Dr. Elaine McGoff:

I can take that. I thank the Deputy for the question. Ultimately, the thresholds are the real nub of this. We have talked about them ad nauseamat this stage. In Northern Ireland, abstractions in excess of 10 cu. m are registered and are licensed where they are in excess of 20 cu. m. They have a responsive licensing system, so that if things are going a bit awry, they can adjust or pause a licence. They also have no clause which allows existing abstractors to continue doing what they are doing. This is really important. My EPA colleague just there said that this is a function of where we are. That does not stand up to legal rigour. We have seen numerous cases go through the courts where there were the quarries, for instance, which were already doing what they were doing. That does not give them licence to continue what they are doing. Legally, that is just simply not good enough.

Let me just really spell this out for everybody. Under 250 cu. m, there are no controls on the licences for abstractors. There is no licensing under 250 cu. m, regardless of the impact. Under the habitats directive, the EPA needs to be able to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that abstractors will have no impact on tourist sites. I would ask the people from the EPA this question. Are they happy that they can stand over the risk assessment and say that they are confident that, under 250 cu. m, there will be no impact on the tourist sites? To go back to the original question, that is why we favour the Northern Irish regulations, because they cover this off. They provide much more environmental protection and much more stringent legal compliance. They really are the way we should be going. This Bill is just a disaster, legally, to be honest.