Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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