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

It would be a mistake for us to associate the contents of this Bill with the proposed Shannon to Dublin pipeline, which is a project that many of us are critical and sceptical of partly because the purpose of this legislation is to try to properly manage our water supply everywhere. If we do not get this right, small farmers, small businesses and householders in rural and urban Ireland will lose out. I would almost separate out the Shannon pipeline, which is the reason the Government is prioritising this, but it is not why we are looking at this. This is about maintaining our water supply. If one does not know how much water one is taking out of a given location at any one time, one does not know if one is heading towards a drought or some other problem, which is what this is really about.

The officials say it is not a significant environmental problem, but we know that 32% of our water sources are at risk of being in breach of the water framework directive. We do not know how many of those potential breaches relate to abstraction. Where do the officials get the 6% figure and is it based on solid evidence? I go back to the previous question about the 250 cu. m and the 2,000 cu. m. To reassure Deputy Richard O'Donoghue, 2,000 cu. m would provide for about 7,000 cattle. That is the level at which one would require a licence, from my understanding of the data. Why did we choose the 250 cu. m and 2,000 cu. m and how do they compare with equivalent thresholds in, for example, the North and Scotland?

Head 10 is about public participation. Does this put us in breach of the habitats and environmental impact assessments directives?

With regard to registrations, my understanding is that in the North it is done with an online portal. One logs on and puts in one's details. What information do the officials have about the way in which registration works in the North?

Is it the case that existing abstractors cannot be refused either a registration or a licence?

Is there any mechanism to refuse existing abstractors even, for example, where they might be doing abstraction that is harmful to the water supply or, broadly speaking, to the environment?

Mr. Ó Coigligh says 25 cu. m is based on existing practice, but that is a piece of legislation from 1977, which is 20 years before the water framework directive so surely it makes no sense to base a piece of legislation that comes in 20 years after the water framework directive on something that is now 40 years old.

Do we know how much of the abstractions, as a percentage of the overall abstractions, will be covered by this regime? I understand there was a detailed public consultation in 2018 but the Department never published the list of submissions or the submissions themselves. Will Mr. Ó Coigligh undertake to do that on the Department's website in the coming period?