year. The Secretary General also holds a high-level corporate governance meeting.

I want to move on. It has been reported in relation to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, which is not a board I was particularly familiar with, that it has had to concede 12 judicial review cases in 2024. Why did it have to concede 12 cases? That is a huge number of cases it has been forced to concede.

The Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board is an independent body provided to look at appeals against a ministerial determination in respect of aquaculture licences. In the event, its decisions are independent, and the board considers them, so the individual reasons for each of those decisions are not available to us as it is an independent body.

Ms McSherry does not know why this body has been subjected to 12 judicial reviews and why it conceded those judicial reviews.

I can speak to judicial reviews in general and aquaculture licensing. The nature of aquaculture licensing, particularly in respect of finfish, is that it has a strong lobby where some aspects of society do not see that finfish licensing is appropriate for certain bays around our country.

In relation to their capacity to appeal that, in the first instance they appeal to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board-----

On the judicial review point, who represents this body when it is being judicially reviewed? Is it the Attorney General or does it have independent solicitors?

It has independent legal advice.

Is the Department's only function to fund this body?

Yes, as it is independent of the Department. It reviews decisions of the Minister.

Did it not raise with the Department what triggered all of these judicial reviews? Has the Department never been told what the issues are?

I am not familiar with the 12 judicial reviews Deputy Geoghegan is reporting on. However, in terms of the issues that arise from judicial review, the Department is listed as a notice party at times. We are aware of those but I am not aware of the specific detail of the 12 judicial reviews the Deputy refers to.

Am I correct in saying the Department had to provide an additional €400,000 in legal costs on top of the board's operating budget?

That is correct.

That is a significant sum of money.

It was what was required by the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, in order to deal with its legal requirements.

When ALAB asks for that money, the Department presumably asks why it needs it.

The request for those funds goes to the Department of public expenditure with an explanation of the legal fees.

Ms McSherry does not know what that is. The Department has no knowledge as to why ALAB wanted €400,000. The Department just gave it €400,000.

Once again, it is to deal with the legal aspects of the cases ALAB is dealing with.

Yes, but why is there such secrecy about this? What is the €400,000 for? Why did the Department give it €400,000?

To deal with the legal fees in respect of ALAB's judicial reviews.

What were they about? What were the collapses of the judicial reviews about? Ms McSherry must know. She is sitting at the Oireachtas committee. She can tell us. If we had the board here - I presume it is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General as well - it would be telling us, so what is the big deal? Will Ms McSherry just tell us what they are about?

I do not understand. Maybe I am misunderstanding the Deputy's question.

What were the judicial reviews about? What was the €400,000 in legal fees that the Department had to give this body about? Why did the Department have to give ALAB €400,000? It conceded 12 judicial review cases and there were additional legal costs imposed. Why did the Department have to give the body €400,000 for legal costs? Something went wrong.

In 2024, the issue that the Aquaculture Licenses Appeal Board was dealing with at judicial review was a significant and entrenched case on Deenish Island. It required the legal expertise in order to deal with the judicial review.

That is not an answer. Why is Ms McSherry being so circumspect? I do not understand why she is not just telling me what the facts of these cases were. What is the secret here? If the board was here, it would tell us, so why can Ms McSherry not tell us?

In respect of the most recent judicial reviews-----

Something to do with Inisheer but what was that? What were the facts of this case that resulted in €400,000 having to be paid?

Regarding the judicial reviews on aquaculture licensing, the issues were complex and taken by a number of parties in respect of the environmental assessments, Natura impact assessments and the application of the birds and habitats directive. Each of the legal points that were identified had to be dealt with by ALAB and the board required legal assistance to deal with them. I am-----

Is Ms McSherry not concerned about how this appeals body is operating in terms of it needing an additional €400,000 in legal costs because it lost 12 judicial reviews? Is that not a concern for the Department? Let me put it this way-----

With respect to the 12 judicial reviews Deputy Geoghegan is speaking to, I cannot speak directly to them unless I know what they are.

Sorry. I will put the question another way. I presume it is not an annual occurrence where the board writes to the Department to ask if it can give the board €400,000 to cover legal costs, or is it? I do not know.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the Deputy if we followed up with a letter on this to give him more facts in relation to those cases.

Okay. I thank the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for coming before us. My first question is on whether the Department has the figures yet for how many badgers were killed under the bovine TB programme by the Department in 2025?

I will ask Dr. Fanning to come in on this.

I thank the Deputy. Does he want the figures for 2024 or 2025?

The figures for 2025. I have-----

For 2025, we might not have the full picture. There might still be a few returns outstanding. However, the provisional figures I have are as follows. The total number of badgers captured was 12,811. The total number of those badgers that were vaccinated was 3,039. The total number of badgers removed, including from vaccine areas - I am referring to positive badgers within vaccine areas - was 2,548. There were 5,187 badgers removed from removal areas. That is a total of 7,735 badgers removed.

When Dr. Fanning says "removed", she means removed from this Earth?

They are euthanised, yes.

She means killed. The figure was what again?

It was 7,735.

That is not a final figure for 2025 yet.

No, it is not a final figure for 2025. There may still be-----

That figure is up compared to 2024, when it was 7,319, according to an article in The Journal. Over the past ten years, the number is 66,000 badgers. On the basis of these figures going up, it will be even higher. Why is the public paying to kill so many badgers, which are a protected species?

I will take that and Dr. Fanning might add to my reply. The TB programme necessarily requires a wildlife strategy that includes the removal of badgers from areas where there has been a TB outbreak. As we have already discussed, the number of TB outbreaks has increased significantly over the past years. That requirement arises because TB is present in cattle and badgers and both species share the same environment and the same strains of TB.

The current policy was introduced in response to research conducted over many years by the Department that clearly demonstrated that the eradication of TB was not practical unless and until the reservoir of infection in badgers, which was seeding infection into the cattle population in some areas, was addressed.

Ms McPhillips is telling me the Department is killing more and more badgers each year while also telling me that the incidence rate of TB in cattle is increasing. It is not working, is it?

As we have discussed, TB is a multifactorial disease. Some of the practical communication messages we have given to farmers in how they can better manage that interaction of cattle and badgers will be an important part of this but there are a number of strands to the TB response.

To quote the Comptroller and Auditor General's report:

The Department noted that the removal of milk quotas in 2015 led to a significant expansion of the Irish dairy sector. Dairy herds are at higher risk for bovine TB due to longer residency times, increased movements, higher stock density and larger herd sizes. For 2023, even though 12% of all herds were dairy herds, 35% of all cattle were in dairy herds.... there is evidence of TB spread within and between herds.

Is the driving factor of the increased incidence of TB not the increased intensification of dairy farming?

There are a number of factors. Increased intensification and greater movement form one factor and I will ask Dr. Fanning to expand on that.

As the Secretary General said, there are a number of factors, which is why the action plan looks at all of those factors. TB is not something we can eradicate from either population, either badgers or cattle, without addressing the problem in both species. They share a common habitat, in that anywhere there are badgers in the country, it is generally grazing land. There are measures in the action plan that refine our wildlife programme, in particular. In vaccine areas, all badgers will be tested prior to vaccination to ensure that only healthy badgers are vaccinated and the population of badgers can be sustained.

The positive incidence rate in badgers is over 20%, which is a very high level of disease-----

Dr. Fanning is telling me that 80% of the badgers that are killed do not have TB?

I do not have the exact figures in front of me but we do not test all of the badgers that are culled. It is an estimated level of about 20% in badgers. You have to deal with this. This is a very chronic, debilitating disease, and from the badgers' protection point of view, we have to address it in both populations.

We are the only country in Europe that has committed to the large-scale, publicly funded slaughter of badgers. We are also the worst country in Europe in terms of incidence of TB, and it is not getting better. Rather, it is getting worse. Why are we not just vaccinating the badgers or, at least, overwhelmingly vaccinating the badgers?

Why is the ratio of vaccinations to killings getting worse over time despite the Minister stating on the record of the Dáil that the aim is to move towards vaccinations and not killing so many badgers?

As Dr. Fanning has said, if the rate of TB in badgers is 20% of those we test - sorry, I am getting the figures wrong there somewhere - there is a very high rate of TB in badgers.

About 20%.

I am open to correction on that. Where a badger has TB, euthanising that animal is the correct course.

We are killing a big majority of the animals that are caught, yet only 20% have it. That does not add up.

The culls are taking place in areas where the disease spread has been attributed to wildlife. It is only by dealing with all strands of the disease and the risk factors that we can address and, ultimately, drive down to eradication.

Dr. Fanning is telling me that the 7,735 killed in the first whatever period of time last year all would have tested positive for TB and that is why they were killed.

As I said, we do not test all of the badgers for TB.

How many of those tested positive before they were killed?

They would not have been tested prior to culling.

Then how many tested positive after being killed?

I can get the Deputy the figures on how many were tested, but we do not test all of the badgers. It is-----

It is a sample.

Badgers are culled in areas where there are hot spots of TB and, therefore, they have been shown to be involved in the spread epidemiologically.

To move on, one of the things that strikes me as crazy when I read this is that we are spending over €100 million a year on a bovine TB programme yet there still is no target time for reactor removals - as I understand it, the reactor is a cow that has been tested as being likely positive for TB - apart from the 30-day legal minimum. Obviously, it can spread from one cow to others. I do not understand how there is not a target time and how the national average removal time for 2024 was 18.3 days. The average cow was not removed for a majority of a month. It seems crazy.

I suppose one important point is that when an animal tests positive for TB, it is isolated on its farm of origin and the other animals are also isolated so there is a limited danger of TB spreading from those animals to other animals.

The Department ensures that is the case.

Yes.

The Department has accepted the recommendation from the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce a target timeline.

Yes.

Why did the Department accept that?