Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are all very welcome. Good work by the staff in the organisation was overshadowed by poor governance by the organisation from an administrative point of view. There was a litany of issues. Reputational damage does not have boundaries; it impacts the entire organisation and morale, confidence and all of that. The litany of issues from the non-insurance of vehicles to Aasleagh House, the weaknesses the Comptroller and Auditor General indicated were there since 2014, the large number of protected disclosures and the legal fees – all of that screams. When representatives of IFI were before the committee last year, the issue at RTÉ was very much to the fore and this was one of the issues that did not get the kind of attention it needed. This committee was criticised for over-concentrating on RTÉ when, in fact, we were dealing with this issue too but it was not getting the kind of attention it needed to bring about the necessary changes.

The court cases which were withdrawn will have consequences for the confidence in the organisation. I am very familiar with the River Rye and with that fish kill because that river is partly in Leixlip, where I live. I remember that very well because my phone started hopping. We were looking at consequences immediately because a very large effort had been put into the conservation of that river and its rejuvenation by local industry and the anglers in the organisation. Some 500 mortalities of wild stock trout and other fish species were noted. That is the kind of magnitude we were talking about there. It will take years for the river to recover because it is wild stock.

It is very difficult to build confidence for those people who put that effort into the river to ensure it is in pristine condition. The failure to prosecute here has enormous consequences in terms of people having confidence in the State.

When one starts talking about the cases which were withdrawn, that is one thing, but when one goes into the detail and the consequences of that, it is really quite enormous. From the information that is available, it is obvious that IFI took samples away and tested them. Is all of that information available in that case and in other cases which IFI had to withdraw, and which is at least advantageous to the local communities in watching out for things, in understanding and in protecting?