Mr. Feargal Ó Coigligh:

I will try to answer the Deputy's questions as best I can. He said it has been quite some time since the directive came into force. As in many cases with legislation, there is an existing regime regarding abstraction of water. Sometimes it is felt that that is sufficient and it becomes apparent over time that it is not. That is why this may not have been a priority at the beginning, because there was an existing law in relation to the abstraction of water. Nonetheless, as jurisprudence has developed and the implementation of the environmental directives has tightened up, it has become clear that the Irish legislative framework was not sufficient.

There is absolutely a debate around thresholds. That was one of the significant areas of discussion in the consultations the Department received. Environmental NGOs wished to see a lower threshold, while others wished to see it maintained or increased. We looked to other jurisdictions. As the Deputy mentioned, 10 cu. m is the threshold in the North and in Scotland. We stuck with the 25 cu. m threshold as that was, in effect, the existing threshold under the current legislation. We have the benefit of experience in that, in terms of the environmental issues facing Ireland, we are not under pressure with abstractions. As Ms Connolly pointed out in her opening statement, the EPA reckons that around 6% of water bodies are under some pressure. It is not as significant an environmental pressure as in other areas, and therefore we need to make sure our level of control is appropriate to the issue which arises.

Under the general scheme, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, is to be given the power to recommend that the level be adjusted, if it considers it appropriate. There is also provision in the Bill for the Minister to introduce regulations, to be agreed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, which would allow that threshold to be lowered. This issue can be looked at again in the future if the EPA recommends it. The EPA acts as the environmental expert and advises Government in this area.

With regard to general binding rules, the set of rules is indeed softer. It can be thought of as a stepped-up system of general principles by which we hope to abide. It specifies the point at which we want people to register so that we can be aware of the existence of their abstraction points, the point at which they may need to be licensed, whether the EPA consider the abstraction to be significant, and the point at which licensing is absolutely required. It is a tiered system.