Mr. John Kenny:

I will answer the second part of the Chairman's question first. I cannot profess to know the situation in Germany or the Netherlands. The figure used in the Netherlands seems strikingly high and is very much an outlier compared with the other jurisdictions identified by the Library and Research Service in its very useful paper. I cannot give a view on something that I do not know the answer to.

In terms of what isde minimisfor the purpose of the directive, the directive in Article 11(3) allows for abstractions that have no significant environmental effect to be excluded from the requirement for registration and-or licensing. That, to my mind, presupposes that all abstractions - and I mean all abstractions - are subjected to at least some very basic assessments to identify whether they have a significant environmental effect. The rule of thumb that is used by Northern Ireland and Scotland, in particular, is to have a very light-touch regulatory approach to abstractions that are less than 10 cu. m per day. Those abstractions do not fall out of the regulatory net entirely and are subject to what are known as general binding rules. There is a series of basic rules that all abstractions must comply with. Once one goes over the 10 cu. m threshold one is into mandatory registration and over 20 cu. m one is into the licensing net.

In summary, the water framework directive requires all abstractions to be assessed. If the committee seeks to strike a balance between the strict requirements of the water framework directive and what might be practically achievable then I can say that there is significant merit in the 10 cu. m threshold used in Northern Ireland.