Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the secretariat for that overview. It was very helpful. From the 2018 restatement, I have to say it does not appear to be a major financial issue, rather a kind of accounting error.

Just for clarity, we are talking about many agencies. We made inquiries and we got responses back from them as follows. The Department of Rural and Community Development had no significant issues and was satisfied as was the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, which had no significant issues. None of the following raised significant issues either - the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Education, the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the Office of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and Failte Ireland. Usually, when something comes to this committee, it is because there has been a significant issue identified.

This week, and I think it is important to have this on the record, a senior EU official, Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, who oversees governance, enforcement action and compliance on EU environmental legislation, called Ireland out not only - and I know it was well reported - on the cost of observations in terms of environment protection but he also talked about the climate of discussion in Ireland when it comes to environmental protection.

That is what we are really talking about here. It is the work that An Taisce does, funded by its members. As we all know, it does not use Government funding for this. It funds this from its members to observe on issues such as cheese factories and environmental projects that might go ahead. One of the things he said that is of particular concern to the EU is an increasingly aggressive stance being taken against environmental campaigners in Ireland. I quote:

There is evidence not only of increased use of (strategic lawsuit against public participation) SLAPP suits, but also negative reporting in mainstream media, and even from politicians – like threatening to cut off funding to certain NGOs... or negative reporting (of such).

Just in today's session, we have had discussions around whether it is solvent and the financial strength, or otherwise, of parent organisations. There has been a characterisation of the strengthening of the legislation or the wording in SLAs, as arising from something that has happened within An Taisce, which is absolutely not the case.

Here we are today, watching this being played out. We have not identified any wrongdoing in terms of public funds and An Taisce. What we are doing today is undermining that organisation and fomenting suspicion around the operation of a body for wholly political reasons.