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

I thank the witnesses for the presentation and replies. I wish to make a couple of introductory comments. As per normal, I have a long list of technical questions and if I do not get through them in five minutes then I hope to be allowed to ask a second round of questions or submit them in writing.

It is important for the committee to understand that it is almost 20 years since the Water Framework Directive placed an obligation on the State to have this kind of an abstraction regime. I wish to make it clear to members that we are currently subject to enforcement proceedings by the Commission on our failure to do that.

That is not a criticism of the officials; it is just part of the background to this issue. I have a genuine concern that what is being proposed in these heads is the absolute minimum the Department and Government think will get us through those legal requirements. I am genuinely surprised at the thresholds, so many of my questions relate to them.

Head 5 refers to general binding rules, but they are not rules in real terms. They are simply self-regulations. There is no mechanism for inspection or enforcement, so while the EPA will publish the rules, no one will know whether anyone complies with them because there is no mechanism to inspect and enforce. Head 5 also states that the threshold of 25 cu. m does not require anything other than abiding by these self-regulations. Just so committee members are clear on how much water that is, it is the equivalent daily usage of 225 people. That is quite a lot of water, even for a small SME, to have no regulatory cover whatsoever. While the Department mentions in its explanatory note that it is trying to mirror what is happening in Scotland and the North of Ireland, they have a much lower threshold of 10 cu. m, which is the daily household usage of 90 people. What is the rationale for not going for the 10 cu. m used in the North?

I also have a concern about head 7, which states that the Minister will be involved in effecting potential registration agreements. Why is that the case? Why is the Minister given that role, on foot of a report from the EPA? Most other forms of permission we deal with, such as planning permission, are decided by independent bodies rather than a political figure.

Head 8 relates to significant abstractions. Again, for the information of committee members, 2,000 cu. m is the equivalent daily usage of 18,000 people. That is the only point at which one needs a licence. Anybody who is extracting any less than the equivalent usage of 18,000 people per day will not need to have a licence. I do not understand the rationale for that. What are the equivalent thresholds in Scotland and the North of Ireland and why have we diverted from those?

As regards head 10, it seems there is no public participation in the licence grant process. Correct me if I am wrong but it does not seem to be listed here. That would suggest we have big legal problems with our adherence to both the habitat and environmental impact assessments. If there is no clear public participation in that licensing process, can Mr. Ó Coighligh explain the outlines for that? I might stop there. If I have more time I will come back in, either in this round or the second round.