MP accuses AFBI of ‘marking its own homework’ over whistleblowing allegations

DUP Agriculture Spokesperson Carla Lockhart MP

Serious whistleblowing allegations involving animal welfare, biosecurity and environmental practices at Northern Ireland’s Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) should be subjected to a genuinely independent examination, a DUP MP has said.

Upper Bann MP and DUP Agriculture spokesperson Carla Lockhart has questioned whether investigations into concerns at AFBI’s Hillsborough site can command public confidence when the organisation has relied substantially on its own internal processes.

Her intervention centres on allegations raised by whistleblowers and a report published in May 2026 following work by a sub-group comprising four members of the AFBI Board.

Ms Lockhart argues that the central question is no longer simply whether AFBI disputes individual allegations, but whether the process used to examine them was sufficiently independent.

‘AFBI was asked to investigate AFBI’

Ms Lockhart said:

“It is simply not good enough for a non-departmental publicly funded body, sponsored by DAERA, to rely primarily on internal reviews when serious allegations had been raised by whistleblowers.

“The central issue here is accountability. When serious concerns are raised about a public body, particularly one which is sponsored by DAERA and plays such an important role within Northern Ireland’s agri-food sector, the public and members of the farming community deserve to know that those concerns are being investigated thoroughly and independently.

“Instead, we appear to have a situation where AFBI was asked to investigate AFBI. Put simply, that is marking your own homework.”

AFBI is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), carrying out scientific research, testing and surveillance across areas important to Northern Ireland’s agriculture, food and environment sectors.

The allegations referred to by Ms Lockhart concern incidents said to have taken place over approximately three years, with whistleblowers presenting photographs and video footage.

Questions over previous incidents

Ms Lockhart said AFBI had acknowledged being aware of many of the incidents when they originally occurred, including pollution of Hillsborough Lake, and believed the matters had been appropriately dealt with.

She said that created a further question over the independence of the subsequent scrutiny.

“Whistleblowers presented photographs and video footage relating to incidents, recorded over a period of approximately three years. AFBI acknowledged that it was aware of many of those incidents, including the pollution of Hillsborough Lake, when they originally occurred and believed the issues had been dealt with appropriately.

“That raises an obvious question: if the organisation was satisfied with how these matters were handled at the time, how can farmers and the wider public have confidence in an internal process which reviewed those very same decisions?”

According to Ms Lockhart, AFBI has said the outcome of its investigations, inspections and audits was positive and that necessary actions were undertaken to the satisfaction of inspectors.

However, she argued those assurances alone were insufficient given the nature of the concerns.

“Given the seriousness of the allegations, AFBI cannot simply expect the public to accept assurances that everything is satisfactory because the organisation says so itself,” she said.

Data breach and governance concerns raised

The MP also placed the whistleblowing controversy within what she described as a wider backdrop of concerns surrounding AFBI.

She referred to a significant data breach and failures in governance and laboratory practices identified by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Ms Lockhart said:

“This comes against a backdrop of wider concerns surrounding the organisation. AFBI has been embroiled in a significant data breach, while failures in governance and laboratory practices have also been identified. These are not isolated issues which can simply be brushed aside.

“AFBI is a public body, funded by the taxpayer. It should therefore be held to the very highest standards of openness, transparency and accountability.”

‘One standard for ordinary farmers’

A key part of Ms Lockhart’s criticism concerns what she sees as a disparity between the scrutiny faced by farmers and the process used when serious concerns arise within a publicly funded agricultural organisation.

“Farmers across Northern Ireland are subject to rigorous inspections, regulations and enforcement. They are expected to comply with the rules and, where concerns are raised, they face scrutiny from external authorities. There cannot be one standard for ordinary farmers and another for a government-backed organisation,” she said.

“If a farmer faced allegations involving animal welfare, biosecurity and environmental practices, I doubt very much that they would be permitted to carry out an internal review and then simply declare that the outcome was satisfactory.”

Ms Lockhart said that was why she believed an independent examination was now necessary.

“That is why there must be a genuinely independent examination of these matters, with full transparency around the evidence considered, the findings reached and the actions taken,” she said.

Public confidence at heart of dispute

The MP said AFBI’s credibility matters beyond the organisation itself because of its significant position within Northern Ireland’s agri-food industry.

She added:

“The credibility of AFBI is very important, not only to the organisation itself, but to Northern Ireland’s entire agri-food industry. That credibility cannot be protected by closing ranks or asking the public to take the organisation’s word for it.

“AFBI must recognise that the issue here is not simply whether it disputes the allegations. The issue is whether the process used to investigate those allegations commands public confidence.

“At present, serious questions remain unanswered. AFBI cannot be allowed to mark its own homework and then expect everyone else to accept the grade.”

Ms Lockhart is continuing to call for greater scrutiny of the allegations and an examination independent of AFBI’s own structures.

“Public confidence has to be earned,” she said. “Given the concerns that have been raised, the only way to restore that confidence is through a process which is genuinely independent, transparent and beyond reproach.”

The dispute now places the focus on whether further independent scrutiny will follow and whether the processes already used to examine the allegations will be considered sufficient.

For farmers and the wider public, the central issue raised by Ms Lockhart is whether scrutiny of a taxpayer-funded organisation is demonstrably independent enough to command confidence.