Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I think this was probably the first legislation on which the committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny, in October or November 2020. It is no coincidence that the amendments submitted by Deputies Ó Broin and O'Callaghan and me are all virtually identical. I suggest that is because we met, and carefully considered the proposal with, representatives of An Taisce and the Sustainable Water Network, SWAN, two organisations for which I have great respect. I joined An Taisce about 20 years ago because I firmly believe in the work it does and the interests it has in maintaining and protecting our heritage, planning system, environment and water, along with SWAN. During the pre-legislative scrutiny session, when we spoke about registration levels, that is, the level at which an abstraction should be registered, it was said clearly to us that the registration process was not onerous in any way and would not impact on somebody who was abstracting or be an unnecessary administrative burden on the EPA, Irish Water or whoever might be set the task of doing that. I have yet to receive a substantial answer as to why we are going for a 25 cu. m registration level unlike other jurisdictions, as has been mentioned, that are very similar to ours, with similar pressures on water, hydrological cycles, geology, storage issues and so on. I hope there will be a substantial answer to that during this debate because I am very concerned about it.

I understand why we are going to enact the Bill, namely, because of that EU infringement whereby we do not have a proper water management and abstraction regime in this country, which is what we are putting into place. I expect this will satisfy that EU infringement but, in the back of my mind, although we cannot tell what the future will bring, I think at some point the water management and abstraction system we put in place will also be subject to an infringement when the EU decides that the figure we chose was arbitrary. I do not know the science behind it, but I would subscribe to the saying regarding any environmental management system, whereby if you cannot measure and monitor, you cannot manage. It is a duty on us, not just during this debate but among this generation in general, to manage our water quality and resource. Water is a finite resource; we cannot really make more of it. We are putting tremendous strain on it from various sectors, with the use of water and the discharge of wastewater treatments to watercourses.

I hope the Minister of State will provide a substantial response to that issue because I have concerns about it, which I raised on Second Stage. It is important that we have a management system in place and I welcome the fact we are doing that, but I have serious concerns about it. A limited period has been allocated for this debate and I do not know whether we will get to all the amendments, but it is no harm to state clearly in legislation what is expected in terms of environmental assessment and to state clearly the requirement for mature impact assessments, or at least appropriate assessments in the first instance. That focuses the mind for anybody who is considering legislation. We know we have to do that and we know, if something is likely to have an impact on a Natura site, what is required. Indeed, we know what is required for environmental impact assessment thresholds, but it is important to state that in the legislation. It may not be necessary to do that, but it sharpens and focuses the minds of people who will consider the legislation, which will be in place for many years, long after many of us are no longer Deputies.

See this speech in context