Victor Boyhan Questions Regulator's Staffing and Powers

I would like to welcome Mr Healy and the team here, and thank you very much. I'm just really going to stick to some of the key points that you've highlighted in your opening statement to us. I also want to refer to one item that you've mentioned in relation to livestock and the lack or the discharge issues around the resolution for that matter that you touched on. So the first thing I suppose I want to say is I myself and one of the two other people in this committee were involved in, of course, the pre-legative scrutiny and the establishment of the regulator. I think it's great to see it up. It's clearly had a few leading problems, and you've outlined some of them here, and I think that's important that we acknowledge them and that we sort of focus in on them. So I'm just going to go through, there are four pages, I think three pages to your statement, so I'm just going to say the last paragraph, you mentioned staff capacity. You say you have it up to 17 staff. You put in a request for additional five extra staff for next year. You might just touch, I'll ask the questions and maybe then I'll hand over to you for a response, but you might just log these questions. So I want to know, they're fully sanctioned, when are they starting? Is that sufficient? Do you need more? In relation then to the issue you mentioned, I think it was little, but correct me if I'm wrong, in relation to the concerns of the non-payment for livestock to a processing plant, that is of concern to us as people who are very active in the Agricultural Committee. Obviously, it's an appalling situation, but I don't know all the circumstances, I wouldn't want to make too much of a judgment, that any one farmer would make the effort to enter into some sort of contractual arrangement to supply and find that they were not being the terms and conditions. Now, I don't know the full terms, but you might enlighten us in that. But more importantly, what powers did you use, what influence did you use, to exercise and procure or bring about a resolution? Because I think we need to learn from that loud and clear. We need to send a clear message that if people enter into a contract or arrangement in good faith, at a minimum, they should expect to have the price that they initially had contracted for. I'd be interested to hear a little bit about that. Then, if we go to the sort of final page, first paragraph, you mention here, despite extensive engagement with stakeholders and months after establishment of the regulator, issues around the data request on the eggs and horticulture, and we know about that on the, we know that on the 28th of May 2025, I raised a commencement matter in Shannon Aaron, of which I asked the Minister in relation to these matters, and I quote his response. He says that the Act does not permit the regulation to compel any such data. He says, however, the Act provides that the Minister may make regulations on price and market information. In addition, the programme for Government commits to giving the Agri-Food Regulator enhanced powers to ensure transparency in the food supply chain. I am fully commissioned, says the Minister, to ensuring that the regulator is equipped with the necessary powers to fulfil his statutory functions. Subject to the legislative consultation, he says, I need to ensure that the powers granted are proportionate. My department and I are in discussions with the Agri-Food Regulator and other key stakeholders to set out how we can achieve all of this. As part of that process, it is appropriate for me to consider the relevant factors before making such regulations, he says. So he says regulations as opposed to amending legislation. He says, in particular, I must have regard to the SME test, which is also in the programme for government commitment relating to legislation. I'm aware that there is a concern in the business sector. So he's concerned about the business sector. I have met with IBAC and the business representatives. I've heard their concerns that compelling Irish agri-food businesses to provide financial data may give rise to competitive advantages for businesses in other EU states. This is because, and he goes on, you know the story. I'm somewhat disappointed that you're in here telling us that in September 2024, you wrote to the minister and you sought the additional powers. And you again last week, well you clearly knew you were coming in here, so you decided to write another letter to the minister last week. It would be helpful if you were agreeable to share that letter in the future with us because I'd like to see what you actually said and how compelling and how forceful it was because that's important. You're not going to get anything unless you're robust in your demand and your ask. So you might enlighten us there and explain the nature of, you know, that pressure. So I'm over to you now if you could answer those, touch back on those issues that I raised. If anyone can take any of the questions you want, go ahead. Well, Mr. Healy perhaps is the central man in terms of the letter. OK, yeah, well, look, we can share it around. Share them out, yeah. Your first question was in relation to the five new staff starting and maybe I'll hand that over to Niamh. The 17 that are in place were taken on board as needs arose over the past two years as the work rate filled up. So we're delighted to have that 17th person started recently. So we're at a full complement of the original amount and the five new people, Niamh, might deal with those. The non-payment of the farmer that we had the prosecution for was Asbameaths. Asbameaths, sorry. Yeah, based in Innes. And then in relation to, I suppose it's an extra power we've looked for as opposed to powers and that power is, we only have the power already, we only have the power to seek information and to fulfil our remit of what we were set up to do, we need the power to compel. And that's why, and it was based really, you know, we started off hoping that the power to seek would be adequate when we did the egg report, but that was our first report and we decided to act straight away on it when, you know, a player or two didn't play ball with us and didn't give us the information straight away. Then the board felt that it was time, rather than wasting the time of staff members, that it was time to seek the power to compel. You know, so we, that was in September 2024, and I suppose it has been ongoing ever since we've engaged fully in the consultative process which has been completed. Draft legislation has been drafted and currently it's the subject of legal scrutiny to ensure that the proposed legislation fulfils its purpose, you know, while abiding any consequences. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Senator. Just in terms of your first question, in terms of staff, so, sorry, thanks, thanks, Joe. In terms of, I mean, one of the key items in any new body is to build the capacity of our staff. So, upon establishment, we were allocated 17 full-time equivalent staff and, as the Chair said, we reached number 17 only this week, actually. So, we've been building that capacity based on, you know, our experience as we go along about the skills and capacity that we needed. So, earlier this year, we conducted a significant workforce planning exercise and the purpose of that, of course, was to look again at the skills that were needed in terms of, so, for example, you know, we were getting an increasing number of complaints and issues being brought to our attention, which is useful for us. And we would like to have more teams, for example, on the ground in terms of doing inspections. And so, we have that exercise yielded, I suppose, a result in terms of that we would like 21 more staff going forward to take into account the functions that we have now, but also with an eye to the future as well and any powers that might be provided to us. So, those additional, the additional staff that has been allocated to us is five, as we understand it, but we are waiting for the formal notification on that. So, that's the first question, Senator. In terms of your second question on ASBA and the first prosecution in late 2024, so, that prosecution was on foot of a breach of one of the specific unfair trading practices. And that, as we know, this is an EU directive. So, the actual matter that was at foot there is the non-payment for a non-perishable product. So, the farmer in question had provided animals, live animals, and they weren't paid within 60 days. So, that was the breach of the legislation there. So, it's not that the regulator is a debt collection agency, but we're actually prosecuting for a breach of an unfair trading practice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Pahan.