Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and his team to the House. This legislation is long overdue. It is very important legislation. It is crucial that we get it right and that the Government listens and takes on board the views of the Oireachtas and the joint committee, which I commend on its pre-legislative report, which I have taken the time to read in advance of today's debate. The House will forgive me for holding out little hope, given that so much of the Oireachtas committee report seems to have been ignored in the drafting of the Bill, but we will be submitting amendments on Committee Stage that stay true to the advice of the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

I particularly want to talk about thresholds, enforcement and the resources for enforcement. From the outset, it seems that the Bill is letting everybody off the hook. For example, licensing requirements only kick in at 2,000 cu. m and registration at 25 cu. m. The committee report notes that all abstractions under 25 cu. m do not require regulation other than to abide by the general binding rules. It notes that the approach in Scotland and Wales is 25 cu. m and the equivalent threshold in the North of Ireland for the registration of abstractions is 10 cu. m. Why is there a departure from those jurisdictions? Why not listen to the Oireachtas committee report? Why not look at all-Ireland alignment? Given that the primary purpose of the Bill is to provide for modern legislation on licensing and control, surely the basing of thresholds on the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 is contrary to the aim of this Bill, given that it was enacted over 40 years ago.

In simple terms, the proposed threshold for “registration” equates to approximately enough water to supply 42 households per day or to fill 104 wheelie bins per day. That is a significant amount of water being extracted until registration kicks in. Indeed, of at least 21 water bottling plants in the country, none of them pass the proposed threshold for licensing and only five of them extract enough water to even require registration. It seems that everybody is getting let off the hook.

There is also the combined cumulative effect of all of those who do not reach the registration threshold or the licensing threshold, and we will not have any of idea of the bigger picture when we take into account the cumulative effect. In addition, these thresholds are a departure from recent trends across Europe. Specifically, the registration threshold proposed is 150% higher than that in place in the North and in Scotland, and the proposed licensing threshold is 100 times higher than that in place in the North, in England and in Wales.

I am particularly concerned as to the proposed Bill's compliance with Article 11.3 of the water framework directive. This article presupposes an assessment of all abstractions to determine whether they are environmentally significant. However, the proposed Bill will not require such assessment. Can the Minister of State clarify how the agency will be able to determine if an existing abstraction of below 25 cu. m is causing a deterioration if it is not registered? Second, how is this consistent with the Court of Justice of the European Union finding that member states must refuse authorisation of projects where a deterioration may occur?

In terms of enforcement and review, we have concerns in regard to the enforcement of the general binding rules. Specifically, while all abstractions, irrespective of their thresholds, are subject to the general binding rules, there is at present no provision or mechanism for the inspection of the general binding rules for any conditions surrounding the licensing requirements in the Bill. Can the Minister of State clarify whose role it will be to enforce the general binding rules and what financial or other resources will be provided in support of this? Who is going to be enforcing this and what resources will be provided to them to do so?

I would like to express my concern as to the provision of adequate financial supports to ensure enforcement. The EPA has previously advised that while it has sufficient resources in terms of its ability to prepare and analyse licensing, a gap exists in the resources to adequately enforce the requirements that will follow from the issuing of primary and secondary licences. The committee previously raised concerns as to the lag between the introduction of legislation and the provision of resources needed to carry out the functions of that legislation. I ask the Minister of State to indicate if he has engaged with the EPA to address this potential gap in funding and to clarify what the estimated cost of funding will be in the first year. Second, can the Minister of State also clarify what additional resources will be provided, both financially and in terms of staffing, to local authorities to assist in the additional work that the Bill envisages for them?