Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I now welcome the following officials to brief the Committee and answer any questions that we may have: Mark O'Donnell, DAERA head of strategic planning and corporate services group; Brian Dooher, Chief Veterinary Officer, DAERA; Dr Stanley McDowell, chief executive officer at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI); and Professor Elizabeth Magowan, director of sustainable agri-food sciences division at AFBI. Thank you so much. When you have made yourselves comfortable, please feel free to brief the Committee.

Mr Mark O'Donnell (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thanks very much, Chair and members, for the opportunity to come before the Committee today to provide you with an update on the plans for improvement that the Department and AFBI have put together jointly to address the issues that have emerged over the past months. Thanks for the introductions. I should say that Stanley is retiring from the CEO position at the end of July. Until the new CEO is in post, Elizabeth will fulfil the CEO and accounting officer role on a temporary basis. Elizabeth will also be able to answer any questions that you have on the farm at Hillsborough.

As you know, the issues that face AFBI and the Department were clearly articulated by the Minister in his statement to the Assembly on 14 April 2026. You will have seen the update that we provided ahead of today's session. In the statement and subsequently, with the publication of the Department's response to the AFBI review, which, I understand, has also been provided to the Committee ahead of publication, the Minister reaffirmed the critical role that AFBI plays in protecting animal and public health, safeguarding the agri-food economy and providing the scientific and diagnostic capability underpinning policy development.

A number of issues have emerged since the Department received the independent review report. A joint, coordinated and robust response by AFBI and the Department has been put in place to address those issues. Today, I hope we can reassure the Committee about the actions and progress being made on those matters. Since the Minister's statement to the Assembly on 14 April, we have published the review report and the departmental response, and work has begun to address a number of the recommendations.

There has been extensive engagement between the Department and AFBI on the emerging issues, specifically the enhanced partnership and governance and oversight arrangements that have been put in place to help guide us through those matters. We have had two meetings of the senior partnership, governance and oversight board, a first draft of the organisational action plan has been submitted, and we are finalising that. Additionally, as I am the senior official appointed by the Minister to have specific responsibility for overseeing the necessary changes to the Department's stewardship of AFBI, I attended the meeting of the AFBI board in May. At the end of this month, the Minister and the permanent secretary will attend the AFBI board to ensure that there is ongoing engagement at the strategic and operational levels.

We recognise, of course, that the Committee will be particularly interested in the increased governance arrangements that have been established and the laboratory biosafety concerns. The Committee had some discussions with AFBI colleagues when they attended the Committee in January 2026, when the data breach and the farm-related allegations were discussed. As we set out in the briefing paper, we hope that the Committee understands why we have been unable to share the full HSE GB inspection report with the Committee, but we have shared a redacted version. The Committee will wish to hear further details about the HSE inspection report and the actions being taken to address the issues raised.

Before we cover that, with the Chair's permission, I will hand over to Stanley McDowell, the CEO of AFBI, who will say a few introductory words to demonstrate that it is a joint endeavour in the partnership.

Dr Stanley McDowell (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute): Thank you for the introduction, Mark. I also thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide an update on the plans and actions being taken forward at the moment.

First, we take the points raised in the HSE report seriously, and we work closely with the DAERA veterinary service to address the issues. With the Chair's permission, it may be useful to briefly provide some additional background information about the work under the Specified Animal Pathogens Order (Northern Ireland) 2008 or SAPO.

As the Committee will be aware, AFBI undertakes a range of important animal disease surveillance work for the Department. There are, for example, a number of surveillance programmes in Northern Ireland that test for pathogens that are not present in Northern Ireland. The samples are, however, from populations believed to be negative, and, as such, are outwith the requirements of SAPO, with the tests and samples that are permissible under standard containment conditions. That was the position that applied to bluetongue prior to its first detection in November 2025.

Exotic diseases are exceptionally rare in Northern Ireland, and the position has always been that testing for the majority of those diseases would be undertaken by the relevant reference laboratories, typically in Great Britain. AFBI does, however, provide important local capacity for particular threats that are more likely to occur and have a particular urgency attached to them. The institute also has an important inherent diagnostic capacity to assist when there may be unprecedented circumstances, as has happened on a few occasions in my lifetime. The work undertaken by AFBI, which falls under the requirement of the SAPO, is relatively narrow and is a subset of the breadth of the disease surveillance work undertaken. I hope that that gives you an introduction to the SAPO issues.

We have previously briefed the Committee on Hillsborough and the investigations that have been undertaken in response to any allegations raised. The operation of the farm at Hillsborough has since been the subject of an in-depth review by a subgroup of the AFBI board. I am pleased to say that the review has concluded, and the overall standard of animal health and welfare is high. As we commented in our press statement last week, AFBI welcomes the publication of the Department's formal response to the review and Minister Muir's statement confirming DAERA's commitment to continuing to work closely with AFBI to support and further strengthen its role as the primary provider of research and scientific services to the Department. As I commented in the press statement, the actions to address the review recommendations provide an opportunity to strengthen partnership working between the Department and AFBI, review current commissioning arrangements and maximise the value and impact of the work that we do.

Thank you. I am happy to take any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Excellent. Thank you very much. We will go straight to questions.

Just so that members are fully aware, I was at AFBI yesterday on a visit with Diana Armstrong from my party's perspective. I was not there as the Committee Chairperson. It was not about today's business; it was a visit that we had been trying to arrange for about six months, but the dates just never aligned. Thank you very much for your hospitality yesterday and the chance to look around the site and see a lot of the things that are happening. It was a really useful visit.

Is the process for removing the SAPO or putting it into abeyance in place again, or is that part of the upcoming actions?

Mr O'Donnell: There is an action plan, which we refer to in the briefing paper, to address the findings of the HSE report. I am not a scientist, and I do not want to stray into territory that others are better able to talk about than me. I do not know whether Brian wants to comment first.

Dr McDowell: I am happy to comment on that. A number of actions have been taken in response to the report. They have involved the relocation of some functions into higher containment accommodation; quite detailed discussions with the Department about its requirements, including, in some cases, where those can be refined to meet the requirements around the containment of some samples and a move towards on-farm post-mortems in some cases and an updating of the documentation. I am pleased to say that all the documentation has been submitted to HSE for its review. We expect a re-inspection to occur at some stage over the summer, which will, hopefully, allow the licence to be renewed.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. Has that posed any operational difficulties for AFBI when it comes to performance and output, or will the review enable it to have that licensing portfolio? Has there been any impact on operational efficacy whilst those measures have been in place?

Dr McDowell: A number of immediate bluetongue mitigations were put in place in consultation with veterinary service to allow testing, which reduces risk, to occur in response to the outbreak at that time. Alternative arrangements have been put in place, about which Brian may want to comment further, since we have moved into the vector active period for bluetongue. A number of changes have been made in relation to avian flu. The HSE report referred to a requirement around SAPO4, which does not exist on the Stormont site. Veterinary service has done work to see what potential mitigations can be made, including things such as moving to on-farm post-mortems. That work is ongoing.

Brian, do you want to comment further on any of that?

Mr Brian Dooher (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thanks, Stanley. You touched on bluetongue and bird flu. You are right: bluetongue requires a higher containment level than was previously delivered. At the minute, our suspect samples are delivered to Backweston, which is just outside Dublin, for sampling. We hope that, following the provision of all the paperwork to HSE and a subsequent inspection, which is provisionally planned for the start of August, that will return to our facility, which is just up the road from here.

It is a different story with bird flu. The infrastructure capability is not there. We do not have a containment level (CL) 4 lab available to us, so, at the minute, we take samples to Weybridge. Over the past two months, we have ferried across approximately half a dozen samples to get results. Thankfully, they have all been negative. We hope to put in place an alternative system to look at on-farm post-mortems, activating the samples and sending them to AFBI. That is probably a couple of months off, but we hope to have that in place for the next high-risk bird flu season.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Yes, the vector period.

Mr Dooher: The vector period for birds. We are in the vector period for bluetongue. Bird flu is predominately a risk towards the back end of the year, when there is a high-risk period. We hope to have protocols in place to allow for the handling of bluetongue suspects, which will involve on-farm post-mortems from here onwards, because AFBI does not have the CL4 post-mortem facility.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I am not sure that this is picked up anywhere in the report, which is more about operational deficiencies. I have seen only some parts of the AFBI site. It is a beautiful site; it is an old site. It occurs to me that some of the infrastructure has not been invested in at pace with the development of science and technology. Is DAERA interested in modernising the site and ensuring that the facilities are fit for purpose? It is not just avian flu; there are emerging zoonotic and tropical issues. Can you provide an update on that?

Mr O'Donnell: First, we are not going to tell you that the estate is in fabulous condition. We are well aware of that, and there is an estate strategy that sets out the long-term plans. We have significant investment in the pipeline in the shape of the animal health sciences building, which, I believe, you are aware of. We have real challenges with the amount of capital that we can allocate to all our priorities. I will say a bit about that in a moment.

It is not reasonable to look to a point in the future where we have all the capability that we could theoretically need being provided locally. Whether it is the CL4 facility or preparation for other disease outbreaks, we will always have to be part of a wider system of laboratories. There are regions across the water that do not have CL4 labs, and they will have to send samples the same distances as we do.

On the capital budget that we have been able to make available to AFBI, we are still operating without a budget, as you know, and we have only a contingency planning envelope available for allocation. Stanley may not agree wholeheartedly with this, but AFBI gets the lion's share of the Department's capital budget. Almost half of the Department's capital budget in the current year is allocated to AFBI. If we had more money to give, the Minister would probably like to meet more of AFBI's priorities, but we are very constrained. It is like every other part of the public estate.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Anybody who was at the Balmoral show this year will have received the presentation about the 100th anniversary of AFBI at Hillsborough, which was magnificent. It is a unique and valuable arm's-length body of DAERA. Are there opportunities for AFBI to generate money? If they do not exist, given that AFBI is a unique and quality set-up, are there opportunities to sweat the asset better with the Republic of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales?

Mr O'Donnell: AFBI does generate a certain amount of income, but Stanley is better placed to explain that.

Dr McDowell: We have worked incredibly hard on external income generation. Last year, it was in the region of £23 million to £24 million of non-grant-in-aid income, albeit that some of that came through the Department's soil nutrient health scheme. Prior to my time at AFBI, around £15 million of external income was generated, and, in the early days, it was around £4 million to £5 million. We have worked incredibly hard on that, but it is a case of running hard to keep that level going forward. It remains part of the strategy to have the mixed-income model: the Department and external. It is important to get the balance right. At the end of the day, there are priorities that face Northern Ireland across scientific services and in research. The core departmental money funds the core scientific services and the core research that NI needs.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No problem.

If you do not mind, I am going to raise — this popped up again in the Chamber earlier this week — some of the issues that are in the public domain, such as the allegation of spraying slurry on the Willows and that type of stuff. Are we confident that all those items have been addressed consistently and that the stakeholders who asked for information have received it and had the opportunity to meet?

Dr McDowell: I think that we have been quite open about the issues in terms of the farm at the Hillsborough site. All the allegations have been investigated. The issue that you mentioned was not policy; it was not done without the knowledge of senior management. A number of changes have been made on that site over the past two or three years to really strengthen the line management arrangements and governance. That has been further supplemented by the board's work on the Hillsborough site. That will produce further recommendations to meet what the Minister is asking for in terms of it being a model site.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): From speaking to farmers and stakeholders, I know that they expect AFBI to have a standard that is higher than what is required. I think that that is fair.

Dr McDowell: I think that that is perfectly reasonable, and that is where we need to be. There is still work to do, and we are determined to take that forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): It will be ongoing.

Professor Elizabeth Magowan (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute): I would like to clarify that those actions were not taken with the knowledge of senior management. As Stanley said, it was not policy at the time, and, indeed, that has been reaffirmed to staff. In fact, the equipment that has been bandied about has not been on-site for 10 years. Just to clarify, stakeholders in both the political arena and the industry arena have been invited for discussions. Some have taken up that offer, and some have not.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. No problem.

Mr O'Donnell: From the Department's perspective, we take the point about the need for standards to be higher in an arm's-length body than those in the wider world, because it is about setting an example. To provide some reassurance, no favours are done for AFBI; so when it comes to any allegations about any environmental issue, it is treated the same as any other organisation. There will be unannounced inspections and so on. Similarly, on the animal welfare side, those things were followed up not because it is part of the DAERA family but because the allegation needed to be addressed objectively. That was done, and assurance was provided as a result.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, Mark.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for the briefing. The letter makes reference to the:

Has there been any assessment of the impact that that may have on consumer confidence among our export markets, for example, in the produce that we have here?

Dr McDowell: There is an important distinction between the issues raised by HSE in relation to SAPO and general laboratory practices and standards. We have very robust laboratory practices and standards under the quality part, which is ISO 17025. We have around 100 different methods approved under ISO 17025, and that provides the necessary quality assurance on the testing that we do. That is quite distinct from HSE's comments in relation to SAPO.

Mr McAleer: So you believe that it would not have any impact on consumer confidence. We pride ourselves on our farm-to-fork traceability and the fabulous produce that we have here.

Dr McDowell: That is why we have a very robust quality accreditation standard. It is accredited to the international ISO 17025 standard. That is independently audited by the UK Accreditation Service and, because of the Windsor framework, elements of it are also accredited by the Irish National Accreditation Board. Along with that, a series of audits are done by export countries. That provides very strong and robust assurance on the quality of the test and the reliability of the results.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Stanley.

Mr O'Donnell: On consumer confidence, do you want to say something about the stakeholder engagement that is being planned?

Dr McDowell: We recognise that there is work to do on engagement with the organisation. As Elizabeth said, we have undertaken additional engagement over the last number of months with political parties and various stakeholders in the organisation. That is something that will be developed over time. We are looking at plans for how we better engage with farmers. A lot of our focus in the last little while has been on addressing some of the most urgent issues. Absolutely, we recognise how important it is to build that reputation and confidence with stakeholders.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you very much for your presentation. I want to discuss some of your references to partnership, governance and the Department's stewardship of AFBI. I am keen to explore the relationship between the Department and AFBI. I have always feared that there may be a view in the Department that AFBI should become an in-house body. I very much value the work that AFBI does, and, while it is not entirely independent, there is an element of independence that is critical for the organisation, particularly in relation to science and for its credibility in the sector.

What is the short-term and long-term position of the Department, given the Minister's announcement on 14 April? I raised the matter in the Chamber that day. The Minister stated:

Can you give me more on that?

Mr O'Donnell: The first part of your question was about the stewardship and partnership approach to working with AFBI. I came to this post under a year ago, and I think that the stewardship in terms of the nuts and bolts of the sponsorship has been very good. We are very good at making sure that AFBI has a business plan that satisfies the Department; that it shows us risk registers and tells us how it doing throughout the year. We would all recognise that the connections to every bit of the Department that AFBI reaches into and works with have not been as successful. The enhanced oversight arrangements are in place to address that and to move on to normalising that and making it business as usual. I will say a bit about that.

The review report was helpful because it said that, while improvements could be made, the organisation was doing valuable work and that structural change was not necessary. The Minister was very clear in his assessment of the report, and he has ruled out structural change, which is a recognition of the value of —. As you said, it is an arm's-length body, but it is operational independent. The Minister's statement mentioned his respect for the board and for the science that takes place at AFBI. Those are valuable and strong statements for him to have made. We are not seeing any move towards bringing AFBI in-house: that is not on the agenda. A future Minister could take a different view of that, but the policy of the current Minister is that it is not on the agenda.

The enhanced oversight will transition into business as usual. The senior partnership and governance oversight board — that is a bit of a mouthful; for that reason alone, you would want it to be a temporary thing — is in place. The Minister said that it will oversee the organisational action plan, which is the collection of actions that came out of the review. It includes whatever still needs to be done on the board's subgroup's review of the Hillsborough farm operations, making sure that the HSE issues are addressed and ensuring that any actions around the data breach are properly implemented. The Minister was also clear that that is temporary. When it is clear that the recommendations have been actioned or that we have confidence that they are being actioned, that can step down to business as usual.

One of the things that we will take forward under the recommendations of the ALB review is about how we frame the partnership. Rather than having an accountability relationship, where we say, "Show us all your corporate documents", we will have a proper engagement at senior level around the policy, priorities and direction of travel. That has been welcomed by the senior team at AFBI, and the Minister sees it as important. Hopefully, that enhanced level of oversight will be in place for a few months, and we will then move more into business as usual.

I am conscious that I am straying into speaking for AFBI here. It is operationally independent. Stanley may want to comment.

Miss McIlveen: Yes. It would be useful to hear what meaningful partnership means for AFBI and what that needs to look like.

Dr McDowell: I echo the comments about partnership. We are all committed to working in partnership. The Department and AFBI need to work in partnership if we are to get the maximum value out of the organisation. At a government level, there is guidance about how that should look. At an operational level, it means jointly being involved to look at the challenges that Northern Ireland faces and seeing where science can address them. The challenges are there, but it is about having a genuine partnership where we can be in the room and look at those challenges and the role that science plays.

We are clear that it is also about reviewing the commission arrangements. The review refers to that, and we welcome the Department's commitment to doing so. That will allow us to move on to the medium and long term. In science, we have to look five and 10 years ahead. Where does Northern Ireland need to be in 10 years' time? Where does the science support those challenges? That is what more genuine partnership starts to look like.

Miss McIlveen: Obviously, the Department has a role with regard to the estate. It is disappointing that we are so far down the road from the identification of the need for improvement that we have not got there. I appreciate the budget issues, but it is about looking at what the priorities are for capital spend and directing that money towards AFBI.

Mr O'Donnell: I mentioned the animal health sciences building, which is probably the single biggest capital investment that the Department will make in the few years ahead. As you know, we have the contingency planning envelope only for this year and not for future years, but we want to work on the basis that, even if we do not know exactly what our capital budget will be, we can reasonably expect to have one. If that is such a top priority, subject to the business case stacking up and the next procurement taking place successfully, we will want to progress it. That is the one big item; there is a lot of requirement, and the estate transformation strategy identifies that well.

Dr McDowell: We very much welcome the investment that is going into the marine vessel. It is a significant investment from the Department. Investment is also going into a number of our IT systems, such as our laboratory information management system. We have also discussed with the Department how we will take our digital forward. There is a lot of investment, but it does not take away from the estate challenges that we have. The main building on the Stormont site was built 60 years ago, give or take, and that is a real challenge. There are issues around higher-level containment; higher-level containment accommodation is incredibly expensive, but, again, there needs to be a further discussion about Northern Ireland's needs and whether there is something that can be reasonably justified. Both the Department and AFBI are committed to looking at that.

Miss McIlveen: Elizabeth and Stanley, during the nutrients action programme (NAP) discussions last year, which were difficult, there was criticism of your engagement with farmers and representation within AFBI. Has there been any progress on that?

Professor Magowan: The process that we have come through in the past months has been much more effective in enabling engagement between our scientists and stakeholders. I have also chaired a number of groups in the framework of the NAP discussions, where stakeholders, departmental officials and environmental NGOs have been round the table. We in AFBI have taken the opportunity a number of times to meet groups and help them to understand the science underpinning some of the proposals and thinking. That has certainly opened up an opportunity. The process has opened up a better opportunity for us to actually engage with our stakeholders on that. We have taken that opportunity to do so. We are keen to continue doing that. We have had a number of webinar series, and we plan to do more, focusing in on the actual science that helps people to understand the direction of travel and the challenges.

Miss McIlveen: I am very conscious of the fact that AFBI was really the go-to place a number of years ago, and I suppose that that has changed slightly towards the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE). I would like to see a little bit more balance around that because, obviously, some fantastic work is going on in AFBI, and it should be celebrated and demonstrated.

Professor Magowan: We have started a good partnership, working with CAFRE and other organisations. There is more to do in those spaces. We are very much bought into the processes to enhance those partnerships. A farmers' forum has been discussed. We have some template thinking on what that could look like. Hopefully, over the summer, we will firm that up to be able to launch that in the early autumn. That is our goal.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you. I wish Stanley a very happy retirement.

Dr McDowell: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): He has not gone yet.

Miss McIlveen: Well, he is on his way.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have to keep the pressure on him. We are not going to ease up on you, Stanley.

Mr Blair: Thanks to all of you. I add my good wishes to those that were expressed by Michelle to Stanley. I am sure that colleagues will join us in that.

We have covered a fair bit of ground already. Some of my questions from the notes that I had taken have been answered. However, I will just try to get some detail. Implementation of the review's recommendations ranges from short- to medium-term. I think that the longest timescale is to 2028. In government governance terms, that is not a long time frame. Therefore, my general question is this: while I realise that some of them are DAERA responsibilities, as far as AFBI is concerned, is implementation progressing in a timely way?

Dr McDowell: Just to be clear: are you talking about the AFBI review recommendations, John?

Mr Blair: The review recommendations, yes.

Dr McDowell: When we had early sight of what the report was likely to be, we took a number of actions to progress issues. I am pleased to say that peer review has taken place. A lot of work has gone into that internally over the past six to nine months, and the external panels themselves have come in to look at our science over the past number of weeks. That has been very positive. Certainly, the informal feedback from those panels has been incredibly positive about the science that we do. It is something that, with hindsight, we probably should have done a few years ago. However, COVID has had an impact on our organisation, and it delayed that a little bit longer. However, we have absolutely progressed that.

We have recognised impact. We have invested additional resource into our impact to see what we can do around communicating that to organisations better.

Mr Blair: I will give a more specific example, if you do not mind. One of the recommendations mentioned AFBI's implementing the model for external peer assessments. That has a timescale to December 2026. Is work on that already under way, or will it leave you with too short a time to get that under way before the end of the year?

Dr McDowell: I was referring to that one. We have already done that. We started on that at the end of last year, I think, and the panels met within the past two or three weeks. Therefore, that has, effectively, already been done. We will take the outcomes of those panels and then look to see what process there will be going forward. That is why it is set at December, but the panels themselves have, effectively, been implemented.

Mr Blair: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you. OK, members. Thank you very much. That is us for today.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I hope to see you again. Stanley, will we not see you then, unless we request your attendance? I think that we should. Genuinely, on behalf of the Committee, very best wishes when you do get to retire. I hope that we see you again somewhere along the line.

Dr McDowell: Probably somewhere along the way somewhere.

Mr Blair: Our paths will cross, Stanley, will they? Our paths will cross.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you.