Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

When I requested this meeting I asked that officials be invited to attend. It is regrettable that officials are not in attendance. They should be present at the next meeting we have on this issue because it is vital that the Department is part of this conversation.

One of the frustrating aspects of this issue is that, as Mr. Flynn stated, it is 26 years in the making and is clearly not a new problem. The directive was issued in 1991 and the compliance date for the relevant agglomerations was 2000. My understanding is that this is not the first enforcement action. I have some questions about previous enforcement actions, on which I will seek an update. Will the Environmental Protection Agency outline how the enforcement procedure operates? It commenced in 2013 when notices were issued, after which warnings were issued in 2014 and 2015, with court actions ensuing subsequently. I understand the European Commission does not come in with a sledgehammer threatening court action and fines but seeks to work with the member state in question to try to resolve problems that have arisen. If it is the case that the Commission seeks to work with member states to resolve problems, why is it taking Ireland to court? Notwithstanding Mr. Grant's views on progress, the Commission's view is that progress has been too slow or is not being made in the correct manner. I am interested in hearing the EPA's view on the reasons for this.

I am very concerned by the graphs presented by the EPA, both in terms of the level of non-compliance and the number of priority sites. The 127 priority sites identified by the EPA include the 38 sites on which legal action may be taken and fines imposed. If the focus is on the 38 sites, will some of the other sites fall behind by the time the 38 sites have been addressed and will we end up in difficulty with some of the remaining sites because they have not all been addressed at the same time? What is the EPA's view on that?

I am also interested in the EPA's warnings to the Department and Irish Water. I understand the EPA produces an annual report in which it publishes data on the sites. What level of engagement did it have with the Department and Irish Water in terms of flagging these issues before enforcement commenced in 2013 and subsequently? Members of the public have a right to know how often the EPA has been raising the alarm in this area with the Department and Irish Water.

I note media commentary indicating there is a disagreement over funding levels for both the 38 agglomerations and the remaining 89 locations on the priority list. Is funding increasing annually, in other words, was more money spent last year than in the preceding years? How is funding tracked? This is an important measure on which I ask both the EPA and Irish Water to provide details.

My next question is a difficult one. The Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services focused considerable attention on fines arising from breaches to the water framework directive. Infringement proceedings have not commenced under that directive. How seriously should we take the issue of fines? Are the witnesses aware of similar cases in other member states that would give members an idea of the level of fines member states may face for significant levels of non-compliance?

In September 2008, the European Court of Justice issued judgment C-3I6/06 in an earlier enforcement action taken following breaches of the urban waste water directive. Will the EPA provide an update on the judgment? I understand it related to a set of agglomerations or sites different from the 38 sites at which breaches have been identified? If so, have the problems at these sites been resolved or do they remain?

On the national inspection plan, the EPA provided a series of detailed inspection reports. One of the figures that caught my eye was the number of non-compliant inspections, of which there were 489 in total. Will the EPA explain the significance of this figure and how it relates to the list of 127 priority sites and 38 agglomerations?

Mr. Grant's statement that some of the non-compliance is related to data rather than actual problems in treatment plants is worrying. One would expect data to be the easiest issue to sort out and Irish Water would be able to notify the Commission of such problems at an early stage. Why were data issues not resolved by the time the Commission got fed up and decided to take Ireland to the European Court of Justice? Is it a complicated issue or is it straightforward? How does Mr. Grant explain it?

In terms of cost, the European Commission, in an environmental implementation report, estimated the cost of tackling the problem in the 38 agglomerations at approximately €443 million. More recent figures from Irish Water provided by the Minister put the cost at €1 billion. The figures from the Commission and Irish Water were given about one year apart. Will Mr. Grant explain the difference between them?

We raised the Shannon to Dublin pipeline previously with Mr. Grant. If and when the project proceeds, it will deliver a significant increase in the treated water coming into the Dublin water region and, therefore, a significant increase in the amount of sewage being produced. In the context of significant levels of non-compliance to date, will Mr. Grant provide an assessment as to how or why any of us should be reassured that even more compliance problems will not arise given that the level of water and sewage discharge will increase significantly in the Dublin region? This is not an argument against water being piped to Dublin from the River Shannon. What assurance can Mr. Grant provide in this regard?

A graph in the Irish Water document projects a significant decline, from approximately 30 to roughly five, in the number of agglomerations with problems between 2020 and 2021. Compliance in earlier years is projected to improve at a much slower pace. What is the reason for the projected dramatic improvement in compliance? Is this a deliverable target?