Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I would appreciate it if somebody could explain for the benefit of the committee what is meant by a risk based approach. I think I understand it from the presentations, but it would be helpful to have it explained in plain English and more detail.

One of the things that comes to mind first is cost. The NFGWS has given indications of cost in one area. In its presentation Irish Water stated new testing parameters would result in increased costs and might require it to significantly alter proposed capital investment plans. Given the heavy strains on existing infrastructure and the need for all of the capital identified to go where it is needed, is Irish Water suggesting it would be looking to absorb new costs within existing capital budgets? Would there be a conversation between the Department and Irish Water about increased capital funding, or increased borrowing capacity, over and above what has been committed to? We are talking about monitoring, lead piping and having to move away from the use of sodium chlorate, particularly in group schemes. Has there been any attempt made to get a sense of the costs that would arise if the revision of the directive was to move in a certain direction? Perhaps the answer is no at this stage. At what point would the delegates start to have that information?

Beyond the issue of cost is capacity. We know that the State is before the European Court of Justice for a failure to comply with aspects of the urban wastewater treatment directive.

My next question is as much for Irish Water and the Department as the EPA. Given the capacity problems that limit the ability of water service providers to meet EU obligations, to what extent would an additional layer of demand be added? This is not just about funding; it is also about staff and expertise. What are the delegates' thoughts on that matter?

I am interested in knowing in a little more detail why the Commission rejected the WHO's recommendations. This question is for the EPA and the Department. Has a rationale been provided? Has it given an explanation? Any information on that issue would be useful.

Perhaps the EPA might give the committee its sense of the current state or standard of drinking water in public and private systems and group water schemes, based on its research. It published a report on this issue last year. Will it share the findings?

My last question is for the Department. This is obviously a major issue. It is very worthwhile for us to have this conversation. Is there a role the committee could play between now and the deadline of May 2019 or a date beyond it, depending on developments? Could it have an additional scrutiny role, even if is beyond its the formal legislative responsibility? A public airing of some of the issues as the negotiations are taking place might be 6very useful from our perspective and that of the public.