Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome Ray McKeeman, director of the Ulster Angling Federation (UAF), and David Thompson, the UAF's club development officer.

Are members content that the evidence be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We really appreciate your giving of your time to come to the Committee today. This is a really important issue, and, because it is contained in the business plan, we had a very brief discussion about it. The Committee wants to ensure that this legislation is right and that it works on the ground, particularly for the federation members that you represent. You are here today to discuss the further implementation of some of the sections of the 2015 Act. If you are content to do so, I invite you to talk to the Committee for five minutes, after which we will have questions from members.

Mr David Thompson (Ulster Angling Federation): First, thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today. We are here on behalf of the Ulster Angling Federation, which is the national governing body for angling in Northern Ireland. We represent the vast majority of angling clubs and fisheries across Northern Ireland, all of which are heavily involved in managing and promoting public access to freshwater environments for recreation, health and community well-being.

We fully support the objectives of the Reservoirs Act. It is, of course, vital to protect the public from the risk of failures. Today, however, we wish to highlight the practical impacts that the proposed delegated legislation could have if not carefully supported and implemented. We recognise the scale of the challenge ahead.

A controlled reservoir is defined as holding 10,000 cubic metres of water. Ray informed me this morning that that is the equivalent of four Olympic swimming pools. A national audit identified that, as of 2015, there were 179 controlled reservoirs in Northern Ireland, including 28 that were previously unknown. In 2016, the Department identified 45 reservoirs in poor condition. By the end of 2020, nine of those were deemed to require urgent interventions, some of which have been completed.

That clearly underlines the need for robust oversight, and we commend the Department for taking proactive steps even before full powers are in place. That said, safety must be delivered alongside sustainability, but not at the expense of rural communities, recreational access and public well-being.

First, the financial burden created by the regulations is potentially unsustainable. Many fisheries and community groups simply do not have the resources to absorb the new demands. The cost of bringing reservoirs up to compliance standard can be anything from £5,000 to upwards of several million pounds, depending on a site's size, age, location and condition. For some organisations, the cost of even a single statutory inspection would exceed their entire annual income. In many cases, it would take years of fundraising to cover the engineering fees alone. Without guaranteed support, many managers would have no choice but to dewater or potentially abandon those sites. We are already seeing that happen. Eight fisheries and around 2,500 anglers are being affected by pre-emptive drainage actions at sites such as Hillside, Boomers, Boghill — or "Bogul", depending on your pronunciation — Straid, Creggan and Conlig. One club had over 80 members before losing its water; it now has only 16, with little hope of recovery.

The impact extends far beyond angling. Those reservoirs are community hubs. They support outdoor activities that enhance health, tourism, local well-being and local economies. Secondly, therefore, we urge the reservoirs delivering the broad community benefit to be prioritised. They support not just angling but kayaking, canoeing, triathlons, freshwater swimming and general recreation for dog-walkers and others. People use the sites, so we are here to emphasise that they must be supported. I have presented this to Andrew before: there are 300,000 water sports participants and users in Northern Ireland. Yes, not all of them use the sites, but the vast majority do, which means that there is a potential impact on elite athletes. Six of the seven medals that NI athletes won in Paris in 2024 were in water-based sports, and four out of five of the Irish youth fly fishing team that will go to the world championships in Colorado this summer are from the North. They use many of the reservoirs for training and competition purposes. We therefore ask that private, closed-off reservoirs with no public access should not be the first in line for support at the expense of publicly accessible multi-use sites that provide economic, health and social value for the community. They are at risk of being lost. Those sites are vital, particularly in rural areas where alternative recreational facilities may be scarce or non-existent.

Thirdly, we must protect accessibility for disabled and elderly participants. Clubs and communities that manage reservoirs have often invested heavily, sometimes with public grant assistance, to build things such as disability-compliant pontoons, level-access jetties and hard paths to waterside areas. If reservoir levels are lowered significantly without thought, those facilities could become unusable. People will no longer be able to reach the water, net fish or participate safely, and they will lose their independence and well-being. That could dramatically render the structures useless, cutting off safe participation and excluding vulnerable groups. We must ensure that public safety measures do not, unintentionally, create new barriers to participation.

Fourthly, geographical fairness must be built into the approach. Regulation and funding frameworks must consider rural and isolated communities as much as larger urban areas. Reservoirs in rural communities in areas such as Tyrone, Fermanagh, parts of north Antrim and elsewhere are often the only accessible outdoor water facilities available to the community, and they must not be left to decline simply because they are outside major urban centres. Losing them would be devastating for regional equality and rural mental health outcomes.

Finally, I will highlight the lack of clarity on who is eligible for funding and support. At present, we have people coming to us. Councils that manage reservoirs are unclear about whether they can access grant funding. Community-based, not-for-profit organisations face uncertainty about whether they are to be treated as private or public managers. We have voluntary angling clubs, often responsible for the day-to-day site management, caught in limbo without a formal funding pathway. That uncertainty already leads to panic decisions, such as dewatering without a clear plan for what comes next. The legislation provides the Department with powers to grant assistance, but powers without action are simply not enough. We need a firm, immediate funding scheme, not just permission for one.

The Ulster Angling Federation respectfully recommends the urgent launch of a fully funded reservoirs grant scheme along with the regulations. I know that that is under way. It should have a clear prioritisation of reservoirs delivering community, recreational and health benefits, protections for disabled and elderly users through sensitive water level management, a fair geographical spread of support and a clarification of eligibility for all managers, public and voluntary. As a federation, we stand ready to work constructively with the Committee, councils and other agencies to deliver safe, sustainable and accessible reservoir sites for all communities. Thank you for your time.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. As I said, we appreciate your time and your taking us through the practical considerations for the members that you represent.

I want to touch on the engagement that you have had with the Department since 2015 and even recently. Obviously, the Committee has been looking at the grant element. To be fair to the Minister, it has been recognised that there is a need for a grant, and she has been looking at the possibility of that. It is also important to say that it may not be fully funded. We do not want to give people a false expectation around that, considering the nature of funding in the Executive Budget. What engagement have you had with the Department on that aspect? Have there been any recent conversations or engagement about the development of the grant scheme and what may be needed?

Mr Thompson: I will hand over to Ray to talk about the early engagement that came from meeting you. Ray has come on to the federation only within the past couple of years, but he manages a reservoir, so he can give you an idea of his engagement. I can tie up on our engagement post Ray's describing his involvement, if that is OK.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Absolutely.

Mr Ray McKeeman (Ulster Angling Federation): This is the picture that I would paint from talking to people on the ground. I attended one of the consultations that the Committee may have held back in 2012 or 2013, before the Reservoirs Act came in. The thing that I remember most of those meetings is that a farmer — I do not know who he was or where he came from — stood up and said, "This piece of water has been in the farm for generations". His wife was with him, and he stood and cried at the potential impact that the Reservoirs Act would have on what he regarded as a small pond and part of his farm.

I talk to members of the public, and, when people think of the Reservoirs Act, most of them think of Silent Valley and other vast expanses of water. My reservoir is an old mill dam out at Straid, which is 20 acres. That is on the larger side of mill dams. Reservoirs that come under this legislation can be as small as one or two acres or one; really small pieces of water. The fear that the farmer had was this: as you come down the scale of the size of reservoirs and into local ownership, whether the owner is a farm or community, the capital costs involved will outweigh any benefit that a farmer may get from their reservoir. Many farmers will have leased them, maybe at £1,000 a year, to an angling club or a water sports group.

The rents involved are very small relative to what the owners possess and their capital costs. In 2016, for example, an audit was carried out on my reservoir at Straid. The engagement was interrupted by the hiatus at Stormont and the uncertainty around that. Back then, capital costs for my reservoir were in the region of £30,000. That audit was carried out by Rivers Agency. A lot of reservoirs received an inspection report that may have been part of a pilot study to try to quantify the potential capital costs that would be involved. I am not privy to information about any other reservoirs, but the cost is scary.
When it comes to communication and clarity on who would be eligible for funding, if you combine all those factors, taking into account the hiatus at Stormont, there have been years of uncertainty.

As David alluded to, some reservoir owners, such as those up in Creggan, Derry, have experienced particular uncertainty. The council is responsible, and, nine months ago — last autumn— it made Creggan Country Park drain the reservoir by about 5 metres. There was uncertainty about what was going to be required, and the council cited as its reason that it would cost millions of pounds to bring that reservoir up to standard.

People are waiting, and the smaller guys are feeling vulnerable, whether that is an angling association or anglers.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Can I just clarify that the £30,000 that you referenced includes your engineer's report?

Mr McKeeman: No. That was the capital cost for upgrading the stone wall of the reservoir. That is the only report that I am privy to. That did not include the annual inspection or the 10-year one.

Mr Thompson: They cost £5,000 to £10,000.

Mr McKeeman: That is from my memory of when we were formulating the Reservoirs Act. At that stage, the information coming through was that there were no qualified engineers on the island of Ireland and that it would happen because the legislation was following on from what had been introduced over in England, and the engineers were coming from there. Back then, we cited the cost of an inspection report as being around £3,000. That was 10 years ago.

The annual rent that clubs pay for a body of water is £1,000 to £3,000, so an inspection report is a heavy hit. Someone will take a hit. There is a potential domino effect. A landlord on my site intends to look at what has been an asset for 30 or 40 years but will potentially become a cost liability. The private owners of smaller pieces of water may offload or sell them.

Boghill in Hydepark was dropped and drained. The angling club up there lost its angling because it was more cost-effective to go down the abandonment route. At the time, there was a Facebook PR disaster when pictures of dead swans and wildlife were posted. There was an unannounced drain by the owners to comply, rightly, with safety issues, but the coordination of that was not the best. People talk about how we do not miss things that we have until they are gone and there has been a kickback. We have to be careful how we manage that: for example, when the general public realise that the piece of water in the village is suddenly not available to walk their dogs and the reasons why.

Mr Thompson: I think that it is more about striking the balance. There is more than one stakeholder, if you know what I mean, and that includes the environment. Going back to your original point about our involvement with the Department, our last meeting was in January. Representatives from the federation met Minister O'Dowd and outlined a couple of issues. On a broader spectrum, we were looking at things such as sewerage infrastructure, but part of the discussion involved the Reservoirs Bill and the impact that it would have on communities and sport. We had a number of questions — asks, really — but I do not think that we got a full response. When there was a change of Minister, we got another response through. I do not want to say too much, but I do not think that we are any further on with the information that we received. It felt like we got a positive answer in the meeting and then a different answer elsewhere.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If you do not mind my asking, David, what was the difference between the two responses? Was it solely about the grant scheme, or did it relate to another element?

Mr Thompson: Looking at it holistically, the response at the meeting seemed a bit more positive, and we came out of it with a bit more enthusiasm; then, when we received a response on paper, it was different. It is not a slight on the Department at all, and I would probably need to go back and interpret it. If I were to hand it to you, you may read it differently. Obviously, we are going in asking for something and not getting it. You can understand our position: we are representing over 10,000 anglers, and we have to report back that the impacts have not really changed or that there is no momentum or forward approach. Again, I am happy to come back to the Committee to address those issues or to see where we could take it from there.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Your assessment of that would be useful. As a Committee, we are drilling down into this, and we need to make sure that, if there is a grant scheme forthcoming, it actually helps on the ground.

I want to move on and ask for your assessment of the number of reservoirs being managed by community groups and not-for-profit organisations, because it will have an impact on them. I know that an awful lot of those groups are organically, if I can use that term, looking after the reservoirs. Could you give an assessment of that, and have you any figures or numbers on that?

Mr Thompson: We have 179 controlled reservoirs. It is hard to say how many are under public ownership: we know who owns many of them, but we also know that the owners lease them out. I would say that the vast majority of angling clubs that are under our representation will, in some way or another, have access to a lake — I am saying a lake, but we are still talking about those whose capacity of 10,000 cubic metres classes them as a reservoir. I would say that it would apply to nearly all, or the vast majority, of them. We have some clubs that are without water because they have lost their access, and we are trying to find water for them. I am aware that DAERA has control of the public angling estate and that some of those bodies of water are, indeed, leased from NI Water. I could not quantify that, but I would say that there would be probably upwards of 50 to 60 angling clubs that are involved in some capacity, whether that is sublet from DAERA or NI Water. On the bigger picture, Ray might be in a better position to answer. He is involved with fish agriculture as well, so he stocks quite a few premises. He might be able to add to that.

Mr McKeeman: I do not have a precise number, but I concur with what David has said. There is probably a piece of work to be done to get that information on those community groups and not-for-profit organisations. They tend to hide under the radar, and they are very local. We could probably do a little bit to find more information — maybe a precise number. We are familiar with the angling clubs, but there are a lot more out there.

Mr Thompson: As a federation, we reached out to other clubs to see whether anyone had received a letter from the Department to say, "You need an inspection". About a dozen clubs confirmed that they had received a letter, but that does not show the bigger picture, because some of the letters will have gone to the landlords. The clubs that are in direct ownership or involvement were receiving the letter directly, but other clubs were saying, "The landlord may have received it. We are not fully aware and have not been told". I can say that maybe eight fisheries and around 2,500 anglers are being affected by pre-emptive drainage, but that is not to say that the others that we would deem to be at risk — maybe another dozen or so that have received the letter — are not being affected. The figure could be way higher. There are absentee landlords: some of the guys take the money but do not get involved. They could have received the letter but not passed it on. In the angling world, we are pretty anxious about what is ahead.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Some clubs have already lost their access to a waterbody — I prefer that term — since the enactment in 2015. Given that landlords are starting to consider offloading — you sort of referenced it, Ray — do you reckon that you will end up in a position in which more of your clubs will be left without any watercourses?

Mr McKeeman: That is my fear. Most people are aware of how popular angling is in our part of the world. With the combination of the consequences of the Reservoirs Act and the review of the public angling estate that is going on within government, our expectation is that —.

Mr Thompson: It may link into the Reservoirs Act. If you are starting to look at decommissioning sites — maybe "decommissioning" is not the right word; asset disposal might be more accurate — you will probably think that that may be impacted by what is ahead. Again, we will be involved with the consultation process, but we are not privy to what is happening. It might be something that you could ask the Environment Committee: whether any of the Environment Department's sites are impacted by this or how it is impacting on the Department, because I am sure that DAERA will have to get site inspections. You might be able to quantify costs for your own government assets.

Mr McKeeman: I think that I am right in saying that a number of waters in the existing public angling estate will cross over.

Mr Thompson: Yes, between 80 and 90 of those 179 controlled reservoirs could —

Mr McKeeman: Fall under the public angling estate.

Mr Thompson: — fall under the public angling estate, yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Lastly from me, before I go to members — I do not want to take up all of the time — is a question relating to the grant scheme. It seems that some people's main concern about the grant scheme relates to how they will mitigate the cost. You have stated that your wish, ask and want is that it will be a fully funded grant scheme for the groups that you represent. I played devil's advocate and referred to the fact that the budgets are what they are — that is well documented. If the Minister says that we cannot fully fund this and then goes through the business case, what percentage of financial support would be needed to allow some of the clubs that you represent to enact the legislation?

Mr Thompson: That is a good question, but it is not a good question, if you know what I mean. It depends on, first, the size of the club's membership base and of the community that it serves and, secondly, the scale of the works that would be involved to rectify the issues. Take, as an example, the club with 80 members that I referenced. Say that it pays £1,000 per year to lease the site and that it pulls in £50 per head from those 80 members for membership over the course of the year. You start to join the dots: the club will ask those 80 members for a further £5,000 for a site survey and an engineer's report. Then, the cost to rectify the issues could be between £7,000 and £7 million. We all know what will happen there: the work will not get done. The site might be deemed a risk, and, depending on the issues, you will either dewater or lower its level.

You could go to another club that has up to 800 or 900 members, and we do have such clubs. It may be better managed and have better action plans and management plans. The finances may be there to a degree. It may have reserves in the bank, and the cost to rectify the issues may be lower. I am not saying that that club will not apply for the funding, but those clubs would be better equipped to deal with that.

It is impossible to put a percentage on it. That is why I went back to the point about the community value that the club serves. If you think that it ticks certain boxes, because it serves angling and different water sports or provides public access, I could put the onus back on the Committee and ask, "What is more valuable for you?". You could maybe work out the percentage based on how much it serves the community, rather than it potentially being a locked gate up a lane somewhere that brings no benefit and does not provide access for anybody.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): What you are saying is that there is no one-size-fits-all policy.

Mr Stewart: David and Ray, thanks so much for coming along. Between your evidence, which was very beneficial, and the Chair's questions, most of the important issues have been covered, but I want to come on to two things. Ray, you talked about the vulnerability that many of the clubs and leaseholders feel at the moment. In the consultation and in the ongoing engagement with the Department, have you highlighted the level of that feeling and the impact that the grant not being adequate will have on clubs? Do you get a sense from the Department that it truly understands the impact and the cost for the clubs?

Mr Thompson: Thank you for your question. Particularly in the past couple of years, clubs are becoming more and more aware. I refer back to Creggan, which we mentioned, and the impact that dewatering or lowering the level at the site had on those guys. It has very much been publicised on social media, and, indeed, by elements of the press. That has raised awareness for clubs and created a bigger fear factor about how the issue is very real. If you look back to when the "Bogul" or Boghill dam at Hyde Park, Mallusk went in around 2016, you will see that there was a great public awareness, but then everything quietened down. However, when you see more and more start to pop up, it is like a domino effect, as Ray said. The fear factor is there, especially as, nowadays, social media is used as a tool to raise awareness.

There is a massive fear factor. When bigger and more reputable sites and clubs are impacted, smaller clubs look ahead and say, "If it can happen to them, it could happen to any of us". In the angling world, everyone is starting to sit up and take notice. The fear is about whether we are financially prepared. I go back to the point that I raised with Deborah moments ago: there are small clubs that are not cash rich and that might just have enough to cover their lease in the year. They are the ones that are really worried. That is not to say that the bigger clubs are not worried. If a large club is asked for several million pounds for rectification, there will be another issue. No one is safe: that is how the angling world is starting to think.

Mr McKeeman: I will add to that by painting a picture of where I come from. When you mention angling, people's perception is sometimes of the stratum of society of the bank manager, accountant or lawyer who is happy to pay £300 or £400 a day for fishing. We are talking about — this is my example of a fishery — guys who are, unfortunately, the same age as me or a little older and retired, and for whom 20 quid a day or 80 quid for a season ticket is a significant sum of money. If their angling club had to increase fees to cover capital costs like that, I very much doubt that the money would be there, so the angling club could lose such members. The working man — I like to think that I represent him — of 50-something to 70-something will not have that resource. We represent those guys — and some girls.

Mr Stewart: I totally agree. I am one of those passionate-but-poor anglers. I am not a million miles away from you, as I am on the New Line in Carrickfergus, so I know the area well. The ambiguity about the grant funding and the entire financial package is frustrating for the Committee, but, for you and for the sector, it is incredibly worrying and disconcerting. The quicker that we have clarity for everybody, the better.

The other thing that you touched on is the impact elsewhere — Ray, you referred to England — and I am interested in getting a flavour of the engagement that you have had with counterparts in England and Wales on the back of the changes to controlled reservoirs there. What impact did we see, and what should we look out for?

Mr Thompson: We have not had direct engagement with them, but that is not to say that we cannot have that. We work closely with the Angling Trust in England. As we are under devolved government, we kind of deal only with the interests of our members, but that is not to say that we cannot open a further conversation with the Angling Trust and ask it to scale the impact that the changes had on its anglers and, indeed, their communities. That brings me to a point that I want to stress. We have said that we represent nearly 10,000 anglers, but, if we look at it holistically, we see that, according to Statista, which is used by Sport NI, there are about 80,000 anglers in Northern Ireland. Not all anglers are in clubs, so that figure includes people — some may be here today — who go to the beach for a couple of hours with a beach caster for the kids. That is quantified as angling, so a sizeable proportion of the public is included.

Linking with England is something that we can take away to do. We can report to you on the impacts that have been felt — it would not be difficult to have that conversation — but, up to this moment, we have been trying to get a feel for what is happening with our clubs and communities on the ground and what their worries are. We picked this issue up maybe nine months ago. We were aware of it, but, every time that you guys do something, we have to react, so we are working at the same pace.

Mr Stewart: That would be useful. It is always good to learn from what went well and what went badly elsewhere. One benefit of coming late to this is that we can learn from those areas and pick up on what went well.

I read recently that, in Northern Ireland, more people go fishing at the weekend than go to watch the football, which is remarkable when we think about how big that sport is. Maybe there is an opportunity for the federation to look at what financial support other Departments, particularly the Department for Communities, could provide and to open a conversation, if it has not already done so.

Mr Thompson: It is interesting. Angling is quantified by the number of licensed members, but — it is like everything in the Province — sea anglers do not need to buy a rod licence, so that quantification does not include sea angling. Do not measure the number of anglers by the number of licences; use the 80,000 figure.

Mr Stewart: That is all from me, Chair. Thank you very much, guys, for your presentation.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Obviously, Fermanagh has a very rich history in this. [Laughter.]

Maybe John will move to Fermanagh or come to Fermanagh to fish.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your presentation. It is a long time since I bought a coarse fishing line. [Laughter.]

We were brought up fishing. I want to use this example, and I know that the Chair has touched on the issue. Round my way, there is the likes of Seagahan dam, which the Armagh Fisheries boys own. We have met on numerous occasions, and they have concerns. Health and safety is big issue for us; there is no doubting that. It has been decided to go down the regulation route. I am keen to look at how regulation will work for the stakeholders who, in general, look after the sites — they are the caretakers. I know that landlords have a responsibility, but, at the end of the day, a lot of people use them, and they have raised concerns for a number of years.

I have two questions for you. Have we done all the homework? I know that you quoted figures for funding and moneys. This conversation has been going on for a long time, and we are talking about engineers and all that, but I have a simple question to allow the Committee to get a better understanding. Do we know the costs? Are there any indications on that? Do you have a rough idea, or do you not know?

Mr Thompson: I will be brutally honest with you: that is where we are with it; we are literally just picking it out of the air. The figures that I gave are based on what has been reported to us. I talked about the cost being upwards of £7 million. I do not want to name the particular site because I do not think that we have permission to, but there was a site where the landlord claimed that it would cost up to £10 million to rectify the issues, which is significant. However, if you are looking at the clubs —

Mr Boylan: That is on the extreme side. All I am saying is that the Committee wants to delve into it. You are here today so that we can get a better understanding. There is a process for a grant scheme, so let us look at it and work in that way. We have had the discussion —

Mr Thompson: I do not want you to think that we are asking for the full £7 million.

Mr Boylan: No, I am not saying that at all. I just want to get a better understanding as part of the process.

Mr Thompson: In quantifying it, the other thing is that the inspection report is a bigger financial burden on smaller clubs. I am in a couple of clubs where it has not really been an issue, but I anticipate that it would have a significant financial impact on the specific club that we mentioned earlier. You talk about the potential cost to remedy the issues. In the research that we have done, we have found that the lowest figure to rectify a site — to make sure that it is up to compliance standards — is around £7,000. All that I am saying is that there is a big variation between £7,000 — several thousands pounds — and £10 million. There is no real in-between. It is site-specific.

Mr McKeeman: I will add my personal understanding. I am a tenant of a fishery. Communication on this issue went straight to the landlord, who did not automatically pass it on to me. The word on the street — this is what I was told — was that, in 2016, the Rivers Agency, I think, carried out an audit. Most fisheries were inspected, including mine, and an estimated capital cost was provided in each report. Someone somewhere should have a list of the costs that were provided in 2016 from the work that, I think, Rivers Agency carried out. An inspector came, did a visual inspection of my fishery and provided a report. The information that you are asking for on the specific costs may be there.

Mr Boylan: In bringing forward legislation, these questions need to be asked, and their answers understood, now. There is provision for a grant, and we need to understand it exactly. We do not want to hand it down and say, "This is the regulation, folks; let's get on with it". To be fair, the Chair has asked most of the questions. We are on the same page; we are asking the right questions. Let us do a wee bit of homework.

Mr Thompson: There are two aspects of where the grant could be useful. You could divide it into two parts. The first part is about facilitating an inspection, which would be particularly useful. The second part is the contentious one. I was asked earlier about what percentage it could be. You cannot really quantify that aspect of the grant until you see what the capital costs involved are. I understand your budgetary constraints here, too. You do not want to use your whole budget to fix one site; you want to look at how much social and community value there is. To cut a long story short, you want to get bang for your buck and address as many as you can.

Mr Boylan: Yes. It is about value for money, at the end of the day. I do not mind that, but we have one crack at it now from the start. It is about how we do it when we start the process.

It was interesting that you talked about prioritising community-benefit reservoirs. There is a lot of scope there. I am mindful of the health and safety issues. You mentioned different sports and everything else. I am coming at it from an angling point of view, which is a wee bit selfish, because I have done angling and know about it. Will you touch on that a wee bit? There could be a way of retrieving that.

Mr Thompson: First and foremost, we are here because of public safety. We have to remove the belief that it is just about angling and other sport. The key thing is that the legislation is built around public safety. We fully support that goal, but it has to be achieved in a way that does not unintentionally ruin the public-recreation and community-asset aspects. Safety and sustainability have to go hand in hand with those, depending on the outcome. That is the focus. We are not saying that all sites are going to be fixed; we just need to make sure that there is a fine balance when it comes to the social and community value that those sites provide. A site that needs £20 million to be rectified could be down a locked lane and offer no community value at all — it may not even be used. It is more about trying to look at that.

Another thing to draw attention to is the geographical spread. I touched on it earlier. We have had discussions with DAERA about the location of sites. There are small areas that have several sites, and there are reservoirs that are totally isolated, including one or two that are in the middle of nowhere. It is about striking a fine balance. You could have 13 reservoirs serving one community and one serving three or four communities. That is what we are thinking about. I am sure that, in your considerations, you will take on board how many people use a particular site. It would be really galling if assistance went to one site that does not serve any community or long-term benefit at the expense of others that do. We recognise that there are budgetary constraints; it is more about trying to make sure that the process is fair and open and that the assistance is distributed well.

Mr Boylan: We have plenty of lakes, too, Chair, but we are all right. [Laughter.]

Fermanagh can play its part, as it has its fair share too.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. We have already gained a lot of good feedback from you. Are any of the 179 reservoirs owned by angling clubs? Is there a breakdown available of how many are leased?

Mr Thompson: We can find that out to the best of our ability. The majority of angling clubs have rivers, which become inaccessible at times. Reservoirs are used predominantly by elderly or disabled anglers, who you do not want to send up and down river banks or rivers. There is a natural progression from river to reservoir. We can certainly try to get a more defined figure, but whether we will get a full response is another thing. I would say that the majority of our angling clubs have access to a reservoir or lake. Going back to a point that I made originally, whether or not they own them outright or are tenants is another thing. We do not represent just angling clubs; we have a lot of private put-and-take fisheries that open for community benefits. They have come to us this year as a result of the Act. They have different issues, worries and concerns. Most of what they have put to us is what we have raised today. We can say that we have the majority of put-and-take fisheries on board.

Mr McKeeman: If I have understood that part of your question, my guess is that the majority are leased and are not in the ownership of the angling club.

Mr Thompson: Was your question on leasing versus ownership?

Mr Dunne: Yes, that was the gist of it.

Mr McKeeman: Very few, if any, are owned.

Mr Dunne: Thank you. I appreciate that. It introduces further layers of complication for users and owners. Some owners are more responsible than others and more interested than others. Some may not even live close by or in the same jurisdiction. I appreciate the challenges ahead and the value of the voluntary aspect. I see it in my area and across the country. Do you have any experience or knowledge of good practice in external funding opportunities being availed of? I know that capital works can be very difficult. I suppose that it is quite niche because it is involves water.

Mr Thompson: On this side of the pond: not that I am aware of. I cannot reveal the name of the site, but I am aware of a landlord who is in the process of dewatering a site for engineering purposes to make it compliant. Going back to the original point about leasing versus ownership, this is the next issue and could be something for you to look at if you are contacting owners. You should maybe ask them to, please, let their tenants know as well. We have a lot of angling clubs that are not getting the letters, even though they lease a site that is classed as a controlled reservoir, with 10,000 cubic metres. Another issue that you have and we have is that there is no communication between landlord and tenant. Therefore, we cannot fully quantify how many are directly impacted by that.

Mr McKeeman: I do not know about the relevance of the strategic angling review that happened in 2014, but one of its objectives was the provision of toilets, and there was another on capital issues around fisheries. To the best of my knowledge, access to capital funding has been minimal since the strategic angling review in 2014. A lot of the capital issues around fisheries that were identified in that review remain outstanding. I can think of one fishery that has received funding in those 11 years.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. That is helpful. A lot of points have been covered. Thank you.

Mr Thompson: Would it be to the Committee's benefit if we carried out a wider consultation to see which clubs lease and which own outright? Would that data be helpful?

Mr Dunne: Yes, that would be helpful.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It would be useful, but I stress that time is critical for us as a Committee. We would really love to have those figures so that we can ascertain how many clubs lease and, therefore, the number of people who will be affected. If you could do that within a short time frame, that would be brilliant.

Mr Thompson: Do you want to give me a deadline then?

Mr Boylan: Yesterday.

Mr Thompson: That sounds familiar. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We are talking within weeks, because the Committee will get another briefing next week, and officials will come back hot on the heels of that. I stress that it would be great to have those figures to help the Committee but that, as I said, we would need to have them pretty soon.

It is no secret that the Committee has, I suppose, delayed that actually coming to the Chamber, because we want to make sure that it does not have unintended consequences. The Department wants to make sure that we go along with that pretty quickly. From a Committee perspective, we do, to a certain extent, but, at the end of the day, this is legislation, and we need to make sure that it is right. If you could get that turned round for us in a quick time frame, that would be great.

Mr Thompson: We will have a crack at it.

Mr McMurray: I will try to be brief. A lot of good points have been drawn out already. In fact, you touched on two points that I will try to draw out. My concern about communication is that, as you have highlighted, landlords do not pass the information on. It is a story as old as time, really: groups then do not have the information, and the whole thing falls down. It is shutting the gate after the — lifting the net when there are no fish in it, or whatever the terminology is.

You talked about membership of clubs: big clubs and small clubs. Are you concerned that, if things are put out of use, anglers will be pushed into a small concentration of lakes, and there will be knock-on effects from that?

Mr Thompson: Yes. If your clubs and communities have invested maybe tens of thousands of pounds in pontoons, jetties and so on — most of it through public grant funding — and your lake gets lower and becomes inaccessible, all of a sudden, they become useless. You cannot, for example, ask someone who is in a wheelchair or has impaired mobility to start netting the fish an extra five metres. That is not safe. You will find that those people stop coming to use those sites. It has happened and is happening. I will go back to the example that I used earlier of the Boghill site. That club was flourishing, with 80 members in the Mallusk area. Now, it is down to 15 or 16 members. They do not have any water to go to. The lifeblood of those clubs then becomes put-and-take fisheries. They have to travel outside their own community areas and start using other sites. You have to remember that those sites are then not sustainable long term either because they are impacted on by that.

You raised the communication issues between the tenant and landlord. There would probably be even more worry if the communication were better between the two. We could have a lot more clubs reaching out to us because they are worried about it. Those that have reached out to us are maybe not fully aware of the bigger picture or the long-term impact.

To answer your question: yes, if the sites become useless, people will stop going to them, and clubs will stop investing in them because they cannot afford to do so.

Mr McMurray: I am an angler two generations removed. My mother would say that angling was my grandfather's thing for mental health and well-being.

With regard to unintended consequences, David, I have talked to you about, and we know, your environmental concerns. What concerns are there about those bodies of water going out of use? Anglers are often the first people to notice the change to habitats and environments.

Mr Thompson: That is a fantastic question. It is probably one that we have really overlooked. I can use an example from the Antrim and Newtownabbey borough of a club that, as a result of that process, had to have its dam dewatered. Thankfully, it has access to another reservoir. Obviously, so many repairs were needed that it had to drain the whole site. On the long-term environmental impact — this is from personal experience, by the way, and I have photographs of it, too — I decided to go and have a look at it. It was two or three summers ago. I could hear all the birds — seagulls and all sorts — squawking. I thought, "What is going on up here? I will take a walk up". I walked up, and I saw a lot of swan mussels. I do not know whether you have ever seen swan mussels, but they are about the size of your hand, almost like big oysters. They were sitting there, getting cooked in the hot sun, and the birds were just coming down and pecking them. You can check, but I think that they are an at-risk species. I had never seen as many in my life. There were thousands upon thousands of them, and the birds were eating them. I also saw newts, another protected species. Thinking about at-risk species being directly impacted on, that site would have been used quite a bit by otters as well.

Coming to the fisheries part, you are dewatering bodies of water, and under the water are the fish. We are unsure whether fish are being taken or left at sites that are being dewatered. We are not involved in the process. Yes, there is an environmental risk, certainly with species that are identified as being at risk, such as swan mussels, otters and, inevitably, newts. I took photographs because I was so shocked.

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, fellas, for the presentation. It was very good, covered a lot of the concerns, and answered many of the questions that were put by the Committee. It was interesting to hear you talk about Creggan. Members of the Committee will have heard me mention Creggan reservoir before. There are a multitude of issues there, one being the failure to address the infrastructure concerns and the barrier that that creates for planning decisions and economic development in the city. The other impact has been on the fishery. I know from speaking to members of that club — people who availed themselves of its benefits — how good it has been. For some people, it has been a lifeline, but they are now left literally high and dry without it, and that is one of those panic moves caused by uncertainty, which you alluded to in your evidence.

You talked about the cost to fix that infrastructure. You are not here to talk specifically about Creggan, but surely it puts the fear of God into organisations such as yours and other reservoir managers or owners, when the Department now talks about working up a business case for a grant scheme. That is not to do the work, I might add; it is a grant scheme to cover the cost of inspection. It is, "We'll pay to inspect and then tell you how much it's going to cost you to fix". What impact might that have on organisations? Do you feel that people might just throw in the towel and walk away, leaving reservoirs completely unmanaged, unsupervised and becoming a public health risk, as well as a risk to public safety?

Mr Thompson: Yes. I am fairly certain that, if I asked any of you here to suddenly throw out several million pounds to fix something, the first thing that you are going to say is, "No. Just do away with it", and I can understand that. Going back to your point, I do not think that the reservoirs would be left with water in them, to put it like that. They would be dewatered immediately, and we have seen that. We have two working examples with some of our clubs where they straight off dewatered it. It is not cost-effective for them. However, dewatering should be the last resort and not a default. Dewatering damages local economies and recreation. We covered biodiversity and touched on community health. Proper funding for inspections and, for want of a better word, "proportionate" repairs would be a better long-term solution.

Mr Durkan: Do you contend that any grant scheme should be for not just the inspection but that there should be financial assistance to cover the costs of compliance?

Mr Thompson: Yes. Some sites cannot afford the inspection. You could possibly consider having a means-tested approach, which goes back to my homework of asking who owns what. You could probably look at having a means-tested approach for the inspection alone. The knock-on effect — the domino effect, to use the term that we have been using today — could be that those inspections highlight more costs and create more fear. It is about trying to strike a balance. If it is mandatory to have the inspections, it will cost the clubs and communities no matter what, but you have to look at the knock-on effect, which could be that some of those create further costs that are financially unsustainable and lead to dewatering.

Mr Durkan: I know where John was coming from when he talked about there sometimes being benefits to coming after other jurisdictions in that you can learn from what they have done wrong and what they have done right. In this case, however, those benefits are probably outweighed by the way that the costs will have escalated in the intervening period — the past decade.

There would also be real concern around what you said about there being a lack of local expertise to carry out inspections, never mind to do the work. Even when the requirements are identified across a range of reservoirs, and even if the money were there to do it, I imagine that, when it comes to the time that it would take to get it done, you are not talking about it being only a couple of months.

Mr Thompson: I will go back to the point that Ray raised. The engineers, inspectors and surveyors are being flown over, which is a big part of the cost: there are none on the island. They are being flown over from England, which, obviously, keeps the costs quite high. Is there something in that? Do we need to consider empowering our own communities and encouraging that as an employment opportunity or developing some sort of local hub for it? Could having someone local who is trained up and qualified in that sort of level of inspection keep the cost down for clubs? Could the funding maybe be used to increase the number of surveyors on this side of the water? Doing that may cut the cost of the inspection in the long term, if you get what I am saying. I hope that I explained that right. There may be things that we could consider.

Mr Durkan: Yes, you have explained it. If we do not have the expertise here to carry out the inspection, it is fair enough to assume that the expertise will not be here to carry out much of the required work either. I am speaking from a wee bit of personal experience from another local issue — not Creggan reservoir but a lough.

Thank you for your answers and for your attendance today.

Mr Thompson: At the moment, it is a single point of failure. Again, we are talking about speed and transition, and it is all dependent on one person coming across to carry out the inspections, and he may not be available. Obviously, it makes sense for him to do as many sites as he can while he is here, but you know how it is when trying to get a lot of people with different interests, with whom we can only just about communicate, into the same room. That is another issue to consider.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Mark. Last but not least is Keith.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, gentlemen. I have a few specifics. I may not have picked up on this. You talked about there being 10,000 anglers, but how many clubs do you represent under your umbrella?

Mr Thompson: Let us say that it varies. We have flexible renewal points. It varies, but I would say that we have upwards of 60.

Mr K Buchanan: You have 60 clubs under your umbrella. I am not clear on 179 being the number of reservoirs. You have 60 clubs. Does that mean there are 60 reservoirs?

Mr Thompson: No, not necessarily.

Mr K Buchanan: How many reservoirs out of that 179 are you concerned about, based on your membership of 60?

Mr Thompson: All of them.

Mr K Buchanan: Do they fish on all of them?

Mr Thompson: The ones that facilitate angling. The public angling estate has around 90, and the clubs run another 40 or 50. The rest are used for private drinking water and the like.

Mr K Buchanan: Your anglers — let us call them "your anglers" — can fish on most of them.

Mr McKeeman: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Fair enough. How many of those reservoirs do your 60 clubs have responsibility for? Whether they are owned or leased, how many do those 60 clubs have direct responsibility for?

Mr Thompson: We took that takeaway from your colleague's question.

Mr K Buchanan: If you were to guesstimate, would you say that it is fewer than 60?

Mr Thompson: They have outright ownership of fewer than 60.

Mr K Buchanan: It should not be over that, because a club would not have two, I presume.

Mr Thompson: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: What is your understanding of the grants? I appreciate that you responded to Mark about that. What is your understanding of the Department's definition of a grant? What is your understanding — I do not mean in monetary terms — of what a grant will be?

Mr Thompson: Are you talking about the quantity or what the grant can facilitate?

Mr K Buchanan: Facilitate. Forget about the figure.

Mr Thompson: The first area is inspections. That needs to be considered, because I know that some clubs cannot afford an inspection at this time. That is around £5,000, and I use that as an example. The second area is remedial works. I go back to the point about the costs and burdens of the lease. As the inspection is mandatory, I think that smaller clubs are possibly walking away because of the inspection fee alone. Those that can afford it have to look at the next issue: the costs. What will a grant do? We want those that cannot afford statutory inspections to be considered for funding. The second part of it — this comes on to Cathal's point — is the remedial works. It is a double-edged sword. The third area, which we teased out when we chatted to Mark, is the provision of an engineer or a surveyor to provide a report.

Given that we are already seeing clubs and communities lose their reservoirs and their members, we would expect the grant to at least soften the blow in the first and second areas, if not all three. We cannot guarantee that the grant will be the absolute solution to everything in tackling the issues, but we would like to see it delivering a fair approach, with the community benefit prioritised. I go back to the point that we have been making all along: we want to make sure that any grant funding serves the communities, not the private landowners, who can lock it off. Does that answer your question?

Mr K Buchanan: It does. I have one final point; it is not a question. An area of 100 metres by 100 metres by 1 metre is not big. This room is probably 20 square metres. It is not a big area of water. People think of Spelga Dam and the big loughs, but that is not a big area.

Mr McKeeman: It is significant, given the history of mill dams in our part of the world. Straid is 200 years old. Over that time, mill dams were built anywhere that could hold water. Some of them are, exactly as you say, 100 metres by 100 metres.

Mr Thompson: That is a fantastic point. The Department could probably push this behind the scenes. There is a perception that 10,000 cubic metres is the volume of a massive controlled reservoir such as Silent Valley, but, in reality, some of the reservoirs are the size of ponds.

Mr McKeeman: Holes in the ground.

Mr K Buchanan: There are 179 reservoirs. You said that DFI did a report years ago. Let us say that it redid that, because time will create deterioration. What are your thoughts on the Department, instead of paying individual grants of £5,000 or £10,000 to everybody, carrying out that work and handing you a piece of paper that says, "That's what your reservoir needs. Initial, point 1"? That has to be more cost-effective.

Mr Thompson: Is your point about the survey being carried out by the Department?

Mr K Buchanan: At that point, the survey becomes yours. The Department only carries out the survey, and it is purely for cost-effectiveness.

Mr Thompson: The report is handed to the tenant.

Mr K Buchanan: I would not say, "It is your problem", but, "There is the report and its findings".

Mr Thompson: That is fair.

Mr K Buchanan: Grants for 179 reservoirs will cost a lot of money, whereas, you can employ it, provide the document and then look at having grants to assist with the work, depending on the prioritisation.

Mr Thompson: That would work, but the risk element is that it might take too much out of the budget before the remedial works. The whole budget could be spent on doing the assessments, and that is fine. However, the remedial work on the sites will be left. You might want to strike the balance, and I come back to a means-tested approach, which would be good for that. I hate to think that the entire budget would be spent on telling people what is wrong but not fixing the problem, and that will be down the line.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, gentlemen.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will come back to Keith's point, because the Committee has had correspondence from the Department about the calculations. I will take my Chair's hat off for a second, because I remember that, when the legislation was going forward, an amendment was put down to decrease the 10,000 cubic meters, but it was not accepted. The Minister's correspondence with the Committee states:

That is something to take into consideration.

Mr K Buchanan: There is a bit of working out to be done.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes.

Mr Boylan: Keith mentioned the numbers, but other people who will be impacted on may be listening to the meeting. There are other anglers and different groups — you mentioned kayaking — from across the community, and that is an important factor. Let us gather them all together.

Mr Thompson: I am trying to draw Andrew in, because he was part of it.

Mr Boylan: He was going up the river. He was trying to get into the lough earlier.

Mr McMurray: I am not taking the bait.

Mr Thompson: Andrew hosted an event for the Clean Water Sports Alliance, which we attended. That coalition represents 300,000 people who use the water for sport, and 80,000 anglers have fed directly into that group, and the non-licensed anglers were also encompassed. Some of you are probably in that 300,000 — I am looking to John. A lot of people do those activities on the beach and inland. The 300,000 figure has been collated by the Northern Ireland Sports Forum, and we have worked with Andrew and some of the Departments to drive that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much for your time. Apologies for the wait at the start of the meeting.

I go back to a point that relates to the leasing element, which we have referred to quite a bit during our conversations today, and the Committee will need to be cognisant of it. Andrew asked about the correspondence and who that goes to. I am not saying that this is the case, but might a landowner potentially think that a club can be the reservoir manager so that they will be off the hook?

Mr Thompson: Yes. I raised that point at the end of my briefing. I mentioned the lack of clarity about who is eligible for funding and support. Councils that manage reservoirs do not know whether they are eligible. Mark mentioned the Creggan site, where there is uncertainty about whether the management is private or public. There is a bit of ambiguity around the definition of ownership and around responsibility. With the tenant and lease, where is the onus of responsibility? I guess, if you dug a bit deeper, the lease agreement itself would determine that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Under the legislation, obviously, the reservoir manager is named. I suppose that, when you lease out, leases can be very different. It could be written into a lease that you are responsible for any remedial work that may take place on the land.

Mr Thompson: Yes, or not.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): There is that aspect. For the clubs that you represent, there will be individualistic approaches to it, depending on how their leases have been signed and what that includes. Obviously, you would like to think that the correspondence would go to the reservoir manager, because the legislation names them as the person who is responsible.

Mr Thompson: As you said, leases are specific. You could have someone paying £1,000 a year and someone paying a peppercorn a year. Someone's terms and conditions could include the maintenance of the site, and some people could say that, as is the case if you are renting a house and the boiler has broken, the landlord will come in and fix it. That is probably the next issue that you will have: determining who is responsible for what in the lease. If you are asking someone to pay anything from several thousand pounds to a couple of million pounds to fix a site, there will be a wee bit of a to-me, to-you scenario, and you kind of want to step away from that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark, I see that your hand is up. Do you want to come in quickly?

Mr Durkan: On the point about ambiguity, from my experience, locally, ambiguity does not only create difficulty; it has the potential to create real danger, when no one is quite sure who is responsible. You do not often have someone taking responsibility, and that can lead to issues around ongoing maintenance, security and keeping people out, as well as making sure that people can come in.

Mr Thompson: That is a great point, Mark. We are here about safety, first and foremost. If that onus or responsibility is not defined, there is certainly a risk to health and safety. You make a fair point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes. You may have reservoir managers who inadvertently commit an offence if they do not carry that out or act in accordance with the legislation. Reservoir managers may not be aware of or live to that fact.

Mr McKeeman: Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Well, look, there is homework to get on with. I looked up the timescales as regards our forward work programme during some of the conversations that were happening, and I would be looking at having that in the next two weeks. We really are in a tight time frame. That is the sort of time frame that we are looking at for getting some of that information back, if at all possible. The Committee will be giving consideration to everything, but, if at all possible, it would be great to have some of that information —.

Mr Thompson: Before 14 May, then?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If possible, yes. The Clerks can keep in touch with you and have an offline conversation about that, if that is OK, David and Ray?

Mr Thompson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): They will have an offline conversation with you about that and the Committee's ongoing look at it.

As for the things that we talked about, in response to John, you said that you might report back on some of the impacts in other jurisdictions and look to see whether there was some information on that. You will come back with some precise numbers on the not-for-profit groups, leased and that type of thing as well. At the start of the Committee meeting, we talked about the meeting and your assessment and what might be different between your assessment of that meeting and what you then received in writing, so you might want to check that. It helps to inform us on the trajectory of some of the conversations and engagement that you have had.

Mr Thompson: It is the same when everyone comes in with an ask: if you come out with what you do not want, you are probably a wee bit biased about it. I will certainly have a look at it, chat with the team and report back. As I said, it was only about one fifth to two fifths of what was discussed in that meeting.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have all been there in those types of meetings, believe you me.

We really appreciate your time today. Thank you for coming in and giving us some information on the on-the-ground impact of this legislation. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. I am sorry for all the homework.

Mr Thompson: It is OK, Miss. [Laughter.]

We will get it done. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): All the best. Thank you.