Mr. Dara Lynott:

It is very hard to disprove a negative. What I mean by that is that we are talking about bias before one output has come out of this research to date. The art of science is the art of disproving. Someone puts out a hypothesis. It becomes a theorem which then becomes a law. In that process, people try to disprove what is there. All we are doing is putting out information that will be open to everyone, as part of the scientific method, to say they got it wrong, this is biased or this is incorrect.

I get the Deputy’s point that there is a much greater acceptance by the public of research that is commissioned by the Government, regulators or unbiased agencies. This would not be the first time that the EPA has researched into topical areas. We have seen that with genetic modification, nanomaterials and nanoparticles. The EPA's sole role is the protection of the environment and health. We have no other role except that. The only reason we are doing research is to fulfil that role. As an independent agency, we do not get funding from oil companies or whatever. We are totally funded by the taxpayer and the fees we generate through our own activities, such as licensing and enforcement. We have completed a process we feel is of world standard. We know that because we are involved with the Horizon 2020 EU research programme, as well as other multi-country joint programming initiatives and research. We know the way we scope, tender and execute our research is as good as anywhere in the world. We feel we have done the same in this case.

I fully accept there are concerns because CDM Smith, in the past, has been involved in advising both pro-fracking and anti-fracking governments and people might see it could be biased. That is not the view of the EPA. At the end of this, there will be a series of reports and data that will be open to everyone to decide whether they are appropriate, biased or not, or whether they got the facts right. We are totally open to that. If the scientific method of disproving the science continues, we will have added to that debate. That is not to say, however, that we should not have the debate or shut it down.

With 27 individuals from 15 State bodies, as well as those in the consortium, including Phillip Lee Solicitors, the British Geological Survey, Queen’s University Belfast and University College Dublin, I am confident it would take many people and much persuasion to get all those involved to a one view that is biased.