Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We welcome to the Committee Alison Clydesdale, director of water and drainage policy; Ryan Robinson, head of flooding and drainage policy; and Hannah Bee, all from the Department for Infrastructure. You are welcome to the Committee. We appreciate you taking the time to come back to us and the fact that there is a bit more information now for the Committee. We will continue looking at that, because it is a very important matter.

As usual, I ask that you make a brief opening statement for five minutes, and then we will come to members' questions.

Ms Alison Clydesdale (Department for Infrastructure): Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for the invitation to provide further briefing to the Committee on the implementation of a legislative framework for reservoir safety in Northern Ireland. Thank you for your introductions. Ryan and Hannah are both from the flooding and drainage policy team in my division, which is responsible for dealing with the legislation.

We are here to discuss the secondary legislation that the Department proposes to make to further commence the Reservoirs Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. It comprises two sets of regulations and three orders, two of which are commencement orders. I hope that you will find the additional information that we provide helpful.

As you are aware, in the absence of the Act being further commenced, the Department cannot regulate the safety of reservoir structures in Northern Ireland. A public safety risk therefore remains without the Act being fully implemented. Consequently, the Department is unable to provide sufficient assurance on the condition, management or maintenance of many reservoirs that would facilitate ongoing development in various commercially sensitive areas. That means that, at this point, the Department has no enforcement powers specific to reservoir structures. Once the Act is fully commenced, the Department, as the enforcing authority, will have the power to intervene to ensure that reservoir safety matters are addressed.

Only a small number of sections of the Act commenced following Royal Assent in 2015, and therefore, in the intervening period, there has been no safety framework for reservoirs, and our colleagues in DFI Rivers have been limited to reminding reservoir managers of their responsibilities under common law. That situation and the associated public safety risk will pertain until the Act is further commenced. While some reservoir managers have taken action to improve the safety of their reservoirs, many, unfortunately, have not, and therefore public safety risk remains to properties and to people who live in the inundation zone of a reservoir in the event of a reservoir breach.

The secondary legislation will introduce a proportionate regulatory and management framework for controlled reservoirs in order to protect people, the environment, the economy and areas of cultural heritage from the risk of flooding due to an uncontrolled release of water from a reservoir. In its absence, a risk to life and property remains.

The Act provides that a reservoir manager is responsible for reservoir safety and provides for a reservoir safety regime based on industry best practice, and it includes a five-step process of registration, designation, supervision, inspection and a requirement to undertake measures in the interests of safety.

Integral to the management framework is the supervision and inspection of reservoirs by specialist civil engineers, known as "reservoir panel engineers". When the Reservoirs Bill was passing through the Assembly in 2015, the Assembly considered the threshold for a controlled reservoir and voted for the 10,000 cubic metres threshold, which is about four Olympic-sized swimming pools. Flood mapping at that time showed that reservoirs of that size could endanger lives in the case of a breach.

It should be noted that Wales moved to a 10,000 cubic metres threshold in 2016, and England is working to amend and update its legislation to include reservoirs of 10,000 cubic metres and above. Scotland also has provision in its Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 to move to 10,000 cubic metres, but that section has yet to be commenced there. Therefore, the legislation will bring Northern Ireland in line with other devolved Administrations.

Of the 176 controlled reservoirs in Northern Ireland known to the Department, approximately 68% are managed by a combination of Northern Ireland Water, local authorities and government Departments; 25% are in private ownership; and 7% are managed by not-for-profit organisations. In the absence of the legislation, some reservoir managers are already voluntarily upgrading in the spirit of the Act, with the Department conferring on them "responsible reservoir manager" status. However, that is only an interim approach, and, I reiterate, a public safety risk remains without the Act being fully implemented.

The Department's proposals to further implement the Reservoirs Act were consulted on between November 2021 and January 2022. The Department published its consultation response on 27 October 2022, just before the Assembly was dissolved at that time. The consultation report was subsequently provided to the Committee in March 2024 on restoration of the Assembly.

The main issues raised included concerns regarding the costs associated with the introduction of the legislation and the potential for reservoirs to be discontinued. In recognition of those concerns and the fact that initial costs will be incurred for supervision and inspection by specialist engineers, this suite of legislation includes the permissive power for the Department to develop a grant scheme to help reservoir managers mitigate some of the costs of compliance. The grant scheme cannot be established until such time as the legislation giving the Department the powers to establish the grant scheme is in place. Northern Ireland is the only area in the British Isles where a grant scheme is being considered to assist reservoir managers to meet their legal obligations.

A draft consultation for the grant scheme for initial costs is being finalised for the Minister's consideration, and further consultation will be required in the future in respect of capital costs, once inspections have been completed and further information is available on the scale and nature of the likely capital works required. Any grant scheme will, of course, be subject to business case approval and budget availability in future years.

We have put five pieces of legislation before you today. They are intertwined and interconnected. I thought it would be helpful to give you an example to demonstrate the interconnection. In order to give the Department the power to run the grant scheme, for example, the Reservoirs (2015 Act) (Commencement No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) needs to be enacted. Before a grant can be provided, registration and designation are required. Both of those elements of the Act require the Reservoirs (2015 Act) (Commencement No. 1) Order (Northern Ireland) to be commenced, and the Reservoirs (Northern Ireland) Regulations are also required to facilitate that registration process. In addition, a reservoir manager will be required to appoint inspecting and supervising engineers from an agreed panel established by the Department. That requires the Reservoirs (Commissioning of Panel Engineers) Order (Northern Ireland) and the Reservoirs (Visits by Supervising Engineers, Stop Notices and Grants) Regulations (Northern Ireland), which make provision for the supervising engineers visits and the power to introduce the grant, to be commenced. As you can see, all five pieces of legislation are needed to facilitate those steps in order to bring forward not only the grant but the reservoir safety framework.

The Act, once fully commenced, will regulate the safety of controlled reservoirs to mitigate the possible flood risk. Without the Act being fully implemented, a public safety risk remains to properties and the people who live in the inundation zones of a reservoir in the event of a reservoir breach. We are happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding the updated SL1s, but, just as a reminder, you will appreciate that we may not be able to answer queries on individual reservoirs or reservoir managers, if they fall under the 'National Protocol for Reservoir Information and Flood Maps', which provides guidance on the release of such information.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK, thank you. I will kick off. Obviously, the Department's main aim is health and safety and ensuring that that is paramount. Since 2015, what health and safety concerns have there been? Have any incidents been reported in that 10-year period?

Ms Clydesdale: The responsibility for the Act only came to DFI in 2021, so I would not have the details from before that. It previously sat with the then Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Rivers directorate came across as part of the organisation of the Departments in 2016, but, for some reason, the powers around that Act came to us only in 2021.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Since 2021, have there been any incidents?

Ms Clydesdale: I would need to speak to our DFI Rivers colleagues on that.

Mr Ryan Robinson (Department for Infrastructure): No, I am not aware of any incidents. However, the Department carried out some audits in that period that showed a number of reservoirs in a bit of a state of disrepair. Whilst we have not had an incident, we know that some reservoirs are not in good condition.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. You talked about flood mapping at the time. I take it that flood mapping from 2015 was used. As we know, flood maps are continually changed and assessed. If and when the legislation comes to full commencement, will you use the 2015 flood maps, and are they correct?

Ms Clydesdale: That was a reference to the Assembly's decision-making process in 2015, when it decided to bring in the 10,000 cubic metres threshold. It is my understanding that, as the Bill went through the Assembly, those are the maps that were referred to. The flood maps are part of the flood risk management plans. They have since been updated and will be updated again with the next flood risk management plan. The current flood risk management plan is in place from 2021 to 2027. I think that the flood maps associated with that were published in 2021. The flood risk management plan runs out in 2027 and will be updated again. There will be a process in the third cycle of that to update the flood maps. The flood maps are updated regularly and take into account climate change allowances.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Given the caveat of budget availability, what analysis has the Department undertaken to understand the financial impacts on reservoir managers since the commencement of the legislation?

Ms Clydesdale: As I said, we are preparing a consultation and a business case for a grant scheme for introducing inspection costs. We have looked at the average cost of inspections. I think that we probably have some indication of those costs. Ryan, do you have that?

Mr Robinson: Yes. We think that the total initial cost, which includes the appointment of a supervised engineer and an inspection engineer, will be somewhere between £5,000 and £10,000. That is based on looking at local costs as well as the cost of engineers in GB.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Do you suspect that the grant scheme will help to cover some of those costs for some of the reservoir managers?

Ms Clydesdale: We are bringing forward a grant scheme for the Minister's consideration. The previous Minister recognised the impact of meeting the legislation's compliance requirements. We are looking at the costs for those who need it. That is what will be in the consultation.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): What are the indicative costs arising from the analysis of low-, medium- and high-consequence reservoirs?

Mr Robinson: Those costs will be only for medium- and high-consequence reservoirs. Low-consequence reservoirs are not subject to the same level of maintenance and regulations as the medium- and high-consequence ones. That is set out in the Act.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. How has the Department engaged with reservoir managers to support them in understanding the implications arising from the rules on the reservoirs for which they are responsible? Does that engagement happen pretty regularly? Are they aware of the flood mapping and assessments that will be used as a result?

Ms Clydesdale: There was engagement with reservoir managers as part of the consultation process in late 2021 and 2022. More recently, we have had individual meetings with some of the reservoir managers and others in that area.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Do you think that more of that might be needed to help them to understand the implications of what is happening? A bit of time has passed since 2021. Not everybody will have been engaged with since then; it is only the consultation.

Mr Robinson: Our DFI Rivers colleagues have worked extensively on a suite of guidance, as part of the incoming Act, to assist reservoir managers.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): What are the potential consequences of reservoirs being abandoned or discontinued? Has that been scoped out by the Department?

Ms Clydesdale: That was one of the issues that came up in the consultation. Our DFI Rivers colleagues are considering that. There is a potential consequence.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Will that consequence be higher, given that a grant scheme may not be in place to facilitate some of those reservoir managers for some time?

Mr Robinson: There has been no evidence of that to date.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): To date?

Mr Robinson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Could that consideration come up through engagement with reservoir managers? Potential reservoir managers may be in a difficult financial situation.

Ms Clydesdale: That has been recognised through the consultation. As I said, that is why the previous Minister and the current Minister made clear their intention to consult. Reservoir managers will have the opportunity to give us their views on that. The Minister is bringing forward a consultation on providing grant support to help them to meet their compliance under the Act.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If a reservoir were to be abandoned or discontinued, which might happen due to the fact that £5,000 to £10,000 is quite a lot for a reservoir manager, an organisation or a small local fishing club to take on, who would ultimately be responsible for safeguarding the reservoir?

Ms Clydesdale: As I said, this is a legislative framework for reservoir safety, so the first step would be to ensure that the reservoir is made safe. I would need to refer to our DFI Rivers colleagues, but I believe that the first step would be the drawdown of the reservoir to ensure that it is safe.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Would the Department take complete responsibility for that reservoir?

Ms Clydesdale: There are no powers for the Department to take on ownership of a reservoir under the legislation, but there are powers for it to step in and make things safe.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am trying to understand what the consequences of that would be. Who, then, would take ownership of it? Whom would the Department look to in that scenario? You said that the ultimate aim is to make sure that the reservoir is safe and that the Department takes no responsibility after that. Did I pick that up wrongly? Where does DFI go after that?

Ms Clydesdale: As I said, the legislation sets out the rules on that. If a reservoir is abandoned in that way, the primary purpose of the legislation is to make sure that the reservoir is safe. There are no powers in the legislation for the Department to take on ownership. The ownership remains with the reservoir owner or the reservoir manager — whoever is operating it — but the Department has powers to step in and make the reservoir safe. There are enforcement powers to ensure that reservoirs are made safe.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. I want to check something. You talked about the five pieces of legislation being intertwined, particularly on the grant scheme, and we understand that. What scope is there to commence section 114 of the Act through a separate, stand-alone statutory rule (SR) to allow the Department to develop and gain approval for a business case for the grant scheme? Is it a requirement under the 2015 Act?

Ms Clydesdale: The Act sets out the process required. A couple of prerequisites are set out in the legislation before you get to the grant scheme; for example a reservoir manager must register their reservoir — the legislation sets out the requirements for registration — because we need to know what reservoirs are out there and what size they are. Registration is therefore required as a first step. Section 17 of the Act sets out the requirement for the Department to make a designation. That process needs to happen, and it could take anywhere from 12 months to 18 months. Reservoir managers are given six months to register a reservoir, and the Department has 12 to 18 months to designate it. Only when a reservoir is registered and designated would the reservoir manager be required to get in an inspecting engineer, because you need the designation before an inspecting engineer can come in. The grant comes in at that point to pay for the cost of the inspecting engineer. That is the first point of cost for a reservoir manager.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. We know that there is strong support for the grant scheme, and that was detailed in the consultation. The percentage of people who are strongly in favour of the grant scheme is in the high nineties. Is the Department open to considering commencement of section 114, which provides for grants, to allow reservoir managers and the Assembly to consider the proposed grant scheme prior to enacting the remaining provisions of the Act? That would give some comfort to potential reservoir managers and some of the groups that are concerned about the extra cost that will be placed on them.

Ms Clydesdale: The Department is just commencing the legislation approved by the Assembly in 2015. The Reservoirs Act sets out the process for registration and designation.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have this now, though. We have the ability to look at this now. That is why I ask whether the Department for Infrastructure will look at this to see how it can help, given that there is clear support for the grant scheme. It will give a level of comfort as well as to whether there is a process whereby that can be separated out.

Mr Robinson: We have had strong advice from the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) that the five pieces of legislation are interconnected and intertwined and must come through as a package.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. My final question relates to the cost. Some reservoirs will require costly upgrades and modifications to meet the proposed standards. Have you any data on the number of reservoirs requiring those upgrades and modifications right now?

Ms Clydesdale: The reservoirs cannot be designated until the Act comes in. Until a reservoir has been designated, it cannot receive an inspecting engineer to look at those issues and tell us what the matters of interest and safety are. We have little visibility of any potential capital costs. Until the reservoirs are inspected, nobody really knows that. We have some data from the audits carried out back in 2016 —

Mr Robinson: In 2015-16.

Ms Clydesdale: — 2015, but, until the inspections are done by the inspecting engineers, it is really hard to say.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Within that time, quite a few will have already done works. As you said, in the absence of the legislation, a number are working in the spirit of it anyway. Safety measures will have been carried out at a cost to some of those groups and owners.

I will now bring in the Deputy Chairperson.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Chair. Thanks very much for coming, folks, and for the answers that you have given so far. I will dive into a couple of the points that the Chair talked about.

At the start, I think, you said that some reservoir managers were doing well and were acting in the spirit of the incoming Act, while others were not, and that some concerns had been flagged up. Ryan, you said that there were health and safety concerns about some reservoirs, but you told the Chair that those assessments had not been carried out. Are your concerns based on the 2015-16 assessments?

Mr Robinson: The Department has carried out visits and audits since then, but I do not have the details. DFI Rivers holds that detail because it carries out those visits. We are the policy side. I do not have the data to hand, but I know that grave concerns were raised about a number of reservoirs.

Mr Stewart: "Grave" is a big word. Health and safety is a massive issue in this. I know that you have not been in a position to carry out audits to anticipate potential costs. Has there been any assessment of the financial implications, either through a grant scheme or for the reservoir owners or managers of those reservoirs? Are we talking about tens of thousands of pounds or millions of pounds? I am not a reservoir expert. I am not saying that you guys are experts, but you are certainly more knowledgeable than I am. I am trying to get a flavour of how vast an issue this might be when the engineers go in and do the audits. Are we talking about multiple tens of millions of pounds here?

Ms Clydesdale: We could be. We just do not know.

Mr Stewart: OK.

Ms Clydesdale: This is about matters in the interests of safety. The inspecting engineers are going in and identifying those matters, and they will be different in every reservoir. That is where the designation process is so important. The Department will designate high-, medium- or low-consequence reservoirs, and that, in itself, will help to prioritise those in some respects.

Mr Stewart: I get that.

Ms Clydesdale: Until an inspecting engineer goes in, however, there is no visibility of exactly what is required.

Mr Stewart: What I am trying to say is that somebody from the Department has assessed the worst offenders. Ryan used the word "grave", and we are talking about health and safety. Somebody must have done a back-of-a-fag-packet analysis of how bad those described as "grave" are. There must be a flavour of that. You have said that a process needs to happen, but somebody must be saying, "You know what? This is really bad. It will require millions of pounds, whether the legislation comes in or not. If the reservoir managers are not going to do it, the Department is going to do it". I am trying to get a flavour of how bad that might be and how costly it might be. Are you saying that a rough costing has not been done at this stage?

Ms Clydesdale: All that we have are estimates. They are not definitive because —

Mr Stewart: A ballpark figure would be good.

Ms Clydesdale: We must remember, though, that there are 176 controlled reservoirs —

Mr Stewart: I am just talking about the really bad ones.

Ms Clydesdale: — and the vast majority of those are under the control of Northern Ireland Water and the councils.

Mr Stewart: OK.

Ms Clydesdale: They are complying with the health and safety requirements of the Act and the spirit of the Act. Those are the very big reservoirs. To be clear, the grant will probably be proposed only for smaller reservoirs that need it. We have a smaller percentage in the private and not-for-profit sector.

Mr Stewart: Are those reservoirs the most concerning at this moment?

Mr Robinson: I cannot say. The report was done by DFI Rivers colleagues. We can get that to you.

Mr Stewart: No bother. I know how much pressure the Department is under, so, when this comes in, I am trying to get my head around how vast the problem will be for the owners and managers who might be willing to stand still financially or, ultimately, for the Department, because, as you said, if the owners and managers cannot implement the work that needs done, it will pick up the pieces.

Ms Clydesdale: The Department has powers to ensure that the reservoir is made safe.

Mr Stewart: So, the Department will fix the reservoirs that are in the worst state right now, if they cannot be fixed by the owners and managers. I just want to get a flavour of whether we are talking about tens of millions of pounds or hundreds of millions of pounds. That is the most concerning thing.

Moving on to the Reservoirs (Visits by Supervising Engineers, Stop Notices and Grants) Regulations, which is a bit of a mouthful, how are the supervising engineers identified and appointed? How are they qualified? How many are there? Do we have them here, or are they coming in? How has the frequency of the assessments been gauged? Is it 12 months for high-consequence reservoirs and 36 months for medium-consequence reservoirs? How was that done? Was it based on how it is done elsewhere?

Ms Clydesdale: That is a lot of questions. [Laughter.]

Mr Robinson: I will take the first part. On the engineers and where we are getting them from, we are extremely light here, but, in advance of the Act coming in, we have an agreement with the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) that it will go out to its current panel engineers who work under the Reservoirs Act 1975, which covers England and Wales, and see who wants to put their hand up and be considered for appointment over here.

For first appointments, anybody who is qualified under the legislation in England and has shown the correct qualifications and experience will automatically be valid to take up appointments over here. All being well, we will be covered for panel engineers here, but we are light on them in this area.

Mr Stewart: My question was very long. How have you assessed the right frequency for inspections? Is the 12-months and 36-months frequency based on what happens elsewhere on these islands, or is it something that the Department has gauged to be the most appropriate?

Mr Robinson: I am not sure. That was brought through in 2015. It is one visit every 12 months for high-consequence reservoirs and one every 36 months for medium-consequence reservoirs. If your reservoir is deemed to be of an acceptable standard, those 12 months for high-consequence reservoirs become 24, and it becomes, I think, 60 months for medium-consequence reservoirs. That is once every five years and once every two years for a supervising engineer.

Mr Stewart: I have two more small points that the Chair raised about communication to date. Once the Act comes in, how does the Department plan to continue to raise awareness and communicate with reservoir owners and managers and the public to raise awareness of what is going on and how the grant scheme will look?

Ms Clydesdale: DFI Rivers colleagues have been liaising with reservoir managers throughout the entire intervening period. They write to them regularly around that. Obviously, if the Minister is content to put out a consultation on a potential grant scheme, we will engage through the consultation process around that. We meet at request with reservoir managers.

Mr Stewart: That is good. Finally, prior to 2021, DAERA was in charge of the reservoirs. The Chair asked whether there were any concerning health and safety breaches, and you are not aware of any since 2021. Is there any way of liaising with DAERA to see whether there were locations where incidents had popped up in the past and a sticking-plaster solution had been found and which are the ones that we most want to have eyes on?

Ms Clydesdale: We can ask our DFI Rivers colleagues. At that time, in 2015, Rivers was part of the then Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), and then it came across to us, so some of our colleagues were probably there in 2015 before they came across to DFI in 2016. We can ask them whether they can find some of that information from historical records for you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It would be useful for the Committee to have that.

Mr Boylan: There is nothing left to ask. [Laughter.]

Thanks very much for your presentation. I was involved in some of the legislation. Clearly, the sooner we get the legislation, the sooner we get people applying for the grant. There were three main issues. There was funding and support, and there was an issue for the anglers. The Chair mentioned the concern, besides the safety element, for those who manage or use reservoirs in some way.

I am just trying to think of the other one. Yes: the other one is whether we have enough engineers to do it.

How soon can we get the process up and going? We have to agree it here. The sooner we recognise who wants to take it on, the better. You have identified clearly who will be responsible and who will not. The individual managers are concerned about costs and what they can do. How soon can we get the process up and going so that we can identify people, people can apply and we can start to designate? That will be key.

Ms Clydesdale: Absolutely. I guess that the starting point, if you like, is the point at which the legislation is laid. There is a mixture of negative and affirmative resolution, so some of it requires debate in the Assembly. The regulations that cover the grant do, so the starting process is to get that approved and get those pieces of legislation laid. Then, there would be a draft affirmative debate in the Assembly. Until such times as that happens, nothing can be introduced, and the public safety risk remains.

Mr Boylan: This is my final question because most of the technical issues have been raised. There was a big lobby from anglers. Can those issues be addressed? The anglers were strong in the consultation. A lot of them use the reservoirs out there, especially down my way, although I will not name them. There was a strong lobby from anglers. It is a serious issue for them, to be honest.

Ms Clydesdale: Yes. Our previous Minister met the anglers directly in February and heard and listened to a lot of their concerns.

Mr Boylan: OK.

Mr McMurray: A lot of the stuff has been covered. I have more of a rhetorical question or point to raise. There is concern that you will reduce public access inadvertently. Do you know what I mean? I understand the health and safety requirement, but, as with all these things, when that curtails use, it is a bit of a double-edged sword.

I also have one slight segue. Previously, we have talked about flood prevention and the construction of upland reservoirs in which to store flood water. Will the legislation have any effect on potential future reservoir construction and flood alleviation schemes further upland?

Ms Clydesdale: This is quite separate from flood storage. If flood storage were to come forward, that would require separate legislation. This legislation is purely concerned with implementing the Reservoirs Act that the Assembly approved in 2015. Flood storage would require separate legislation to come forward in respect of that.

Mr McMurray: Would any newly constructed reservoirs fall under this legislation?

Ms Clydesdale: Yes, indeed.

Mr McMurray: So it would affect them eventually.

Ms Clydesdale: Any controlled reservoir of at least 10,000 cubic metres would be subject to the legislation at the point at which it comes in, yes.

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along. I have a couple of quick questions. Maybe I missed this: is the possible grant, as we will call it, which is based on the 176 reservoirs, open to every organisation, whether the reservoir is privately owned or council-owned?

Ms Clydesdale: That will be for the Minister's consideration as part of the consultation process. That will be put out as one of the options in the consultation.

Mr K Buchanan: Do any enabling works have to be done to a reservoir in order for the inspector to carry out an inspection, or is it purely visual? Some reservoirs are overgrown, and you can see very little. Can inspectors carry out the inspection without there being any cost apart from their fee?

Ms Clydesdale: I guess that that would be a technical question for DFI Rivers. We did not bring our DFI Rivers colleagues today because we thought that we would be focusing on the legislation. I can certainly check with them whether that would be the case.

Mr K Buchanan: I take it that the initial possible grant that I keep referring to is for the first assessment of the reservoir. It would not be for inspections in year 2, year 3 or year 4, just the initial one.

Ms Clydesdale: It would be for the cost of an initial inspection and an initial visit from a supervising engineer.

Mr K Buchanan: This is my last question. I know that it has been touched on, but has any thought been given to the costs that would be required to bring a reservoir up to standard? Let us say that the initial fee is between £5,000 and £10,000 or whatever it is but then works are required to be carried out: are there any thoughts on grants for those works? The costs could be anything, as John mentioned.

Ms Clydesdale: As I said in my opening remarks, it is likely that a further consultation would be required for that once we get a feel for the scale of it. However, the powers that the legislation would bring in would cover a grant of that nature in the future as well.

Mr Robinson: Section 114 covers a grant for all the obligations of a reservoir manager. That includes the initial cost but also addressing matters in the interest of safety.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark or Nicola, have you any questions?

Mr Durkan: All of it, really, has been covered. We have talked about extracting information on whether there have been any incidents, safety concerns or breaches in the intervening period. Would it be possible to collate also the impact of the Act — as it was, if you like, or as it is — on planning applications? That underlines the need for DFI to have responsibility for the matter, which it finally got because of the impediment whereby the reading of the Act and how it interfaced with Planning Policy Statement 15 was affecting planning applications in a number of areas, not least mine. It would be good to gauge the cost of that inaction. I am not blaming DFI for that.

Ms Clydesdale: We would have to ask our planning colleagues, but you are right in highlighting the fact that, in the absence of the Act and the absence of the public safety risk being addressed, planning applications are affected. Our DFI Rivers colleagues are statutory consultees in planning applications. In the absence of this legislation, there can, in planning responses, be queries around the safety and inundation zones of reservoirs, and that has impacted on planning applications. I do not have that detail today, but I can ask the planners. They would probably be able to give you the numbers affected. I am not sure whether they would be able to give you the cost, but I can certainly ask.

Mr Durkan: Thank you.

Mr Boylan: Part of the consultation was about the role of a reservoir manager, and that is where the big concerns are. Is the role clearly defined, or will that be part of the further consultation? The issue of the roles and responsibilities of a reservoir manager came up: some people would be a bit apprehensive about applying to take on the role, or maybe it is their responsibility anyway.

Ms Clydesdale: Hannah can refer you to the legislation on the role. The role is set out in the legislation.

Ms Hannah Bee (Department for Infrastructure): Yes, it is at section 6. To be a reservoir manager you have to be an owner or a manager. Let me just refer to the legislation.

Mr Robinson: Section 6(5) states:

Mr Boylan: I understand that part of it, but it is about their role in looking after it going forward. That is why they asked for the funding in the responses in the first place. That is one of the major responsibilities. Do by-laws or anything else need to be talked about with regard to the role?

Ms Bee: It will be up to the reservoir manager to fund it in the absence of a grant.

Mr Boylan: Right, OK, and a council as well depending on —

Ms Bee: If the council is the reservoir manager, yes.

Mr Boylan: Right, OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Are you aware of any reservoirs that do not have a known owner or manager at this point?

Ms Clydesdale: Our DFI Rivers colleagues wrote to the reservoir managers that they know of. We are aware of 176 controlled reservoirs. We are keen to have the legislation in place because some of that relies on reservoir managers coming forward to register. The ones that we know of are the 176. I guess that we do not know what we do not know. At the minute, we know that there are 176.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That leads me on to another question. What scoping work was undertaken, particularly during those 10 years — I accept that it transferred from DAERA to DFI — with your colleagues to find any further reservoirs? Those reservoirs may be the main health and safety concern, and you do not know who is looking after them.

Ms Clydesdale: I can certainly go back to our DFI Rivers colleagues to check, but I know that they did a lot of work in the preceding 10 years, and I think that they are fairly confident that they have identified most of the controlled reservoirs. I can certainly ask whether they have any further update, but they tell us about the controlled reservoirs and are aware of 176 at the moment.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We know that the threshold for the volume of a reservoir is 10,000 cubic metres. How is that volume calculated? How frequently is the calculation undertaken? How does it compare with calculations used in other jurisdictions? How accurately can the volume be calculated?

Mr Robinson: The threshold of 10,000 cubic metres was agreed by the Assembly in 2015. I am not a technical person — I am not an engineer — but I think that that is the volume that, reservoir engineers generally agree, has the potential to result in the loss or life if there were an uncontrolled release of water as a result of reservoir failure.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes, that is what was agreed, but I am asking how it is calculated so that I understand how many reservoirs fall into the category of "controlled reservoir".

Ms Clydesdale: The technicalities of how that is calculated are set out in the regulations, and our DFI Rivers colleagues are over the fine technical detail. We cannot answer those technical questions today, but I can get DFI Rivers colleagues to write to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes.

Mr Robinson: I will give examples from other jurisdictions. In 2016, Wales moved from a threshold of 25,000 cubic metres to 10,000 cubic metres. England is going through a period of reform in which it will move from 25,000 cubic metres to 10,000 cubic metres as well.

Ms. Bee: Scotland also has provision to move at some point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Sorry? I missed that.

Ms. Bee: Scotland also has provision to move to 10,000 cubic metres.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. My understanding of the 10,000 cubic metres threshold in the legislation is that, whenever a reservoir manager designates and wants to deregulate or to try to make sure that they move from it being a high-, medium- or low-consequence reservoir, they have to get an engineer report, which costs them. Is there no scope for them to take the Department's measurements instead of having to employ an engineer to do that?

Ms Clydesdale: It is a specialist, technical area. The Department looks for assurances from an inspecting or supervising engineer on technical calculations such as those.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Does the Department also bring in specialist engineers to make sure that the calculations match up? Will we be —?

Ms Clydesdale: That is a technical area that I cannot answer questions on. I will have to refer that to our DFI Rivers colleagues.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Do you know of any pushback from or disputes with reservoir managers or owners about the methodology or approach used to calculate reservoir volumes?

Ms Clydesdale: Again, our DFI Rivers colleagues deal with that type of technical detail. I am not aware of that happening. Our DFI Rivers colleagues lead on that type of discussion.

Mr Stewart: I am sorry for coming back in, but I want to get my head around a point.

Alison, you mentioned that, in a situation in which a reservoir owner or manager is unable to or does not carry out the work needed to bring a reservoir up to an acceptable health and safety standard, the Department will step in and effectively make good on that reservoir.

Ms Clydesdale: No, the Department will step in in the interests of safety.

Mr Stewart: Yes, that is what I mean: if there is a safety concern and the owner or manager does nothing about it, the Department will step in. Does that happen currently, or will it happen on the back of the regulations?

Ms Clydesdale: The power to do that is in the Bill. The commencement is required —

Mr Stewart: Before that can happen.

Ms Clydesdale: — in order to enact that, yes.

Mr Stewart: Will that require the Department to have a budgetary code set aside each year specifically for the "what if?" of that happening? Do you see what I mean? Will a pot of money have to be set aside? Given that that could be a costly experience, will the Department have to factor it into its budgetary processes?

Ms Clydesdale: In the event that an emergency developed, that stepping in would be funded. We deal with lots of emergencies: flooding and what have you. There is a budget mechanism for that.

Mr Stewart: Yes, so it would potentially come out of the flooding budget in the Department's capital budget.

Ms Clydesdale: To be clear, the Department's role is to step in in the interests of safety; it is not to step in to do the works per se but to make the reservoir safe. As a first step, that may be to drain it as opposed to doing the work. That is an important clarification.

Mr Stewart: Right, OK. All that might happen is that the Department goes in, insists that it is drained and then puts in enforcement. Do you have the power to enforce on the owner the carrying out of works that need to be done on the back of that?

Ms Clydesdale: There is a range of enforcement provisions, which we previously provided to you. The Department can issue stop notices, and there is enforcement around what happens if the stop notices do not take effect.

Mr Stewart: OK.

Ms Clydesdale: Those will be operational matters for our DFI Rivers colleagues once the legislation has been enacted.

Mr Stewart: That is really useful. There was a bit of ambiguity in my head about whether DFI would carry out the work or just get it to be made safe.

Ms Clydesdale: The purpose of the legislation is to provide a reservoir safety framework and ensure that the public safety risk is reduced as far as possible. As I said, in the absence of the legislation, that public safety risk remains.

Mr Stewart: Nothing can be done. OK. That is grand. Thank you so much.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Sorry, I have more points to raise — coming from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I have a lot of waterways in my area — but they are important. We have the legislation in front of us, but we are trying to scope out the potential unintended consequences. That is why we are asking questions that are technical and, as a result, relate to your DFI Rivers colleagues. That is what we need to do to make sure that the legislation works for the people on the ground whom we represent.

I will go back to the legislation on the grant scheme. You said that OLC gave strong advice that the five pieces of legislation have to come together and that they are intertwined. As you have heard today, however, a lot centres on the grant scheme. If there is such a concern with health and safety and there is a need to make sure that health and safety is adhered to, why can registration, designation and all that not be implemented and the grant scheme separated from that? Was scoping out whether extracting the grant scheme is a possibility part of the deliberations with OLC?

Ms Clydesdale: Very few clauses of the Act have been commenced. The first step in enacting the legislation is the commencement orders for the regulations. I am not sure how bringing forward the regulations for the grant scheme to stand alone would work, because, if people were not registered and designated, the grant would have no purpose. People have to be registered and designated before they can get an inspecting engineer to come in.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The grant is a concern for an awful lot of the smaller, not-for-profit, voluntary organisations. It is about the unintended consequences of the legislation. There is no safeguard or guarantee for those groups that there will be a grant scheme, so, when it comes to registration, they will walk away. There is nothing that says to them, "You will definitely be able to fund this". There is a consultation, but we do not even know the timescale of that. Is there any indicative time for that consultation?

Ms Clydesdale: We are finalising it, and it will then go to the Minister for consideration. A general point is that, in this context, the grant scheme is unusual. Normally, on bringing in legislation, being compliant with it is enough of a driver for the action that is required. In this case, the grant is to fund something that reservoir managers will be required to do under legislation. That is an unusual situation, and, as I said in my opening remarks, this is the only area in the British Isles that is proposing that measure. It is a permissive power under section 114, but the previous and current Ministers have indicated that they recognise that the requirement has a consequence and that the grant is being brought in to mitigate that. To provide a grant to any of the reservoir managers, the reservoir needs to be designated so that it can be inspected.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Mr K Buchanan: I appreciate your point about the need to be registered and designated. However, let us say that I own a reservoir, which I do not, and that I have registered and designated it. That means that I have put my hand up to say that I own it. If I am told, "Sorry, you're not getting a grant now", that affects my financial position straight away. I appreciate that the owner still has a responsibility, but there needs to be some assurance — whatever the definition of "assurance" will be — that there will be financial support to assist the organisations, because the minute that they register and designate, that is it, and then the grant might not come.

Ms Clydesdale: The previous Minister stated publicly that he is aware of the consequences but that, in the interests of complying with 'Managing Public Money' and ensuring better value for money, it is essential that the grant is provided only to those who need it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The grant scheme is caveated by the fact that it is down to budget availability, and we know that the Department is cash-strapped. That is a concern — for me, anyway.

Mr Boylan: That is why I was trying to expand on the roles. The broad principle of introducing legislation is fine, and then there will be secondary legislation that outlines what to do. My point is about how things adapt and change as you move on. We have learned a lot through consultation.

We need to be clear. I understand the principle: you need to bring in legislation. To be fair, the grant is a good idea. We are strapped for budget, but that was the whole fight and argument when the original Bill was being discussed. People have to do certain things and adhere to certain things under that legislation anyway. My thing is the grant.

We need to get more technical detail from DFI Rivers on the issues that we have talked about. I would like that to be sent through, because there has been a lot of discussion on those issues, and DFI Rivers is more over the technical stuff. The Chair has raised a number of points. Those issues also raised their head in the previous consultation. Those of us who have done legislation understand about commencement, but we need to look at that seriously if we are to move it on quickly, because the responsibility would go back on to some of the regulations that exist now. That is the point. I would like to see the information that the Chair has requested from DFI Rivers.

Ms Clydesdale: Under the compliance requirements of 'Managing Public Money', we cannot provide a grant in advance of need. We cannot make commitments in advance of budgets being available. That is the same for everybody.

Mr K Buchanan: I have a final question. Do we know what it costs to inspect a reservoir in England? Is there a standard fee?

Ms Clydesdale: It is between £5,000 and £10,000.

Mr K Buchanan: That is with the grant; fair enough.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to double-check something. What powers, if any, does the Department have, if someone does not designate?

Ms Clydesdale: We sent the enforcement powers to you after our previous appearance.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to double-check what they look like.

Mr Robinson: There is a range of enforcement powers. I think that there are fines around the registration.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): This is the point: no matter what, those smaller groups will potentially be stuck with either an actual financial penalty or a financial penalty in that they will have to employ engineers.

Mr Robinson: Enforcement will be very much a last resort. The Department wants to work with reservoir managers in bringing this in.

Mr Boylan: That is why there is a grant.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Mr Durkan: This is almost an aside but not quite. Risk to the public is at the heart of this, but a lot of the focus is on the structural integrity of reservoirs. Will the Department ensure that, where there is any doubt about who has responsibility for what, we do not allow it to create danger? I am conscious of the fact that the sun is shining and that, as we approach the warmer weather, some members of the public will swim in our reservoirs and put themselves at risk. We need to ensure that the Department has a campaign in place and works with responsible reservoir managers, where we have them, and, where we may not have them, with others to ensure that every step and precaution is taken to protect life this summer.

Ms Clydesdale: Our DFI Rivers colleagues have been doing that in the intervening period, but, as I said in my opening remarks, their powers are limited without the legislation. Reservoir managers' responsibilities fall under common law, so, without the legislation being enacted, the public safety risk remains. The Department cannot take forward a lot more without that, so, in the absence of the legislation, we rely on common law responsibilities.

Mr Durkan: It is about public information campaigns and stuff like that.

Ms Clydesdale: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Thank you. That is all for now, although there are those points to pick up on with your colleagues in DFI Rivers: the number of incidents; reservoir calculation; and whether there has been any pushback on or disputes about the methodology and approach used to calculate their volume.

Mr Boylan: Was that about deregulation?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes, deregulation and things like that. I am not sure that there were any other points, but we will check back. Those are the ones that I noted down as things that we want to check up on again.

Thank you very much for your time today. We appreciate it.