Dr. Elaine McGoff:

Yes. The Department indicated in the last session that the threshold levels were set to be consistent with the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 and also be based on EPA guidance. I wish to highlight that this Bill is being introduced to comply with the water framework directive not 43-year-old legislation. The obligations of the water framework directive are far more stringent and ecologically based and compliance with that must underpin the Bill. There has been much back and forth with thresholds and who thinks what but let us take a cold hard look at the legislation and see what is actually required legally.

Having reviewed all the submissions, we are also concerned that the threshold has been set in response to the lobbying by industry that does not want to interrupt or undo the status quoof its current arrangements. It does not want its current arrangements to be altered in any way. In our opinion, that is not a sufficient reason to fail to comply with the requirements of the water framework directive. The Department relies heavily on EPA risk assessments for setting its thresholds. However, our research, which the committee has a copy of, indicates that the risk assessment is based on incomplete data and it is unclear if it has been modelled for future climate scenarios. As we all know, things are changing quite rapidly. As far as I understand, they only assessed risk with a view to the water framework directive and do not take account of the risk to Natura sites, under the habitats directive, which might be quite different. While something might be deemed to be not at risk of failing the water framework directive, that is very much not the same thing as assessing for the habitats directive, and that is very heavily litigated on, of which the Department must be mindful.

With respect to Dr. Cotter, the whole point of a register is that it is comprehensive. If one does not know what abstractions there are, then I simply do not understand how one can assess the risk. I know there are significant abstractions that will go to the EPA for licensing but that is only those over 250 cu. m, which is huge, but the cumulative impact of several smaller abstractions could be just as devastating. Let us be practical and not be confused by the numbers. First, we must look at our legal obligations. Second, the man on the street knows that 100 smaller abstractions can have a serious impact so that must be taken into consideration.