Inland Fisheries Ireland spent over €50,000 on media training before a Public Accounts Committee hearing.
Chair of the Public Accounts Committee John Brady TD has criticised Inland Fisheries Ireland after revealing that the agency spent more than €50,000 on media training ahead of its appearance before the committee.
Mr Brady said the figure was disclosed only after IFI had given evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in March and was not revealed during the hearing itself.
When Inland Fisheries Ireland appeared before the PAC on 26 March, committee members questioned officials about whether they had undertaken any training in advance of the appearance.
Deputy Aidan Farrelly asked whether IFI representatives had received communications or media training prior to returning before the committee. IFI Deputy CEO Barry Fox confirmed that external communications training had taken place and said it lasted for several days.
Ms Suzanne Campion, Head of Finance and Corporate Services, told the committee that the training was charged on a daily basis and would fall under IFI’s consultancy budget. She said she did not have the total cost available at the time and that billing details would be confirmed later.
Irish Fishing News Patron 2026
No overall figure for the training was provided to the committee during that session.
Following the hearing, correspondence to the committee disclosed that the training cost a total of €53,933, excluding VAT. The spend covered eight days of direct training, made up of group and one‑to‑one sessions, along with additional preparatory work by consultants.
Reacting to the disclosure, Mr Brady said the expenditure was “quite simply astounding”.
“It is quite simply astounding that IFI spent this amount of money on media training ahead of a PAC appearance,” he said.
“At a time when IFI should be focused on addressing substantive issues around governance, it instead chose to invest in how it presents itself under scrutiny.”
Mr Brady said serious questions arose about how the expenditure was authorised and justified.
“Serious questions now arise as to who signed off on this level of expenditure and how it was possibly justified.”
He questioned whether the spend represented value for money given the limited number of training days involved.
“The direct training element consisted of just eight days, five days of group sessions and three days of one‑to‑one sessions, alongside ten days of preparation by consultants. How does this under any calculation represent value for money?”
Mr Brady also raised concerns about how the services were provided, referring to information supplied to the committee.
“There is also reference to the services being delivered through existing contractual arrangements with IFI’s legal advisers. How exactly did this work? Was this potentially a mechanism to circumvent procurement rules?”
He said the issue further undermined confidence in the agency and said he would welcome an immediate update from IFI’s newly appointed chief executive on the expenditure.
