A state-funded agency has reach under intense scrutiny after revealing it spent nearly €60,000 on professional communications training to prepare senior executives for a government hearing. The expenditure, aimed at refining how leadership presented themselves under political pressure, has sparked a fresh row over the use of public funds and the transparency of state governance.
Inland Fisheries Ireland (IFI) confirmed it paid €53,933, excluding VAT, to DHR Communications for “training and communications support.” This fisheries agency spent about €60,000 on communications training before PAC appearance to ensure a more polished performance after a previous encounter with lawmakers was deemed a failure.
The spending occurred during a volatile period for the agency, which has been grappling with systemic governance and financial control issues. The revelation that public money was used to “coach” executives before they faced the Dáil’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has been characterized by officials as an unjustifiable expense at a time when the agency should be focusing on substantive reform.
A Pattern of Frustration and Recall
The decision to hire external PR consultants was not a proactive measure, but a reactive one. In December, IFI executives appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss governance and financial oversight. That session left committee members profoundly dissatisfied with the level of openness and the quality of the engagement.
The fallout from the December hearing was immediate. Minister for State with Responsibility for Fisheries Timmy Dooley wrote to IFI chairman Tom Collins, noting that several items raised during the hearing had not been fully addressed. The committee eventually took the “unprecedented” step of recalling the public body for a second hearing on March 26th.
John Brady, the PAC chairman and a Sinn Féin TD, described the recall as a result of “deep frustration” over a previous engagement that was “less than helpful.” According to Brady, the lack of openness from the agency during the first meeting necessitated a second appearance to ensure the public interest was served.
The Cost of “Correcting Mistakes”
Between December 12th—just one week after the initial unsatisfactory hearing—and the follow-up meeting in March, IFI engaged DHR Communications. The agency stated that these services were delivered through existing contractual arrangements with IFI’s legal advisers and encompassed executive training, consultancy, and documentary research.
During the March 26th hearing, IFI executives admitted they had undergone training over a period of five or six days. Chairman Tom Collins defended the move, stating that the training was necessary “against the background of the last meeting,” which had not produced a positive outcome. Collins told the committee that the board wanted to ensure that “any mistakes that may have been made would not be made again.”
| Date/Period | Event/Action | Outcome/Detail |
|---|---|---|
| December (Early) | Initial PAC Hearing | Deemed unsatisfactory by committee members |
| Dec 12 – March 26 | DHR Communications Contract | €53,933 (excl. VAT) spent on PR training |
| March 26 | Recalled PAC Hearing | Executives cited 5-6 days of professional coaching |
Governance Concerns and Procurement Questions
The financial outlay for PR coaching has shifted the focus from the agency’s original governance failings to the ethics of its spending. John Brady has labeled the payment an “extraordinary unjustifiable use of public money,” arguing that the agency prioritized its image over the resolution of the actual issues it was summoned to discuss.
Beyond the cost, the method of procurement has raised red flags. Because the agency claimed the services were delivered through “existing contractual arrangements” with legal advisers, questions have emerged regarding whether the contract was subject to a competitive tender process. Brady noted that this raises “clear questions about the procurement process… And whether proper competitive procedures were followed.”
The controversy is compounded by the nature of the agency’s ongoing struggles. IFI has been under fire for its internal management and financial controls, making the decision to invest heavily in “how it presents itself under scrutiny” a point of contention for those overseeing state expenditure.
The Impact on Public Trust
For a state body, the perception of transparency is as critical as the reality of it. The use of a communications firm to prepare for a public accountability hearing can be seen as an attempt to manage a narrative rather than provide honest, raw answers to elected representatives.
The agency’s attempt to “restore public trust and confidence” may be hindered by this revelation. When a public body spends tens of thousands of euros to avoid looking “unsatisfactory” in a hearing, it risks appearing more concerned with optics than with the actual delivery of its public mandate.
The fisheries agency spent about €60,000 on communications training before PAC appearance at a moment when the Department of Fisheries had already described controversies and governance issues at the agency as “highly damaging.”
The next phase of this scrutiny will likely center on the procurement audit of the DHR Communications contract and whether the agency’s internal spending guidelines were breached. Further updates regarding the agency’s governance reforms are expected as the PAC continues its oversight of state bodies and their adherence to financial propriety.
Do you believe state agencies should use public funds for media training before government hearings? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
