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

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. I will address questions to the EPA and SWAN but if we do not get to the answers in this round, I might get them in a further round later.

From our session with departmental officials last week, one of the key ideas we are trying to grasp is why the heads have settled on the 25 cu. m and 2,000 cu. m thresholds. My first question to the EPA is for it to provide more detail on the scientific and data basis for it. There is also the very significant deviation in both of those from regimes in the North, in Scotland and other EU jurisdictions, as highlighted in a briefing note we received from the Library and Research service in the Oireachtas.

I am also a little confused by the general binding rules. There does not appear to be enforcement and nobody has the power to ensure these rules are being adhered to. It seems a light touch regulatory regime and I would like the EPA's view on how this can be monitored and enforced.

There was mention that of the current levels of registrations under this regime, 30% will come under the new regulatory framework. This is not broken down in terms of the numbers that will be registered or licensed. I am particularly interested to know, of the current level of abstractions of which the EPA is aware, how many will end up being licensed. That is the only firm regulatory framework in front of us. Will the register be public? What is the EPA's understanding of why the Department has chosen the idea of indefinite licences. There is no other licensing regime operating in the State that grants somebody an indefinite licence.

It was indicated that the 1,583 abstraction registrations in place are 95% of all abstractions.

How do the witnesses know that, given that there is no requirement on anybody currently abstracting 25 cu. m or less per day to register?

There seem to be two major differences between the two presentations. The EPA presentation seemed to say that there is a low level of risk from abstraction whereas SWAN seems to think that at a regional level and in times of potential drought or limited water supply, there is a greater level of risk. Could the witnesses from SWAN discuss this? What is their view of the data source on which all this is based? Do they think it is adequate?

Could the witnesses from SWAN give us their view on 25 cu. m and 2,000 cu. m thresholds and explain why SWAN is arguing for 10 cu. m? My last question is for the witnesses from both the EPA and SWAN. We keep hearing that about 6% of our water sources may be at risk from abstraction but at the same time, we know that about 32% of our water sources are at risk of breaches of the water framework directive. Could the witnesses explain to a non-technical person like me the difference between those two figures so we have a full sense of the level of risk?