JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

Item No. 4 on the agenda is scrutiny of EU proposals COM (2005) 116, a proposal to promote EU citizenship, and COM (2005) 282, a proposal to protect groundwater. Item No. 3 deals with two proposals on EU citizenship and the protection of groundwater from pollution. We will take first the proposal on EU citizenship as the presentation will be short. I welcome the officials from the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. In attendance are Ms Christine Sisk, assistant principal officer in the arts division, and Mr. Mark Callanan from the Institute of Public Administration. I thank them for attending.

Members should note that aspects of the citizenship programme cross a number of Departments, including the Departments of Education and Science, Foreign Affairs, Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The programme has also been referred for information to the following joint committees: European Affairs; Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; Education and Science; and Arts, Sport and Tourism. There is, therefore, no central Department with responsibility for the programme which spans a wide area. As the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism deals with it at EU level, one of its officers will present the EU picture to the committee, accompanied by an officer of the Institute of Public Administration. If members wish to examine the national picture, it may be necessary to invite officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to another meeting.

Before the presentation commences, I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Ms Sisk to make the presentation.

Ms Christine Sisk

As the Chairman explained, I can deal with this proposal only in an EU context. This arose from the unusual situation where negotiation of the proposal fell to be dealt with by the Culture Council, as the budget for the programme comes from the EU culture budget allocation, and its legal basis was Article 151 of the treaty, which largely covers cultural matters. I have handled the brief in Brussels but on a national basis it falls within the remit of many Departments, mainly the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Mark Callanan of the Institute of Public Administration is also in attendance. He acts as the informal contact for local government funding that comes from the European Union and may be able to help on specific questions, particularly town twinning. This is not a new programme. The European Union has supported town twinning actions since the mid-1980s and many elements of the programme have been ongoing. This proposal merely places such actions on a formal legal basis and provides for the budgetary framework required.

The overall aim of the programme is to give citizens a chance to interact and participate in European integration, develop a sense of European identity and increase mutual understanding between the citizens of Europe. The programme has achieved political agreement at Council and it is hoped that by the autumn it will have proceeded through the Second Reading in the European Parliament and be on line to come into effect from the start of next year. It has a budget of €215 million and there are four main actions, the first of which refers to active citizens for Europe which covers town twinning, citizens' projects and support measures. At 40%, this first element receives the bulk of the budget.

The second action refers to active civil society in Europe. Structural support will be given for public policy research organisations, or think tanks, and organisations of civil society which operate at European level. Support will also be given for projects initiated by civil society organisations. This element will receive a total of 29% of the budget.

The third action, Together for Europe, mainly involves high visibility events such as commemorations, awards, artistic events that celebrate Europe and integration. A small amount will also go towards studies and surveys.

The final action is entitled Active European Remembrance which involves the preservation of sites associated with deportations and the commemoration of victims. Obviously, Ireland will not receive anything from this budget which amounts to only 4% of the total.

Ireland's main activity under the programme is under the heading of active citizens. The largest budget allocation has been for the town twinning element and it is envisaged that Ireland will again be represented. Historically, the largest proportion of links have been with France through schools but this may change as a result of new relationships formed with recently joined member states.

Chairman

How will town twinning under this directive tie in with existing practices between towns and cities under the current local authority system?

Mr. Mark Callanan

It will be similar. As I understand the proposal — I have been in contact with the Commission about it — it marks a continuation of the existing financial scheme which fits in with Irish legislation on town twinning and is available as a resource for those involved in town twinning at local level.

Chairman

At what stage is it in the EU process?

Ms Sisk

It has received political agreement and will be introduced on Second Stage in the European Parliament in September or October. It is hoped it will be in place by November.

Senator Bannon

With regard to town twinning, who will be the administrators locally? Will it be the respective local authorities or will it be administered at national level? A number of local authorities are twinning with local authorities in provinces across the European Union. Will they be given a role under this new concept?

Mr. Callanan

In the past the criteria included the level of Government closeness to the citizen. In some parts of Ireland that would relate to town councils, while in other parts it would include county councils. Effectively, for many small towns and villages, twinning exchanges are run by voluntary committees. It is also open to voluntary committees to make applications. However, if they do so, they must have the sanction of the relevant county council to make such an application. It is very much at local level that applications originate.

Chairman

The committee is generally satisfied with the proposal. Anything that promotes EU citizenship is to be welcomed. I am very grateful to the delegates for making themselves available to the committee. We look forward to tracking the progress of this proposal. Senator Bannon has indicated that he wishes to ask another question.

Senator Bannon

It is intended to set up a reserve police force in this country. Will citizens of the European Union be entitled to serve in that force? Some have already applied to join the main police force. Fine Gael has introduced a Bill in the Seanad, in the name of Senator Brian Hayes, which deals with citizenship. Will that be actively encouraged?

Chairman

Ms Sisk may not be able to answer that question.

Ms Sisk

That would be outside the remit of this proposal. In the context of this proposal, active European citizenship means integration and recognition of ourselves as citizens of Europe and celebrating this fact. The issue to which the Senator refers is probably a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Deputy Cregan

The issue of the reserve force has been put on the long finger. The question is not appropriate.

Deputy Healy-Rae

We never agreed to a reserve police force.

Senator Bannon

The Deputy is talking about his own party.

Deputy Healy-Rae

Is the Senator's party setting up a reserve force? I am not clear about the issue.

Chairman

These are matters for another Oireachtas committee and another day. I thank the delegates for their attendance. The committee has agreed that this proposal has been sufficiently scrutinised at this stage and asks that departmental officials keep it briefed on any developments that may occur at EU level on this issue. The clerk will prepare the report of the joint committee on the matter to be layed before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I invite officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to address the EU proposal on the protection of groundwater against pollution. I welcome Mr. John Sadlier, principal officer, water quality section, Mr. Joe Harrington, principal officer, water services policy section and Mr. Pat Duggan, senior adviser, water services section. I thank them for attending the meeting of the joint committee and providing us with an expanded briefing note outlining the implications for Ireland of this proposal. Mr. Sadlier will begin the presentation.

Mr. John Sadlier

I thank the Chairman for giving us this opportunity to address the joint committee on the proposed directive on groundwater. The proposal aims to ensure groundwater quality is monitored, evaluated and managed across Europe in a harmonised way. The proposed directive is a technical, daughter directive of the water framework directive, 2000/60/EC. It is essentially an add-on to the existing water framework directive which clarifies certain technical matters which had not been agreed at the time of the adoption of the original directive in 2000.

The European Commission originally adopted this proposal in 2003. It subsequently withdrew the proposal, elaborated on and clarified it and reintroduced it in 2005. The Council of the European Union adopted a common position on 23 January this year and the European Parliament completed a Second Reading on 13 June. The European Parliament amendments are under consideration by the Council. The directive is likely to be adopted this year. Once the Council has considered the amendments, I understand it is unlikely to agree them all. Therefore, the directive will go into a conciliation procedure which should be completed in the coming months. As there is a general wish that the directive be adopted this year, it is unlikely that the Council will fail to reach agreement, which would result in the fall of the proposed directive.

The proposed groundwater directive is a direct response to Article 17 of the water framework directive which requires the Commission to present a proposal for specific measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution. These specific measures must include criteria for assessing the chemical status of groundwater and for identifying trends in pollution of groundwater bodies, including the starting point for initiating measures for trend reversal.

Perhaps the opening statement I have prepared is unduly long. I would welcome the Chairman's guidance on the matter. I can give an abbreviated version or go through the full text.

Chairman

I do not think it is that long.

Mr. Sadlier

In accordance with Article 17 of the water framework directive, the proposed directive sets out the following: a basis for assessing the chemical status of groundwater, including assessment methodologies and the establishment of quality criteria, quality standards and threshold values; quality criteria with regard to nitrates and pesticides; and a basis for identifying any significant and sustained upward trend in pollutant concentration and the starting point for reversing such trends. A programme of measures to reduce groundwater pollution must be established for all groundwater bodies which breach standards for good chemical status or where an upward trend in pollutant concentration is identified.

The proposed approach to establishing quality criteria is both flexible and iterative, taking account of local characteristics and allowing for further improvements. The proposed directive specifies quality standards set at EU level to be applied by member states for nitrates and pesticides in groundwater in line with existing EU legislation.

With regard to pollutants that are not covered by EU legislation, the proposed directive requires member states to establish criteria at national level. Such criteria are known as threshold values. The proposal also introduces measures for protecting groundwater from indirect pollution, that is, discharges of pollutants into groundwater after percolation through the ground or subsoil.

Based on an EU-wide approach, the proposed directive introduces quality objectives which will oblige member states to monitor and assess groundwater quality on the basis of common criteria and identify and reverse negative trends in groundwater pollution. By adopting the proposal, the Commission has fulfilled an obligation under the water framework directive which aims to ensure good status of all waters in the European Union. The proposed directive is, essentially, an addition to the water framework directive in respect of technical matters which had not been agreed at the time of the adoption of the water framework directive. The current groundwater directive, 80/68/EEC, will be repealed in 2013 under the provisions of Article 22 of the water framework directive and the groundwater protection regime operated under the water framework directive will be continued and developed under the proposed new groundwater daughter directive.

A screening regulatory impact assessment was carried out with regard to the implications for Ireland of the proposed directive. The conclusion is that there are no significant additional implications for Ireland beyond those which already apply under the water framework directive. The full implementation of the proposed groundwater daughter directive should result in cleaner groundwater throughout Ireland. This will facilitate the sourcing of unpolluted groundwater drinking sources for the current and subsequent generations. As groundwater is a significant contributor to surface water bodies, cleaner groundwater should also result in cleaner surface water, with consequent environmental and amenity benefits.

Costs in the private sector may arise from possible restrictions on groundwater polluting economic activities such as mining, certain industrial activities or the spreading of pesticides on agricultural land. In the public sector, costs may arise from additional monitoring, administration and reporting requirements. It should be noted that these impacts of the proposed directive revert back to Article 17 of the water framework directive. Consequently, the implementation and administrative costs which would normally be associated with the introduction of a new directive have already been assumed under the water framework directive and the additional costs are not significant.

The groundwater daughter directive merely provides an elaboration of the technical requirements in the water framework directive in developing strategies to prevent and control pollution of groundwater. These strategies include criteria for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status, the identification and reversal of significant and sustained upward trends and the definition of starting points for trend reversal. Substantial work is already under way in Ireland to meet the above requirements. River basin district projects led by local authorities have characterised groundwater bodies nationally and further characterisation work is ongoing through a national screening programme of groundwater bodies to establish the background levels of naturally occurring substances in groundwater. A work programme is currently under way to set groundwater threshold values for substances of national concern. The Environmental Protection Agency has developed monitoring systems for groundwater and surface waters as required under Article 8 of the water framework directive. The programme was established in June and will be operational by December.

We would be happy to provide additional information as requested and answer any questions that arise. My colleagues are Mr. Joe Harrington, principal officer in the water services advisory section, and Mr. Pat Duggan, senior adviser on water services. Their responsibilities pertain to the provision of water services, including sewage treatment, drinking water supplies and related legislation. Mr. Duggan will carry the burden in terms of answering technical questions.

Deputy McCormack

Who will establish the groundwater bodies and who will be responsible for identifying upward trends in pollution?

Mr. Sadlier

All water bodies in the State such as lakes, rivers, upland streams and coastal waters had to be identified as part of the implementation of the directive. More than 5,600 such bodies, including 645 groundwater bodies, have been identified in the characterisation process. These will be monitored as set out by the EPA in the programmes of monitoring it published in June. Work on the monitoring is already under way and the programmes must be operational by December.

Deputy McCormack

Will it fall to the local authorities to monitor and identify pollution?

Mr. Sadlier

Local authorities undertake some monitoring of ground, river and drinking water. By and large, they will continue to conduct the same level of monitoring. A systematic programme of monitoring of groundwater has also been established by the EPA at 300 sites, under which six samples are taken per annum.

The main new monitoring requirements that arise under the water framework directive relate to marine waters and dangerous substances. We do not do much monitoring of surface waters for dangerous substances. This is likely to account for the two main pieces of additional work to be done. The EPA monitoring programme outlines that marine monitoring is to be done mainly by the Marine Institute and monitoring for dangerous substances is to be done mainly by the EPA nationally, Therefore, the burden falling on local authorities will not be significantly larger.

Senator Bannon

There are a large number of conventional septic tanks in place for the past 70 years. New constructions built in the past 12 to 15 years apply the new Pureflow systems. Is there any move by the Department to ensure the older tanks are upgraded? The only way to upgrade them is through a grants scheme, because every one of us says our tank works perfectly.

A grants scheme must be devised because the outflow from the sewerage systems and appliances such as washing machines goes into the conventional septic tank. The only way to change this is to introduce a grant scheme to enable people to change or upgrade their existing septic tanks. That they have to go through the planning system to upgrade a system attached to a private house is contradictory. Many of those constructions would have been built before the planning Act 1963. People upgrading in a similar location should not have to go through the planning process. There are many barriers that prevent people from upgrading and it should be examined by the Department.

The number of towns and villages that do not have an adequate sewerage system must be addressed. We all know of towns, villages or local authority areas where the sewerage scheme is inadequate. Development has been allowed to continue and in some areas schemes which were put in ten or 15 years ago for less than 100 houses, service 500 houses. Priority must be given to upgrading the sewerage system in many of our towns and villages, particularly those close to our waterways such as rivers or lakes.

On the nitrates directive, amendments to the proposal adopted by Government are in Brussels and I am sure the Department has signed them off. Will they be accepted by the European Union and, if so, when? The decaying group water scheme network, the pipes for which were installed 20 to 50 years ago, must be addressed. Many of those group water scheme networks have decayed and are in a bad state of repair. This must be addressed because it allows water schemes to pick up pollutants en route to homes.

I am unhappy about the spreading of pesticides and artificial fertiliser on agricultural land. Ordinary organic farmyard manure and slurry taken from farms with no pesticides or washings in the system, which has been spread for generations, is in a different category in the Department. This has traditionally been spread on the land and it has never done any harm. There was no piped water in rural Ireland and although farmers spread manure there was no evidence that it polluted wells. People lived to a ripe old age and there was none of the hazards people have to put up with in modern life. Perhaps the officials could give us an insight into their thinking on those areas.

Senator Brennan

I have one question on the national waste water programme. There seems to be much concern about the directive that untreated sewage will not go into our rivers from 2006 where local authorities have approved schemes and where they are not meeting the deadlines for the starter schemes this year. Is there any proposal for a national audit to see what schemes have fallen behind and what remedial action will be taken by the Department?

Mr. Sadlier

I will give some information on all the questions raised and then invite my colleagues to add to it. Septic tanks work. They are an appropriate, acceptable, satisfactory and adequate system for dealing with waste water, provided they are on suitable sites in which the soil and subsoil are adequate and sufficiently permeable to attenuate the contaminants in the wastewater. Generally septic tanks work.

As we move towards the adoption of programmes of measures under the water framework directive we must address all sorts of pollution. The directive is a systematic mechanism whereby one has to identify all the water bodies, the condition they are in, the condition they should be in, the likely sources of pollution and the programme of measures one will implement to put them right. I do not rule out the possibility of grants for the upgrade or replacement of septic tanks. That may happen. As part of implementing the water framework directive we are doing specific work in the west on septic tanks to give us better information on which to base possible management measures. Mr. Duggan may wish to elaborate on this point.

It is topical that Senator Bannon asked about the nitrates directive. The amending regulations have just been made by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food will issue press statements on that today and, after the proper formalities of laying the regulations before the Houses and the courts, the text of the regulations will be available. The regulations have been made and almost all the measures the Minister proposed to the Commissioner in May have been agreed to. That is a welcome development and means we can actively move forward with trying to progress the case for a derogation from the 170 kg limit to allow intensive farmers to operate higher stock levels.

On pesticides, as part of implementing the water framework directive one of the projects under way is an extensive national screening programme for over 200 dangerous substances in waters. The sites selected for screening are those most likely to contain such substances. We have always claimed that dangerous substances are not a problem in Irish waters. Our biggest water pollution problem is eutrophication which is overenrichment due to phosphorus and, to a lesser extent, nitrates. To prove this and to accommodate the water framework directive, an extensive screening programme for dangerous substances is now under way, including screening for pesticides, which is being carried out in those areas which have the highest concentrations of farming activity. The process is in its early days but preliminary results do not indicate a problem in Irish waters arising from pesticides, which is reassuring. It remains for the full results to be compiled and analysed.

There is a problem with group water schemes. Members may recall that Ireland has been found to be in breach of the law by the European Court of Justice by failing to ensure drinking water supplies meet the prescribed standards. The main sector identified was the group water sector, particularly those schemes which have their own source of water, as opposed to those who take it from a local authority. An extensive programme is under way to put all of those schemes right. We have specifically identified approximately 450 schemes which need to be upgraded. Measures are being taken in approximately 80% of them and the remaining 20% will be addressed before the end of the year. The rural water programme is a very active programme being pushed by the Department and it is yielding results. It must do so because otherwise there is a real chance we will be brought before the European Court of Justice again and the European Commission will impose fines on Ireland if we do not respond adequately and quickly enough to the earlier judgment.

Senator Bannon asked about waste water treatment in towns. Our waste water investment programme has shifted in emphasis from a small number of large plants meeting the needs of big urban centres, particularly those around the coast such as Dundalk, Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick and Galway which absorbed huge financial resources in the past few years but which are now virtually complete, to a large number of smaller sewage treatment plants. In the next few years we will progressively expand and upgrade waste water treatment plants at a rapid pace. In accordance with the water framework directive we have also tried to prioritise the programme toward areas where there is serious pollution or particular risks. It is being carried out on a wholescale basis but with priorities to ensure the most sensitive areas are dealt with first.

Senator Brennan mentioned the national waste water programme.

Senator Brennan

Is there a national audit as to whether the performance of the schemes has improved?

Mr. Sadlier

There is a national audit in the sense that the Environmental Protection Agency has substantially enlarged its supervision of local authority waste water treatment plants. It does not audit every plant every year. It issues a report based on a sample of the plants. It reports on improvements that have been made but usually has to demand other improvements of the local authority. The EPA follows up the audit to ensure the improvements are carried out.

It is likely that the supervision of waste water treatment plants will have to be upgraded.

Senator Brennan

In the past schemes were grouped to make them more viable but now the Minister has directed that any scheme costing less than €5 million can be progressed from start to finish by local authorities Will the local authorities now have to unbundle schemes where, for example, eight parish schemes were grouped as one major scheme?

Mr. Sadlier

I hope local authorities will take advantage of the new provisions to progress their priority schemes as quickly as possible but they will have the option to use either method. If they see an advantage in bundling schemes to achieve economies of scale, they may do so. If they want to progress schemes themselves they will have that discretion.

Senator Bannon

On the costs associated with introducing this directive, Mr. Sadlier has said the private sector will suffer to some extent, such as in the areas of mining and certain other industrial activities. What does he mean by this? Will it cost jobs in certain areas?

Mr. Pat Duggan

The groundwater directive requires that where a groundwater body fails to meet its quality standards, the groundwater has to be remediated and restored to good chemical status. Where leaching occurs from disused mines into groundwater then remediation, where it is technically possible, will be required. Old, disused and perhaps illegal landfills which cause chemical contamination of groundwater will also have to be restored. There are potential cost burdens in those areas.

I am not aware of any significant discharge directly into groundwater by any industry. It is not normal to license an industry to discharge into groundwater. Aside from old and disused mines and contaminated landfills, the main threat to groundwater is diffuse pollution involving nitric contamination from agriculture. On the whole, the measures provided for under the nitrates directive which, as Mr. Sadlier said, is close to being signed into law by the Minister, will suffice in the context of agricultural activities.

Septic tanks, as a general rule, will not cause widespread contamination of a groundwater body. There will probably be more localised scenarios and problems. It has been mentioned that groundwater contamination by septic tanks would be addressed where properly sited and designed septic tanks are put in place by a competent person, where a proper site assessment has been done and where the septic tank and percolation area is constructed in accordance with the technical guidance provided by the EPA.

There is research to show that in combating bacteriological contamination from septic tanks, where there is a proper depth of soil or subsoil placed beneath the percolation area, proper permeability of the subsoil and sufficient depth to treat pollutants before they reach groundwater, the job will be done perfectly. In addition, local authorities have made great strides, with the support of the EPA and the Geological Survey of Ireland, in putting in place training courses for site assessors.

A number of local authorities are insisting that people involved in planning applications for septic tanks undertake a site assessment and training course. They require any site assessments undertaken for that purpose to be done by a trained assessor. This is all contributing to better decisions being made and the avoidance of problems that may have occurred in the past.

An earlier question raised the matter of current problems with septic tank placement and how we are to deal with these. As part of the work being done for the purpose of the water framework directive, we have identified a number of key issues where further work needs to be done.

That is one of the areas, and work has been initiated through the western river basin project. It will cover the whole country and is being funded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as part of the contribution towards implementation of the water framework directive, where an evaluation is being done and maps are being produced of clusters or concentrations of houses and one-off dwellings that would not be connected to sewer systems. That is being placed on maps in conjunction with areas where there is a likely risk to groundwater through lack of depth of subsoil, inappropriate quality of subsoil and the nature of underlying rock such as karst. There may also be types of groundwater features susceptible to pollution.

That will identify areas likely to be problematic, and where work may be required. For example, sewer connections may need to be put in to replace existing septic tanks or there may be other types of approaches. The details of what is required will not be fully worked out until the evaluation assessment is completed. That would probably be in 12 to 18 months time. This will be brought forward as the types of actions or programmes of measures required to be put in place and inserted in the river basin management plans. They would bring about groundwater quality improvements which need to be made.

The details of this will be identified in the river basin plan and be open for public consultation. It will be openly presented for consultation and input by those involved.

Senator Bannon

Mr. Duggan has spoken about river district plans, etc. Water sports and boating have become very popular recently. There are no current facilities on our waterways to cope with waste from boats, etc. Are there enough facilities in place on the River Shannon, for example, as there has been a significant increase in the number of boats on such rivers in recent times? I am not aware, to any great extent, of an increase in waste disposal facilities along the river.

Mr. Duggan

I cannot comment as I do not know the details. There are regulations and laws in place which prohibit cruise ship owners, etc. from discharging waste in the waters. They must have contained systems and the waste must be disposed of at disposal outlets. To the best of my knowledge, the issue is managed by Waterways Ireland. Some support is provided by local authorities. I cannot comment on specifics as I do not know the detail.

Chairman

Are septic tanks anywhere inspected by local authorities? Is there a case for a pilot project of inspection of septic tanks? I am sure some householders do not even know where their septic tank is. Is there any inspection?

Mr. Duggan

It may not be widespread, but some local authorities have made by-laws requiring individuals to have an evaluation done of the septic tank. My colleagues may be able to provide further information on this.Where there are deficiencies in the tank, improvements would be required. The problem is that septic tank construction in the past probably has not been as good as it needed to be. That is the reason moves have now been made such as training courses for site assessors and the guidance provided by the EPA. There is also a need to ensure that what is done is continued properly in the future. Septic tanks that are properly sited and constructed function effectively.

Mr. Joe Harrington

Cavan County Council has adopted by-laws requiring each septic tank to be inspected periodically. The procedure is based on the number of people in the household it services and the site of the tank. A matrix can be worked out in order that every three, four or five years the tank will be inspected. The inspection would be signed off by an authorised assessor approved by the council. The by-laws were introduced only last year and the council is in the process of rolling them out. As it is a pilot scheme, we are looking to consider that experience.

Chairman

Does County Cavan have a particular problem because of soil and topography?

Mr. Harrington

It is possibly related to the county being drumlin country. There may be a particularly large number of septic tanks in the county.

Senator Bannon

The cost was borne by the householder in the county. An inspection costs approximately €600. I do not know how satisfactory the process has been. The local authority did not bear the cost of the inspection. I read that the process met with much resentment at the time.

Mr. Harrington

There is no grants system available from the Department. The local authority has indicated that it would like a grants scheme, but nothing is in place.

Chairman

I thank each member of the delegation for the contribution to the meeting and assisting us with our examination of this proposal. The meeting has served as a useful exchange of views. Is it agreed that this proposal has been sufficiently scrutinised at this stage and that we ask departmental officials to keep us briefed if there are any developments on the issue? Agreed. The clerk will prepare the report of the joint committee on the matter to be laid before the Houses.

I thank the delegation for appearing before the joint committee. There is no other business. I thank each committee member for his or her valued service during the past parliamentary term and wish everyone a very pleasant summer break. I thank the clerk and his officials for the assistance given during the year in the conduct of our meetings.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.40 p.m. sine die.