Mr. Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea:

We can confirm that the principle that the polluter pays is mandated by European law and by the directive. It is normal in general in environmental practice. It is among the environmental rules and should be part of the solution. We would also like to point out the fact that in practice it is hard to imagine how one would identify excessive use in the absence of metering. It would also be difficult to identify for each individual whether his or her consumption is normal, is excessive or is below the norm. One needs metering.

We understood from the depositions of other regional authorities that the committee heard, as well as from our experience with other member states, that in practice there can be strategic or structured approaches. One starts with applying district metering to identify which areas suffer most of the leaks. Afterwards, one can tighten the net gradually until one goes into individual metering. We acknowledge the fact that introducing district metering is a significant contribution to controlling the leaks.

We would also draw the committee's attention to the fact that controlling or curbing leaks is not the only purpose of this. The level of consumption must be determined as well. It is hard to imagine how compliance in the case of each citizen and how a level of consumption could be calculated with fair precision in the absence of metering. We also have to be aware of the fact that consumption patterns can have common trends but also can have significant variables. For example, one family has a swimming pool while most other families do not. Some families might have large gardens and want to water their gardens but others cannot afford to have large gardens. How does one distinguish between these families? Is it fair that somebody living in a dwelling on the fifth floor of the building pays the same amount of charges as someone who has a large garden or a swimming pool? Is that realistic? We believe metering allows public authorities to distinguish between these different situations. This means fairness and equality which are generally accepted principles of law. In practice, the introduction of metering should not be politically seen as outrageous.

It recognises the individuality of each consumer.

I will come to the matter of the social tariff by confirming that there is an explicit mandate in the directive allowing for social tariffs. If I may be allowed to add, I would say that the directive does not impose a certain level of the charges. The level of the charges is left in the hands of the member states. Ireland can start low and progressively advance towards higher charges.

I would like to highlight one important difference between Scotland and Ireland. In Scotland, with its tax that is dependent on the value of the property but which is highlighted specifically on each consumer's bill, they secure full cost recovery. They pay £430 to £450 a year, which is far more than was paid in Ireland when the previous system was in force. Securing cost recovery, therefore, is an important element. If Ireland secures cost recovery and a practical application of the polluter pays principle, many issues can be discussed but the objectives of the directive are of paramount importance. That is why, and not wishing to soak everything in a fuzzy political discussion, we would still like to draw members' attention to the fact that a broader policy and political discussion must take place and the full picture be considered.