Dr. Elaine McGoff:

I will be discussing the thresholds in the Bill and how they compare with other jurisdictions. This Bill purports to mirror the system which they have in place for Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, we highlight that it is far more lenient. I will focus first on the registration of abstractions which is proposed at 25 cu. m. This compares with 10 cu. m in Northern Ireland and Scotland, meaning the threshold is 150% higher. Below this there will be zero record of who is abstracting water, where and at what rate. If these abstractions are unknown to the authorities, there is no way to manage them.

For licensing, this Bill proposes that any abstraction over 2,000 cu. m would require a licence but this is 100 times higher than what is in place in Northern Ireland, England and Wales. No rationale is provided for setting it so high, and very few abstractions will ever hit that threshold.

While there is a provision for abstractions between 250 cu. m and 2,000 cu. m being subject to a licence, this is only where the risk is deemed significant by the EPA, and it is our contention that the EPA risk assessment is lacking because it does not take into account a significant proportion of abstractions, which are, and will remain under this Bill, unaccounted for. Similarly, even when abstractions are registered or licensed, the Bill does not provide for the means to adjust, pause or revoke a licence if conditions change, such as if there was an impact on the environment or on adjacent private wells. In Northern Ireland the regulations provide for this, and this responsive approach is an essential part of any effective management system, especially in light of far more frequent droughts under climate change projections.

I will now hand over to my colleague, Mr. Kenny, who will outline the legal issues.