Paul Murphy grills IFI on Blackwater fish kill and governance

Thanks a lot, and thanks for coming in. I mean, I think the importance or potential importance of the IFI is demonstrated by the Blackwater fish kill recently, where 32,000 fish were killed in a river that's already depleted in terms of fish stock, obviously devastating. But they were obviously killed by some form of pollution, but no source of that pollution was found, which basically means nothing has been done to prevent something like that happening again. Is that a fair summary of kind of where we're at on Blackwater? Yeah, the Blackwater was a significant environmental event, one of the biggest in the state's history. It has had a huge impact on local users, local clubs, local businesses. There's no question about that. It is something that IFI is fully aware of, and we are already engaging with the local stakeholder groups. We have plans in place to go down and do a full assessment of the catchment of 2026, look at habitat restoration to produce more juveniles. But in terms of what happened, you didn't find the source? No, we didn't. I think I said this at the Environmental Committee, Deputy, that we are successful in about 75% of our detections. The nature of water pollution is that it can be discharged into a water body days before anybody becomes aware of it. So if it's not being discharged when our officers attend on site, under a legislation, we can't bring forward a prosecution. And when was the first sample taken from the river? There were samples taken on the evening of the report, but there weren't... What date is that, sir? That was the 11th of August. Which is the first day that the IFI is present. So there were samples taken then? Not by IFI, by the council. Okay. Yeah. We take samples, statutory samples, to prosecute an offender, so we have to locate the discharge to take that prosecution. That's the process that IFI follows. And why do you think that the source wasn't identified? You think it took place a week before? We suspected it may have taken place, a plume may have been discharged into the water body about 72 hours before the first detection of dead fish. Okay. Okay. Obviously, when you go through the financial stuff, it's like, you know, it's not just a can of worms, it's a barrel of worms of one thing after another, a CEO relocating, getting huge expenses. Basically, one in five members of staff having a credit card, uninsured cars, more cars than there are staff. It's a litany of things. But obviously, that is, from your perspective, that's in the past. That's before your time, and you're saying that a significant change has now taken place. You don't think there's anything... There's nothing similar currently taking place. There's nothing that you would like to disclose and say, look, we still have this significant issue that we're looking at in terms of poor governance, poor culture, not having control of spending, things like that. Nothing on the spend, Deputy. Nothing that I'm aware of that would appear in the public accounts. Certainly, there's one issue that we're investigating that we haven't closed out yet, but it's not... I'm not sure whether it merits discussion here. But I think the... Yes, we have had... There is a number of issues, as you're aware, from the report. I might just say on the credit card issue, we've now reduced credit cards in the organisation down to five. Yeah. And we will be reviewing that again in the new year. And when did the former CEO stop getting paid? I'd ask Suzanne maybe to speak on that. I'm not aware of that detail, Deputy. It's something that would be a matter for the board generally, but from a financial side... Is it appropriate to deal with this? Yeah. So, the CEO left the organisation on the 4th of June this year. And when did they stop working? They stopped working on the 4th or 5th of March 2024. So, they got paid while not working for a year and three months or something? Not for the entire time, but yes. And what sort of leave were they on? How was it the case if they weren't working and they were still getting paid? Yeah, they were on leave and the executive were not party to the CEO reports to the board. So, all details are in relation to the CEO or with the board. So, none of you know on what basis the former CEO is getting paid while not working? No, Deputy. That was a matter for the board, his employer. Okay. Was there a termination or severance payment made? No. Okay. In terms of this being before your time, like, what was it before your time? Or were you not, in some senses, you were in the organisation when all this stuff was happening? I can say I wasn't, Deputy. I started in July 2022. But I don't think that, look, we're taking ownership of these issues. We have addressed them. We have put the controls in place. The governance is absolutely in place. And I think I can confidently say the organisation is a much better place now than it was. There's a reference in the CNAG report to the WRC issuing an adjudication in relation to a case in December 2023 involving suspension and subsequent dismissal. Dismissal of an employee. The WRC found that unfair dismissal had occurred in a word they complained in €38,500. Did you have any role in that case? I did. I undertook the appeal. And you turned down the appeal, presumably, if the, then the complainant went to the WRC? That's correct, Deputy. Do you think in light of the WRC decision, which is pretty strong, do you think that was a, did you make a mistake in terms of that appeal? No, I don't think I did, Deputy. The case heard before the WRC was involved much more information than the dismissal, the act to dismiss and the appeal information that IFI, the organisation acted upon. And the primary reason that we took the decision was the use of equipment while on suspension and the use of the allowance of a taxed vehicle to be used on public highway by a juvenile. That was the reason. But you're saying the complainant brought more information then to the WRC? It was a much bigger, yes, it was a much, there was much more detail, I believe, from reading it after the fact. And therefore you're saying if you had been in possession of the information that was presented to the WRC, you would have made a different decision at appeal stage? No, I would not. Okay, so then it's not about the information. No, no, but I think that ruling would describe a much bigger picture. Okay, and you don't consider it problematic that you have an internal process which finds something and then the WRC finds, and costs the public, 38,500 euros? I mean, I accept, I accept, I know, I understand where you're coming from on this, but my view is that the, the, there are so many tragedies on the road with misuse of vehicles and accidents. I think allowing a juvenile to use a state asset on a public highway, I believe that's grossment conduct. Okay, just in relation to one issue, an IFI staff member in June 2021 requested funding for the completion of a two-year MBA, and they got paid for, the MBA course got paid for them, cost us about 20,000 euros. They weren't in a management position, but they, the kind of business case for it was, well, in the future they might be in a management position. Is that staff member still within the IFI? Yes, that staff member is still, still with us, deputy. And are they playing a, um, management role? I can report they actually are. They're at an AP standard in the organisation and doing an excellent job. And, I mean, are there now, it actually seems like a peculiar situation whereby someone, and it's no aspersions on this individual, I don't know who they are, but someone is able to get an expensive course paid for that doesn't have any immediate relevance to their actual current job. And there is nothing to stop them, like, good to hear that they're still, and we're getting the benefit of that, but they could have gone off somewhere else and we've effectively paid for their training. Is there, is there controls put in place to ensure that something like that won't happen again? Yeah, so there, there, you have to now put a business case forward to, well, you had to put a business case forward at the time, um, to, to, to make a case for the training. Um, I can, um, I can, I can advise the committee that, that training was, was reviewed by the head of HR and the learning and development manager at the time. Um, verbal commitment, I'm advised, was given. Um, there is email evidence to say that the, the approval to pay deposit happened in July, but due to issues with, uh, authorizations on online payments between the app and the credit card of the particular person that was approving it, uh, that didn't happen until September. That's, that's, that's my information on the, on the issue, deputy. Okay. Um, consultancy costs of almost 2 million are disclosed. Um, what, what's, what's that? What sort of consultancy is? I, I, I will pass to the, the head of finance and corporate services on that issue, deputy, if you don't mind. So, we do use quite a lot of consultancy, deputy. Um, I have a breakdown for 2023, so business improvement was 128,000. Capital 97,000, consultant engineers, 159,000, yield survey, 26,000, environmental consultants, 262,000, financial 105,000, HR pension, 120,000, legal, um, 918,000, legal is shown separately in our accounts as well. Um, uh, medical services, 22,000, uh, marketing, um, more like promotion and, um, communication, 76,000, property and planning, 47,000, veterinary services, 24,000. So, just, just to finish, I, I don't know if it's time, but, um, so you're saying a million euros on legal fees, basically, oh, close to it. Well, we are a regulatory body. Yes. Um, but in 2020. So this is paying for prosecutions and stuff, effectively, like paying for a senior counsel or whoever, yeah. But in 2023, we had a judicial review going on of which 416,000 of, uh, an entire 656,000 bill was paid. Okay. Thanks a lot. Okay. Thanks a lot. Thank you.