Ms Maria Graham:

On the first question of what the cost of going beyond the current subsidy system might be, I know the federation is doing some work on it and we could liaise with it to seek to get material to the committee for next week. In terms of the issue of capital that Senator Coffey raised, all capital is always subject to the amount received which is prioritised. The investment in the rural water programme initially came from an adverse ruling of the European Court of Justice on drinking water compliance. We had a programme of over 700, schemes which Dr. Collins mentioned he was involved in bringing up to scratch through various methods. In our capital programmes, that is where the priority was for a number of years. The funding was put in place and those schemes have by and large all been done at this stage.

We then moved into a multi-annual rural water programme approach. With the Chairman's forbearance, I will state what the components of that funding are. The first measure is about public health compliance in the group water sector. We see it as really critical for the group water sector to sustain the water quality improvements we have made and really to deal with the deficits there. Particularly within that, we have developed a remedial action list similar to the approach of the EPA to Irish Water in identifying those schemes that are risks and providing funding for them. This will also include group water schemes that are on the list of a pilot infringement on trihalamethanes in the water. That is the first measure and that is where most of the money goes.

The second measure is about enhancing existing schemes and making them more efficient in their operation. I mentioned this before. It involves water conservation, network upgrades and source protection. That is around protecting the investment of close to €1 billion that we have already put in. The next measure is rural development, which is about supporting social and economic development in rural towns and villages by providing new group schemes where private wells are not an option. That is probably the area that has been constrained. It may be one of the areas in which the Senator and his colleagues have been anxious to see schemes advancing, though they have not seen it as quality has been higher up the agenda. The fourth measure is about the transition of schemes to the public water and waste water sector. Either because the scheme members want it or because of public health issues, this is where the best option in the long term is for the scheme to move under the remit of Irish Water. Usually, investment is required to do that.

The fifth measure is around innovation and research. That is particularly looking at efficient and innovative measures to improve the rural water area. In the past, that has included things like integrated wetlands and solutions that may be more suitable for the rural environment.

The final measure is individual wells and we give grants for on-site wells and septic tanks. In our change to the multi-annual programme, one of our initiatives was to bring in an expert panel of three people who review the bids from local authorities to ensure that they are done in an evidenced-based way and that they meet those priorities.

While extra funding can go in, it is important that we have a clear mechanism for deciding it and these are the measures that have been agreed with the federation. We have been sustaining the funding at around €17 million for the moment but it would have peaked at perhaps €130 million - €100 million anyway - when we would have had large design, build, operate, DBO, projects. Obviously, we would be anxious to ensure that the investment continues in that respect.