Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The report reads: "However, it was noted during the conduct of this Review that the IGB's work for such improvements has [been] considerably disrupted and delayed by the legacy of mistrust and lack of communication on the improvements being made, leading to concerns still being raised by stakeholders on a regular basis, which paradoxically is causing further distractions and delays to these improvements". That was in 2015 and related to anti-doping and medication.

The Indecon report was related to governance, finance, regulation, animal welfare, the reduction in the number of dogs being bred, etc. I am particularly interested in animal welfare, but I have not even got to that issue. As I have told most organisations, the representatives of which have appeared before us, taxpayers' money is being spent, including on the reports produced by the Comptroller and Auditor General's office. It would be easier to appear before us and point to the recommendations made and what bodies had done. It seems that has not happened in this instance. When I asked the witnesses about the recommendations of the agriculture committee, no clear answer was given as to what had been implemented. It would be easy to tell us what had been improved in terms of governance. It could be a list of what the IGB has done, for example, employing a governance officer, a risk assessment officer and so on, indicating what the risks are, etc, but none of that has been made clear today.

My next question is to Mr. Meaney. I am sorry, but this happened on his watch. At the previous meeting he referred to what he called a legacy case from 2010. It was related to a dog that had run under the influence of an illegal substance. Is that right?