Mr. David Flynn:

There were quite a few questions there, so please come back to me if I miss any. Regarding our priority sites, we are regulating just over 1,000 different sites. Of those, we have identified 127 as the most important sites that we feel need to be addressed upfront. That is not to say there are not issues with the other sites. We see all those sites but obviously some sites within that number are more important than others. The reasons for highlighting the 127 is to ensure that there is equal funding.

That is not to say there are not issues in the broader population of sites. Some of those sites are more important than others. We are highlighting the 127, some of which have an impact on bathing water, which we are hearing about today, shellfish areas and so on, to ensure equal funding and effort is put into them and not just into the 27 EU cases. Our efforts cover a broad range, rather than focusing on the EU Commission cases as outlined earlier.

In terms of setting out the need for action, and going back to reports in 2006 at least and probably further, the EPA has consistently said what level of investment is needed in this area. The move from 34 local authorities to one utility has made responding to cases such as this easier in that we are dealing with one central planning and investment. Part of the issue we had previously was dealing with the varying capabilities and funding capacity of individual local authorities.