Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I welcome Sara Venning, chief executive of Northern Ireland Water; Paddy Brow, head of the living with water programme at Northern Ireland Water; and John Burke, a senior lawyer who works with Northern Ireland Water. Can I get Committee agreement that this evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Folks, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to 10 minutes.

Dr Sara Venning (Northern Ireland Water): Thank you very much. You have done the introductions, so thank you for that.

We welcome the Committee's scrutiny of this important Bill, which comes at a pivotal time for water and drainage infrastructure in Northern Ireland. As you will be aware, the Bill's provisions, ranging from water-use bans to sustainable drainage and the adoption of private drainage infrastructure (PDI), will have a significant impact on how we manage water resources, address flooding and support sustainable development for years to come.

NI Water supports the Bill's alignment of our hosepipe ban legislation with that in the rest of the UK. That provides clarity for customers and strengthens our ability to manage drought events. We also strongly endorse the focus on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). The move towards nature-based solutions is essential for protecting our rivers and loughs; improving sewerage performance; and reducing flood risk and pollution. We look forward to working with the Department for Infrastructure on the guidance, responsibilities and funding mechanisms that are needed to make SuDS a success.

A particularly significant aspect of the Bill is the proposal to allow NI Water to adopt pre-1973 private drainage infrastructure. Our analysis, conducted in partnership with DFI, has shown that failures in some of the legacy systems have contributed to flooding incidents across Northern Ireland. Bringing critical elements of that infrastructure into public ownership, where that is appropriate, will help to address defects and enable better long-term maintenance and resilience.

As welcome as the Bill is, however, it needs to be seen in context, and that context remains one in which there is a significant gap between the need to modernise our waste water infrastructure and the available budget. The importance of addressing that gap has been underlined by not just the independent regulator but the work of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Fiscal Council and the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) alongside the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA) and Grant Thornton. The effects of the gap are still very real.

In the current financial year, NI Water has submitted to DFI an operating plan and budget that is based on the allocation provided. From a capital perspective, the large waste water infrastructure projects in Belfast's living with water programme, as well as many drainage schemes across Northern Ireland, are, for the most part, paused, and they were not bid for. As we approach the end of price control 21 (PC21), Northern Ireland will have invested £1 billion in its waste water infrastructure, which is about 35% less than what the Utility Regulator envisaged as minimum need. Our receipt of 90% of the funding that we bid for allows us to maintain the assets that are in place, but it does not address the infrastructure deficit that we all now recognise.

On resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL), our operating plan and budget are formulated on the basis that weather patterns this year will follow those of last year. That introduces risk into the profile given how dry last year was, especially the second half of the year. The Department has asked that we stay in close contact with it as the year progresses in order to monitor and manage that risk. We will, of course, do that.

Given that context, we support Minister Kimmins's three-pronged approach to improving waste water infrastructure by implementing the provisions of the Bill, exploring the potential for developer contributions and seeking further investment from government. Each of those elements can help to address the legacy of underinvestment, as will the kind of innovative approach that NI Water recently trialled in Newry to facilitate additional waste water connections.

It is a constant challenge to find ways in which NI Water can facilitate the housing and commercial development that Northern Ireland needs whilst not just protecting the environment but improving it. The Bill should help to achieve some of that balance. That is why we are committed to collaborating with all our stakeholders to ensure that the Bill delivers practical and effective improvements for the people and environment of Northern Ireland.

My colleagues and I are happy to answer your questions and provide any further details that the Committee might require.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you very much, Sara, for that opening statement. Despite the Chair's best efforts to keep us purely on the Bill in this session, your oral evidence might have opened you up to wider questions. I will try to stick exclusively to the Bill. I have a question on clause 11, "Unlawful sewer communication: remedies". Before I go into detail on that, I should say that I read your consultation responses. Is it fair to say that Northern Ireland Water is broadly supportive of the Bill?

Dr Venning: Yes, that is fair to say.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Yes, that is what came across. OK.

Clause 11 is really about recovery of cost from landowners for communication remedies. Has NI Water given any thought to what the process for that might be?

Mr John Burke (Northern Ireland Water): One of the areas that I oversee is our claims unit. If, for example, a third party damages our infrastructure, perhaps when laying gas pipes for Phoenix Energy, BT or an internet provider, my claims team will gather evidence on the cost of that, and then engage directly with the third party that caused the damage in order to recover those costs. We will get an estimate from our finance colleagues as to what it will cost to repair the damage, and we will engage directly with the provider — Phoenix Energy or whoever — to recover those moneys.

It is rare for that process not to result in recovery. It is rare for us to have to issue proceedings against third parties. We have been operating that system for about seven years — basically since my claims team took it over. We propose a similar approach: those teams would gather evidence on the misconnection from whatever team repaired that misconnection, and we would then engage with the householder, by a letter of correspondence, on cost recovery.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. Your written evidence states:

If my Latin serves, that must be something to do with water or riverbanks. I will continue:

How did you come up with a figure of 46 kilometres?

Mr Paddy Brow (Northern Ireland Water): I can answer that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Good.

Mr Brow: In 2015, I was seconded to the Department for two years, and I initiated that piece of work. Northern Ireland Water worked closely in partnership with the Department, DFI Rivers and DFI Roads. We got our datasets together and identified all the infrastructure that was not ours, and which we thought that someone else owned. By a process of elimination, we worked out all the infrastructure that was providing a drainage function but that none of us owned. In your packs, you will see a little flow diagram that we developed together. Having identified that infrastructure on our GIS, we went through that flow diagram to work out, ideally, who owned every pipe. That meant that we were able to take the 177 kilometres that we had identified and divide it up. You see that Roads has a very small part — less than 1 kilometre. The largest part belongs to DFI Rivers and Northern Ireland Water. It is mapped. We know where it is now. That was a good exercise.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): If, as a result of the Bill, you were able to expedite work on that, what benefits might accrue from fixing those pipes? Have you done any scoping exercises on that?

Mr Brow: Yes. We will take a reactive approach. We do not routinely survey all our surface water sewers, because it is a huge network — it is 14,500 kilometres. We do, however, have a programme of rolling drainage area plans and studies. If we have a problem with pollution or flooding in an area, we go in and identify the issues and constraints. As part of that, we will survey what are known as critical sections: if they failed, there would be problems with flooding or structural issues. If we identify that a critical section of private drainage infrastructure is in poor condition, we will be able to maintain it.

When a flooding instance occurs, we work in partnership with DFI Roads and DFI Rivers to work out how it has occurred and who is responsible. The problem is that, in various instances over the past 18 years, it has been PDI. It has been quite tricky to resolve that in some locations if the pipe was built before 1973. We have had to, perhaps, talk to every single property owner who owns a piece of ground through which a section of pipe passes. At one location, that was 15 house owners. It would be much simpler to be able to say, "Do you know what? That section of sewer is now acting as a Northern Ireland Water surface water sewer. We'd like to adopt it, because we'd like to fix it". That would simplify things for us. We typically find issues through our own surveys or because a problem emerges. We welcome this approach, because it will enable us to fix them much more efficiently.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is useful, Paddy. I now understand your use of the term "reactive". Essentially, you will address that when an issue presents itself. Given the sheer size of the sewerage network — 14,500 kilometres — you cannot really go after it proactively.

Mr Brow: It is an additional 0·3%. We do have instances where developers take over a site — an ex-MOD site, for example — that has some great

sewers that we would be happy to take over if they were brought up to standard first. The developer may apply for us to adopt it through an article 159 agreement. At the moment, we have to say, "I'm sorry: we can't. You will have to build a new one because the legislation says that, if it was built before 1973, we can't adopt it". Clearly, that is in no one's interests. The developer wants to give it to us, and we want to accept it: this approach will unlock that. It is an efficient thing for us to do.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. My last question is about clause 12, and I will quote from the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM):

what a great term —

I want to focus on the word "critical". What are your views on that sentence, with particular reference to the word "critical"?

Mr Brow: We have a definition of a critical drain. It is a:

If we deem a sewer to be critical, we will go in and adopt it.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK.

Mr Burke: It might be of benefit for me to explain how article 159 operates generally, and that removal of the pre-1973 restriction will not change how it operates. Article 159 operates in either of two ways. An owner of PDI can approach NI Water and ask us to adopt it. We assess it and make a decision. We are not obliged to adopt it. We will say, "Yes. We'll adopt it if you bring it up to a standard", or we will say, "No. We'll not adopt it". Alternatively, if NI Water approaches the owner about adopting PDI, we will take it, warts and all. In either case, whether the owner approaches us or we approach the owner, if the owner is not happy with our decision to adopt or not to adopt, there is a right of appeal to the regulator under article 162. That will not change if the pre-1973 restriction is removed. That is how it currently operates. It has not operated that often since 2007, but that is how we envisage it going forward. As Paddy said, with the 46 kilometres that we see as critical, we will address matters as they arise and, in the long term, look to adopt them.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you, John and Paddy. Although the word "critical" is not in the primary draft legislation and sits just in the EFM, how it is interpreted will become important if the Bill becomes law. I now have a greater understanding that there is a way for NI Water to interpret the word "critical" and that, to be fair to you guys, it is fairly comprehensive. We have to think about it not just from your perspective but from that of homeowners, who may have a view. When legislation is passed, it needs to be right and clear. I am content with that.

Mr Stewart: Sara, Paddy and John, thank you very much for coming along and for the evidence so far. I also place on record my thanks to Sara's staff for their communication throughout the difficult time of the last storm that we had. There was a massive outage in my area, but the staff were very forthcoming with information, and the service was restored as quickly as possible.

Dr Venning: Thank you. I will pass that on.

Mr Stewart: You have said that you assess the Bill as being very impactful for Northern Ireland Water, and we have no doubt that it will be. How did you assess how impactful it will be? Are there clauses of the Bill that Northern Ireland Water would have liked to go further? Are there things that you would have liked to have seen in the Bill that are not?

Mr Brow: Many years ago, we worked in partnership with DFI to develop the long-term water strategy. That was very much co-design work. We were writing that from 2012 until 2016, when it was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. It identified a lot of gaps in the legislation that needed to be addressed: for example, adopting pipework that was built before 1973 and SuDS. The Bill's provisions on SuDS are much needed. They will help us to develop the next step in legislation. It would be great if we were a bit further on, but the Bill provides essential foundations for us to work together to resolve the way ahead.

Sustainable drainage systems are very helpful for us to retrofit to our network and in enabling developers to come up with the right type of system. This legislation will help to provide the foundations for us to move forward on that, given that there has been a bit of a block for the past seven or eight years. However, a lot of work still needs to be done. We need to have design guidance for developers. We need to create a SuDS approval authority that will approve the designs and the maintenance arrangements. Once the SuDS are built, we need to have someone to check them. Those are things that developers want, need and ask us for. We welcome that as the next step. It is a pity that those things are not in the Bill, but the Bill is a step forward.

Mr Burke: In February 2020, NI Water held a workshop in Westland House, along with colleagues from the Department and internal stakeholders, to review the Water and Sewerage Services Order 2006 and come up with a list of things that we feel might benefit from being changed. Here is a six-page wish list that we sent to the Department in 2020. The Department's suggestions are in it as well. We are happy that at least some of the matters that are contained in that document were taken on board. When you put in a wish list, you may try to reach for the stars, but you know that it will only go so far. We are happy that the Department has taken on board the suggestions that we made in 2020. Obviously, COVID intervened thereafter and perhaps slowed matters down. We are certainly happy to continue to engage with the Department on other areas that may benefit from being amended. We have provided the Department with a list of things that we feel could benefit from amendment.

Mr Stewart: OK. That is interesting, John. As Paddy said, you effectively worked hand in glove to design this, or at least to feed into it, so it comes as no surprise that NI Water has no problems with any of the clauses. I would be interested in getting a copy of that list, if possible, to find out the answer to the second part of my question, which was about whether there are any bits of the Bill that you do not think go far enough and what could be added in. That might help us in our scrutiny and when it comes to drafting amendments. Is it possible to share that?

Mr Burke: There should not be any issue with that. The Department was given a copy of the list.

Mr Stewart: Yes, but I do not think that we have been furnished with it. That is my issue.

Mr Burke: I will arrange that.

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

I will move on to clause 1. Could you talk us through how you see the current situation regarding water use and temporary bans versus how it will be different under the Bill? I raised this matter during the Second Stage debate. It does not seem like a massive issue, but the only requirement to notify the public is through advertisements in two local papers. We know that, by the time the newspaper comes out, the hosepipe ban might well have ended. I know that Northern Ireland Water does a lot more than that. Could you talk us through how you communicate with the public and raise awareness about saving water during dry periods?

Mr Burke: We use our website and social media — Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Those platforms are updated daily — as we speak, basically. If an incident happens — flooding or an outage — that is publicised through social media. As you rightly pointed out, we can currently only advertise a hosepipe ban via notices in two newspapers in the local area. The Bill allows us to publicise that on the website. We will also continue to use social media in all its forms to publicise what is happening.

Mr Stewart: I know that you do that, John, but my point is that someone has to buy a newspaper or visit your website, whereas social media, TV and radio communicate with the public at large.

Mr Burke: We do TV and radio ads as well.

Mr Stewart: I take your point, and I made that point in the Chamber. I am not saying that you do not; I am saying that that is not contained in the Bill.

Dr Venning: I very much agree with you about the timing. As regards a temporary usage ban, our analytics suggest that, when the temperature in Northern Ireland goes above 22°C for about three days, the demand for water increases by at least 100 million litres of water per day, which means a 15% to 20% increase in production at the water treatment works. That puts an enormous stress on those water treatment works, which have a finite capacity. Whilst a ban can help if you are in a drought situation and have diminished raw water supplies, it is also very helpful in a high-demand event when your water treatment works cannot keep up with demand. In those instances, speed is important. In 2018, when we introduced a hosepipe ban, we were reprimanded for how we did that. The time between saying, "I need a ban", and being able to secure advertising space in a newspaper, especially if you need a ban on a Friday and are going into the weekend, could be three days. You may have to advertise for two days, so five days could have elapsed before you get the outcome that you need. Yes, it is an improvement to be able to better utilise digital media for the purposes of notifying people.

Mr Stewart: OK. Is education needed to raise awareness among the public? I ask because that is one aspect of enforcement.

Mr Burke: We do that in the lead-up. During the 2018 event, the comms team had regular engagement. We regularly put out press releases and stuff on social media asking the public to consider their water usage. As Sara said, when the temperature went above 22°C for three, four and five days, we, on the analytics side, were aware of how much water we were producing and how much water was being requested. Prior to the 2018 ban coming in, we asked the public to consider their water usage and to reduce it. Things were getting critical. The ban then came in, and it helped us through that critical phase. The threat of enforcement was sufficient to change behaviour.

Human nature is such that, if you get something for nothing, you will use it. Without getting into a debate on water charges — we do not charge domestic users for water — people were using the water. The ban helped to rein that in for those two or three critical days over that weekend, so that our water-production facilities could keep up with the demand.

Dr Venning: The publicity work is important. I can also give this reassurance to the Committee: since 2018, we have had a significant number of those high-demand events, and, through improvements in how we operate our networks and our analytics and analysis on our reservoir levels and the actions that we can take in tankering water across our network, we have been able to continue to provide uninterrupted supplies of water to customers. It is a strain on the organisation, and a lot of extra hours are worked by the people in the network and the water treatment works, but that is the way that you want things to be. Think about climate change: a big part of our climate change approach will be that we will have those periods of warm weather and we will have to be able to deal with them. We would not want to be dealing with them via a temporary usage ban. We want to have resilience in the network, and that is our focus. A temporary usage ban is there should we need it, but we will do everything that we can so that we do not need it.

Mr Stewart: For the record — perhaps this did not come across to John and the team — I fully support the Bill. I am an ally of NI Water. It felt like the response was a bit prickly at times.

Mr Burke: I apologise. [Laughter.]

That was not my intention.

Mr Stewart: I am trying to make sure that the legislation is as robust and sound as possible to support the work that you do and to inform the public. That is the role of the Committee.

I move on to clause 11, if I may, Chair, although I know that you covered it. What is your rough assessment of how many such miscommunications happen per year, the difficulties surrounding them and the justification for the extra steps that the legislation will provide?

Mr Brow: It is perhaps not how many occur but how many there are — and there are thousands across Northern Ireland. We do routine drainage area studies. We also investigate why bathing water quality is falling, such as at Ballyholme. We have had instances, near Peter's area, where water quality has not been what it was or there is shellfish water, so we do an investigation or study. Members of the public may phone in and say, "Look, there's pollution occurring", for example, at Groomsport, where our pumping station was suspected as the cause. In those instances, whether the public phone in or we identify something, we go off to investigate.

Mr Stewart: Yes.

Mr Brow: It is shocking how many misconnections there are across Northern Ireland. Typically, they occur because a developer thinks that he is putting a pipe into a foul sewer and he is not; he is putting it into a river. A large hotel was built in the centre of Belfast that, for several years, discharged into the Blackstaff river, and it took us quite a while to find it. When we investigated that incident at Groomsport, we found that 20 houses in an area — the Brae — had been extended, and we had to work with householders to disconnect those from a little stream.

When we investigated the bathing water at Ballyholme, we tracked down missed connections in an area of Bangor that I will not name. We knew that the houses were built with a surface water sewer on one side of the property and a foul sewer on the other. One household had put a toilet in the garage extension — maybe they have an office there now — that was on the surface water sewer side of the house and was accidentally connected to that sewer. Neither the householders not the builder knew that they had done that, but it resulted in pollution. We investigated 137 houses and found seven missed connections.

In Lurgan, we found that Tesco was connected to the Pound river, which discharges into Lough Neagh. We got reports of pollution, we checked all our assets: they were fine. We spent £750,000 on investigating the Pound river. We found that offices and various properties had accidentally connected to it. That work is expensive and labour-intensive. You have to put little sieves in the system, because you are working your way back up it, and, when you get to a certain point where the sewer splits, you ask, "Which way is it coming from?". It is slow, hard work. We have a team that works hand in hand with NIEA. It typically gets reports of pollution and brings them to us. We decide who, internally, will investigate it, whether that is our operations colleagues or a more intensive team, and off they go.

Like everyone else, we are constrained by budget. It is hard work. In most instances, property owners will work with us to resolve the issue, but, sometimes, when we know that pollution is occurring, they do not want to. The legislation will help us. Sometimes, the resolution is low-cost, at a couple of thousand pounds, but it is sometimes in the tens of thousands of pounds. In those instances, it would be nice to recover the costs.

Mr Stewart: I suppose the obvious point, Paddy, is that you work not with the easy ones but with the difficult ones, which are often the most expensive. Are you confident that the legislation will give you the ability to take the necessary action swiftly and to go after those who should ultimately pay for it?

Mr Brow: Yes. It will certainly stop some delays. We identified an incident of a lot of pollution from a caravan park that, again, I will not name. We knew where the pollution was coming from, but there was a lot of hesitancy to resolve it. Eventually, after quite a long time, the caravan park agreed to resolve it, and it was fixed, but it would have happened much quicker had we been able to resolve that. We knew that pollution was occurring to a beach in a popular part of Northern Ireland. The vast majority of people want to resolve that when it is identified and brought to their attention, but the legislation will help us when we know that pollution is occurring and we want to get it fixed but there is an impasse.

Mr Stewart: We all acknowledge that, for NI Water, every pound is a prisoner. We want to make sure that, as far as possible, the legislation is cost-neutral to you and opens doors to recompense for the money that you paid out for that work.

My final point is on clause 12, which you discussed, Chair. We have covered the critical aspect in depth and may well come back to it, but my issue is the cost. In the Second Stage of the Bill, the Minister, under questioning, assured us that it would be cost-neutral to Northern Ireland Water. John said, however, that the owner of the land may well seek to adopt a drain with it — before you come in, Paddy; I know that you are chomping at the bit — but that, if not, NI Water will take it on, "warts and all". To me, as an amateur engineer — in fact, I am nowhere near being an amateur engineer — that sounds potentially costly. Given that pre-1973 infrastructure could be damaged, dated and in need of repair, how will Northern Ireland Water ensure that that will be cost-neutral as the Minister said?

Mr Brow: In our price control planning process — the next one is called "PC28" — we are assessing how much money we should allocate to that. We do not think that it will be a massive sum in the scale of things. There are two types of capital investment for the company: enhancement investment, which is to build new things, and money to maintain things. Maintaining those assets would fall under our base maintenance allocation, which will approach about £250 million a year. We have not worked out a sum yet, but it is in the order of £1 million. It is 0·3% of our network, so we are not going to hunt those down. We will stumble across them through plans and studies, or they will emerge themselves, and we will have to react to them. For instance, we had flooding in an area of South Belfast. It was not acceptable for that to be happening to those people. We all had to work together anyway to resolve that. It cost us more and took us longer because we did not have the legislation in effect, and those houses all flooded again because we were still reaching agreement with the property owners. Had we been able to say, "Do you know what? This pipe's pre 1973. Let's adopt it. Let's get in there", it would have been done much more quickly and cost effectively. We are not concerned. Sara outlined in her opening statement our concerns about operating costs and resource costs, but, in the big scheme of things, that is not a significant concern for us.

Mr Stewart: It is small fry.

To finish that point, given how long the more than 170 km of unadopted pre-1973 sites have been there, have you done an assessment of how many of those, in an ideal world, you would want to adopt quite quickly, and of the cost that that would potentially incur?

Mr Brow: I think that we stated in a table in the submission that it is 47 km. We have gone through the flow diagram and said, "Right, this is not a theoretical exercise; this is actual pipes". Every single pipe has been gone through with DFI Rivers and DFI Roads, and 47 km would come to us. We are not going to survey those on day 1; it will be a long process. We think that, over 12 years, the money that we will need to invest in that will decrease to a very small sum. Some sewers will last 150 years or 250 years before they fail. Some might date back to Roman times. However, some that have been built 10 years ago will collapse. We have to be prepared to address them, and we are assessing what the sum will be, but it will be a relatively small sum in comparison to our bigger base maintenance figure.

Mr Stewart: OK. I have a few more questions, but I will come back at a later date, potentially. Thank you very much, folks.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Paddy, I suspect that, if there were a quote from today for the media, it will be:

Mr Stewart: There will be an archaeological dig.

Mr Harvey: It is good to see you at Committee today. One thing that was mentioned was developer contributions. At what stage does a builder become a recognised developer who makes contributions? Is it one house, or two or five houses? What is the difference between a private builder and a developer?

Mr Burke: Developer contributions are not involved in the current revamp of the legislation, are they?

Dr Venning: No, but they are part of the Minister's three-pronged approach. That is maybe a question for the Department team, when it comes in . That consultation has gone out, and I think that responses have come back in, but I am not clear about how the Department will take that further. Anyone connecting a house makes a contribution, even if it is a single house; there will be charges that they make towards the connection from a water and waste water perspective. However, the consultation is something specific. It will be for the Department team to decide those qualifying stipulations.

Mr Harvey: There are lots of temporary usage bans, such as the hosepipe ban. What about enforcement? What is the pathway to enforcement?

Mr Burke: As, I think, I said when I was previously before the Committee, it is about not enforcement but education. It is about encouraging people to use water wisely. I think that I said then that it is better to have a stick and not use it than not to have a stick at all.

The current legislation simply states, "You can't wash your car or water your garden". The whole purpose of the amendment is to provide clarity. Under the current legislation, during a demand surge, you cannot water your grass, but you can hose down your patio and paths, and you can wash down your windows. That is illogical. England and Wales have had that since 2011. The whole point of the clarification is to provide clarity to the consumer on what they cannot do in a demand situation.

You also asked about enforcement. Ultimately, it is a criminal offence, which means that we would have to have evidence to a criminal standard, which is beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously, that is not going to be easy. During one of these situations, we would hope to use the threat and, as we have already mentioned, social media, the website and press releases to encourage the proper use of water. If, in the worse-case scenario, we have to prosecute someone, we have the power to do so, but we would need evidence to a criminal standard. That may not be easy to get. In 2018, which I mentioned previously, we had neighbours phoning in neighbours for washing the car, and we even had an ex-husband phoning in and complaining about his ex-wife who was watering the lawn. That made us laugh in the office. The enforcement power is there, but we hope not to have to use it.

Mr Harvey: It is about education. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I have one question on that, John. You talk about the need for evidence to be beyond reasonable doubt for criminal enforcement. In order to meet that threshold, do you need a date-stamped picture of someone? I want to explore that a wee bit, because some people will be interested in that.

Mr Burke: One of the other teams that I am responsible for is the compliance investigation team. Its job is to investigate breaches of the legislation and to prosecute. It will put together an evidence pack, which can comprise statements, photographs — as you mentioned — and other data from, say, our meetings. In this circumstance — a hosepipe ban — yes, a photograph of someone washing the car or hosing the lawn would constitute evidence, and, preferably, the photograph would be date-stamped, because you can create anything with AI, these days. We might also have a statement. Our front-line staff will be out in areas at such times, encouraging people not to do x, y and z. If a member of staff sees you washing the car or hosing the lawn —.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): My wife would love to see me washing the car more often.

Mr Burke: There would be a statement from our front-line staff saying, "We saw the Chair out washing the car, in breach of the hosepipe ban". You would require an evidence pack, be that a photograph or a statement from someone who is willing to give evidence that they saw x, y and z on a given date.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I will bring in Harry, because he has indicated that he wants to come back in, but I will explore one more aspect of that. If somebody gave an affidavit or statement to say that they saw the Chair washing the car on 15 July, but I gave a statement to say "I wasn't washing the car on 15 July. I was at Sainsbury's or Asda", or wherever, you could not prosecute, because you would not have what you need. How much do you need to prosecute?

Mr Burke: The criminal standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". I will backtrack a bit. We have a prosecution and enforcement policy. It is a staged approach: we are not going straight into court.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I understand that.

Mr Burke: We would issue a warning letter or an enforcement notice. To issue a summons is almost a last resort that is to be used when the person is not engaging and we can give sufficient evidence. We would speak to you, first. We would knock the door and tell you that we had received a complaint from someone who said that you were doing x, y and z. You may deny that, there and then: that is fine. You might say, "I'm not going to do anything like that again" or, "I did not do it in the first place, but I will make sure that I do not do it". We are not going to hound you. If we have raised the matter with you, it has been put to bed, as far as we are concerned, unless we get another complaint the next day that you are still doing it, in which case, we will come back again. We have issued you with a warning, or we have raised it with you. If we are getting regular reports of people breaching the legislation, we will look to gather the evidence and see where that takes us. Ultimately, the court prosecution is deemed to be the last resort. That is how we operate currently through my compliance team, which deals with interference with a number of our works.

Mr Harvey: I do not know how it is now, but it used to be the case that you could wash your car during a hosepipe ban but rinse it with a watering can.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is one for you to take away, John.

Mr Burke: That was under the 1973 Order, perhaps, but, under the 2006 Order, you cannot wash your car or water your garden.

Dr Venning: The judgement call that you are making is this: would you rather drink it or throw it around a car? At the point that we are asking people to step back, it is because drinking water is at risk of not being supplied to somebody somewhere. That is a judgement that people have to make.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): All the water we use is drinking water, whether we are washing the car or taking it out of a tap.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for coming in again. I have a couple of points. With regard to the SuDS, with councils across the UK and the Republic, there is quite a variation in approach and so on, and I know it is something that you are conscious of. I am keen to know NI Water's view on the approval body. Is there a feeling that it is going in your direction and will maybe be landed with you? Obviously, funding and resources will be a key issue, so I am keen to hear your thoughts on that.

Dr Venning: Paddy is probably best to pick up on that, but, from my perspective, it is about the most appropriate body to be the approval body, not so much about funding but where it most appropriately sits.

Mr Brow: NI Water would say that it does not think it is right that we lead on that, and that will be its consultation response to the DFI sustainable drainage directorate, which is leading on the consultation. There is a range of people who would need to be involved at the table. Who is best placed to call them together? There are DFI Rivers, DFI Roads, DFI sustainable drainage directorate, the councils, and also ourselves and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). All of those people need to be together to really look at the design and whether it works for them, because, if it does not work, it might cause flooding of the roads or a watercourse, or it might overflow into our sewer network. The vast majority of those are not going to be connected to the combined or the foul sewer, and most of them will not even be connected to our surface water sewers. Most of them will be directly connected to watercourses. We have to understand where they will be built, what they will be connected to, and who the stakeholders are in that process. Almost certainly, we should be at the table because NI Water will be maintaining parts of them. They will have flow control devices and they will typically have hard pipes, which NI Water will be adopting, as we do at the moment, but most of the surface water features will probably not be maintained by NI Water going forward because we have to ask who will benefit from it and, essentially, whether a parkland will be created that serves the community and benefits the community. The people who will be maintaining it and looking after it going forward would have to be part of it. We do not have the answer to that, and maybe it is not appropriate to pre-empt the findings of the consultation of the next stage, but it does need to be resolved. In England, the SuDS approval authority is made up of councils and water companies.

Mr Dunne: Is there a model across these islands or in GB that works best? I know that Wales and England have different approaches, but do you think councils should take a lead role?

Mr Brow: Yes, absolutely. If I were a member of a council, I would want to be involved in the co-designing or saying what I will accept because, typically, these things will become park features. We have been able to build lots of SuDS in Northern Ireland over the last 20 years, and 10 years ago, I organised a tour for the Committee to go around and see various examples, but the examples were all things that were being built underground that people would never see. There are geo-cellular tanks in Bangor, and there was one at Carrowreagh, which is not too far from here. That was a great shame because we were missing the opportunity to daylight watercourses and create ponds and green spaces. The learning from Scotland, Wales and England is that you can really enhance your environment if you make water a part of it. I must call out Belfast City Council and congratulate it, because, five years ago, it put in place the blue-green infrastructure strategy. It was a leading piece of work that was great. It said that it wanted to transform Belfast and bring water back into the city, and use it to enhance parks and the environment. Does it want to be involved? Yes, absolutely. We have met them recently to look at retrofitting SuDS to a park in Belfast. We are very much working with them and the Department on how that should be designed.

Mr Dunne: There will probably be 11 different approaches from councils in their appetite to take stuff on. Sometimes, Belfast City Council can take a more hands-on approach on different issues. It is an interesting one, and that debate will continue.

I have another point on unlawful sewer connections. Do you find resistance when, ultimately, you are going in to fix an issue? Do you think that powers of entry are required?

Mr Brow: Nine out of 10 times, people are responsible. I might have mentioned one supermarket, and others are available. It will have been horrified to find out that it had a misconnection, and it dealt with it very promptly. Most people who find out that they have a misconnection are like that. The vast majority of those have not been done intentionally; they have been done by accident because people are not experts at knowing that there are two pipes in their garden, with one being foul and the other being surface water. A builder will connect in to it, and, if we come along and knock the door and say that they are causing pollution, their typical response is, "Crikey. How do I get this resolved?".

Mr Dunne: Of course, but you have the tools there if required through this.

Mr McMurray: I will try to go through my points in order. On the hosepipe ban, you mentioned the analytics and your operations room. I have no doubt that there is a lot of data coming through. It is very impressive. Sometimes, I think that we have no shortage of water but that it is just the moving of it and the treating of it that is the issue. You mentioned 15% to 20%. What is the financial saving or implication there?

Dr Venning: It depends on the duration. That high-demand event could last for only one or two days, or maybe three or four days. You are not doing that to save the cost of the production of the water. You are introducing this to ensure that you can reliably produce large quantities of water. For example, if I take a water treatment works and I run it at 100% for five days in a row and it breaks, all of the water in that water treatment works is lost to the network. I am trying to make sure that I am not overstressing my water treatment works. We have not necessarily worked out the additional cost of the 10% or 15% a day. There will be some additional costs. The bigger additional costs in any of those events comes from manning the water treatment works 24/7 when we do not normally do that and from tankering water across Northern Ireland, which can run into millions of pounds if you have to run a fleet of tankers from an area where you have water into an area where you do not have water. That is not very efficient because a tanker contains only 16,000 litres, and I am talking about trying to move millions of litres of water. The avoided costs of some of those interventions that have to be made can be significant, going into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mr McMurray: So it is preventative.

Mr Burke: It is also to make sure that, when you turn your tap on, the water flows. We are making sure that no one goes out of supply. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to achieve, keeping people in supply at all times.

Mr McMurray: I suppose it is about keeping the processing plant within 70% so that it has that capacity. Is that the analogy you are trying to make?

Dr Venning: Did you say "within 70%"?

Mr McMurray: You said that you do not want the processing plant working at 100% and it then maxes out and breaks. Is the idea then to keep it —?

Dr Venning: Sort of. Keep it running. Each water treatment works has what is called a "safe operating load"; there is a specific term for it. It is about keeping it within those levels.

Mr McMurray: Thank you very much. I think that you touched on this. I have an area in my constituency that has flooded through surface water. Are there hotspots where you are concerned about flooding incidents due to the PDIs being unadopted? I am a bit concerned because you mentioned that there are areas where there are surface water issues. Ms Venning, you have been good at communicating to me through the local group, but there are ongoing concerns about flooding. Will this be able to affect areas such as that?

Mr Brow: Yes. It will help us to fix it more quickly, because, at the moment, if we meet stakeholders and say, "We have had a flooding incidence here, and it is because a section of private drainage infrastructure is blocked, deficient or not large enough", we all have a collective sigh. If it is pre-1973, we know that it is going to be so much more difficult.

If it is DFI Rivers, it does not have that problem. If they go through the flowchart that is in your packs and work out that it is watercourse, they can crack on, designate it and get things under way. If it is acting as a Northern Ireland Water sewer, in effect, but it is pre-1973, we know that it is going to be so much more difficult. It is a case of deciding whether we are going to build something new or enter into a potentially long and difficult challenge. If it is down a public road, that is dead easy; but, if it is in private gardens, it is very complicated. Therefore, this will help us to expedite the process of resolving flooding.

Dr Venning: The big, well-known flooding schemes are probably for incapacity reasons in the sewers, and that is what the ask for large-scale investment in drainage infrastructure is designed to address. We are not flagging up particular big, high-profile schemes that are happening because of this PDI. We are saying that, when we see it, it takes a whole lot longer to fix and that it would be better for people if we were able to get on with it.

Mr McMurray: Something you said in your opening remarks linked into sustainable drainage and improving sewerage performance. I wonder what evidence or aspects of this you have seen that show that it works and improves sewerage performance. We all know the infrastructure capacity issues that we have. In your opinion, what have you seen that shows the potential for this to improve the sewerage infrastructure?

Dr Venning: Paddy, do you want to take that?

Mr Brow: Sorry, is your question in relation to private drainage infrastructure?

Mr McMurray: It is about SuDS. The issue opened up when you said about the —.

Mr Brow: You are talking about SuDS. OK. The Department has done something wonderful. It applied for a government transformation fund for a pilot project for SuDS. We really welcome that, because we need to get surface water out of our network. Too much surface water enters it. We call it "unwanted water", and, in a lot of places in Northern Ireland, there are large areas of backs of gardens, driveways, and even streets that are connected into a combined sewer, which means that, when it rains, we have storm overflows discharging and causing pollution. We want to get that water out. To get it out, sometimes the watercourse does not have capacity, so we have to slow it down. We have to mimic nature. Nature never created big pipes that rush the water down to the sea very quickly: it slows it all down. By retrofitting SuDS, that will help us to reduce pollution.

The question arises, however, of how complicated that is and how much it will cost. Can we, at the same time as building, build in SuDS? Can we not just build big, oversized tanks and concrete things that add no value but put in nice features that will be of benefit to the local community? That is what we will use that funding for. The Department came to us and asked whether we can deliver it. We said, "Of course", and we are working with the Department over the next three years to deliver between £15 million and £30 million of projects. We have selected an area of Belfast in which to work, because we have to work in one concentrated area to see the benefit. It spans two council areas: Belfast City Council and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, because of their characteristics and issues. The network that we are working on is our worst-performing one, where we have a lot of overflows that discharge, some of them even in dry weather, into Belfast lough, causing pollution. Retrofitting SuDS in that location will reduce the amount of surface water that enters the network and causes those pollution events.

It does not replace the need for the large capital schemes. The treatment works that serve Belfast all need to be upgraded for environmental reasons and to provide increased capacity for economic growth. However, it is a part of the jigsaw that means that we can start making those improvements. Therefore, we say that it is not a silver bullet. It does not take away the need to invest and to find the funding to do those investment projects, but it is part of the jigsaw of helping it to improve. In time, people will see the environment in which they live and their parklands become more attractive. They will see less pollution in rivers, so, rather than turning their back on a river, because it is full of sewage when it rains, they will turn towards it and recognise that it provides a benefit. We welcome this as a step forward.

Mr McMurray: This is my final question. In your opening remarks, you mentioned that infrastructure has been paused and not bid for. I do not want to sound prickly, if that makes sense, but has NI Water given up on infrastructure? We all know the scale of it.

Dr Venning: No. That is very much not the case. However, we know that a scheme will cost hundreds of millions of pounds. We were asked to plan for £321 million. We have received additional funding that has taken us to £361 million. If I have a £200 million scheme that runs over two years, I have no way to set aside £100 million a year for two years, because I have no window into the second year, and I cannot afford that £100 million within the £300 million envelope that I have when I take out the guts of £200 million to do maintenance. Therefore, I cannot bid for that money, because I cannot deliver the scheme.

We are getting to the point where we are not designing future schemes. We have schemes that are ready to go, but we could not bid for those big living with water schemes, because they are multi-year schemes that cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and they do not fit into £321 million, plus or minus whatever funding might come our way. Once you start, you are committed, and you have to be able to keep going. The living with water programme board said that the funding was not available, and, therefore, we had to pause. Those big schemes have been paused, and we cannot bid for them at this point.

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I will stick with that for a second. Sara, who comprises the living with water programme board? I just do not know.

Dr Venning: Living with water was a big and strategic programme of work for drainage in Belfast. It was chaired by DFI, which formed a programme board that then brought together all the interested parties: NI Water, the Environment Agency, the Utility Regulator, Belfast City Council and Rivers Agency. We designed an efficient way of dealing with drainage in Belfast. It was about making sure that everybody was not trying to solve their own problem. We all worked together to solve a holistic problem. Working together keeps costs lower, albeit it is an expensive solution. Ninety per cent of the work that we agreed needed to be done would have been delivered by NI Water, but the programme board was chaired by DFI.

As a result of inflation, the costs in our revised strategic outline case increased. At that point, the permanent secretary asked the senior responsible officer (SRO) to conduct a review. The recommendation that came out of that review was that the living with water programme board be stood down and that funding would not be available for the programme, which then brought about the pause. It means that I cannot bid for the funds, because I have been told that there are no funds. We have been very clear. We took all the work into an outline business case. We had designs and were ready to go. We had the supply chain in place as well. We were ready to deliver work in Belfast waste water treatment works. We are doing the same for Whitehouse and Kinnegar, both of which are in the Belfast area. People will say, "Well, it's up to NI Water to decide what it is that it can do. It has been given £361 million this year". However, I cannot take that decision, given that I cannot allocate a chunk to it — £200 million out of £361 million — because too many other things would not be done and NI Water would therefore not be a functioning waste water company. Therefore, those projects have been paused.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): A point on the language: you used the term "bid". Walk me through how Northern Ireland Water bids for something. My understanding is that the Department bids for Executive funding and that is apportioned. Will you explain that "bid" term?

Dr Venning: Our "bid" is us informing the Department as our shareholder. We do not do any direct bidding, but we engage with the Department as our shareholder.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Essentially, you are saying to the Department, "Look, if you want us to deliver the living with water programme, we need this", and the Department will then take a view on whether it will progress the bid.

Dr Venning: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine.

Dr Venning: To step it back, we set out all the things that the water company should do in Northern Ireland in a six-year window. The Utility Regulator scrutinised that and said, "That is the minimum that it is necessary to do for water and waste water infrastructure in that six-year window, please go ahead and do it". When it scrutinised the programme, it also said that it thinks that we are doing it at the least cost.

Based on that programme, we submit each year to the Department and say, "In year 1 of PC21, we need this amount of investment", and we do that in year 2 and year 3. We are then held to account for the delivery of kilometres of water mains refurb and the number of water treatment works that were enhanced. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency holds us to account, saying, "We want higher standards". We then say, "This is the investment that is required to do that". In year 5 of the PC21 programme, we find ourselves not being able to deliver the outputs that the regulator said are the minimum for Northern Ireland because we have not been given the investment to do those schemes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I suspect that it will be an interesting session when you are next back and we turn to finance. That is very useful.

I have one more question for Paddy. Paddy, you referenced the "transformation fund". For clarity, is that the public-sector transformation fund?

Mr Brow: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. If the information from DOF is right, it looks as though it is giving you something for natural solutions for urban drainage. Assuming that the figures are in hundreds of thousands, it is giving nought in 2024-25 and £375,000 in 2025-26. It then significantly scales up to £4·5 million.

Mr Brow: Yes. Our understanding is that the Department will be given £15 million from that fund, and it will provide match funding for it.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Oh.

Mr Brow: That is the Department's intention and hope. We are, certainly, ramping up to be able to deliver that. It will be really helpful in giving us an understanding of the costs of retrofitting SuDS. A lot of the legislation is looking at private developers.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It looks at putting new stuff in, but this is about retrofitting.

Mr Brow: We want to retrofit, and we welcome that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. I wanted clarity on where the money was coming from.

Nicola is online, and she has her hand up. She has been so patient.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for your briefing. It is great to see and hear so much positivity about the Bill, as well as Sara's remarks on the Minister's three-pronged approach overall when it comes to issues around waste water infrastructure. We all know that there are serious issues, and we want to see them being addressed. I am pleased that you support the Minister's actions.

John, you mentioned the 2020 report from stakeholders and the fact that the Minister took on board those recommendations. We often talk about the fact that we need to listen to the experts in the room who fully understand the issues, so that is also really welcome.

I want to pick up on some of the conversation about the hosepipe ban, particularly what you and Andrew talked about in relation to the potential cost saving from tankering. How often do you have to move water around the North at a cost of millions?

Dr Venning: It depends on the size and scale of the event. The cost of tankering associated with the freeze and thaw event in 2010 was, I think, £5 million. I think that I should come back to you about that, but I am sure that, this summer, we have used tankers on at least three occasions, and the cost would not have been anywhere near hundreds of thousands of pounds. It would have been tens of thousands of pounds for tankering that was done during the summer.

Miss Brogan: OK. If you could come back on that, that would be helpful, Sara.

Dr Venning: Yes.

Miss Brogan: How often are hosepipe bans used at the minute? Do you see their use being significantly increased because of changes to our climate and more adverse weather situations? Do you see that happening more often?

Mr Burke: Prior to 2018, I think that the last hosepipe ban was in 1995, although I stand to be corrected. Certainly, NI Water had not introduced a hosepipe ban since 2007. My understanding is that there was a ministerial direction in 1995 because of the situation at that time. I could not say when there was a hosepipe ban prior to that. We have raised awareness with a lot of publicity during weather events when it got to the stage where we were trying to keep up with demand. However, the last time we had a hosepipe ban was in 2018.

Dr Venning: In relation to climate change, you can absolutely expect more water stress. A number of water companies in the UK had to ask for hosepipe or temporary usage bans this summer. As part of our long-term water strategy, which feeds into our price control processes, we look at what would need to be done to reinforce the water network to prevent the need for a hosepipe ban. We will always try to make sure that we have sufficient capacity in the water treatment works to produce the water, sufficient capacity and connections in the clean water distribution network to transfer water, and sufficient practices to make sure that we are operating the network to the best of our ability so that we do not need that. Climate change means that we will need to do more to make that happen. We will need to invest more capital in our water treatment works and invest more operating costs in running our business so that customers do not have a hosepipe ban and are not inconvenienced.

I think that Paddy —.

Miss Brogan: That is fair enough. It is going to be a last resort sort of thing rather than a first approach.

Dr Venning: Very much so.

Miss Brogan: Sorry, go on ahead, Paddy.

Mr Brow: Maybe some good news. Although funding was constrained in this price control period, we were able to deliver phase 1 of the Belfast water resilience hub. We were increasingly having to use tankers, and the arrangements that we had in Belfast were not great. At the Kennedy Way hub, which opened in the past two months, we built a fantastic state-of-the-art tanker-filling point, which means that we can bring tankers in off the road and fill them in about 10 minutes. The filling point is connected to our two largest water treatment works via the cross-town main, so it can be supplied with water from the Mournes or Dunore water treatment works. That is now operational, which is great.

We will extend that facility in other price controls to include other resilience features. As Sara said, since we took over the network 18 years ago, we have been slowly investing in trunk mains, making our system more resilient, and connecting each treatment works so that, if a water treatment works goes down, the last resort is an outage for customers.

Miss Brogan: That is good, and hopefully we will see that being extended over to West Tyrone at some stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): A good stretch there, Nicola. [Laughter.]

Miss Brogan: Never forget about west of the Bann.

I agree with you about the advertising of hosepipe bans. I think what the Minister said in response to those questions was that the minimum would be to advertise in two newspapers. However, she would agree that it should be on social media as well so that people get notified as quickly as possible. Most people would agree that that makes sense.

Thanks very much. It was good to see you here today.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you very much, Nicola.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks.

To what extent is the Bill a catch-up, tidying-up Bill?

Mr Brow: As John said, we identified a lot of issues, starting with the long-term water strategy. The Bill addresses a lot of loose ends, not for just the Northern Ireland Water parts of the legislation but in other parts of the legislation.

Mr McNulty: How does the Bill differ from SPPS 2015, PPS 15 and the Water and Sewerage Services Act 2016? How does it go beyond those?

Mr Burke: The 2016 Act was a minor one. I have a copy of the 2016 Act. No, I do not.

Dr Venning: Maybe we could take that away to come back, because we are probably not qualified to give you a concise answer to that this morning.

On the one hand, you could ask whether it is a catch-up, but, on the other, from my perspective, as chief executive, not having the water use temporary ban clauses available to us impacted on us during the summer. As we were operationally thinking about heading into a summer where we were looking at high demand, knowing that we did not have clarity for the public in the advice that we could give them was a difficulty. The ability to have natural SuDS or soft SuDS is missing. You might call it a catch-up, but it is important, and it will be beneficial. In NI Water, we generally talk about misconnections as something that we know to be a difficulty and want to see resolved. Those are good things. Although you might call them a tidy-up, they are definitely good and beneficial.

Mr Burke: I think that the 2016 Act was the first time that SuDS became enshrined in legislation. It possibly also removed our need to install meters for new domestic connections. If new houses were built, meters were automatically put in, even though we were not billing people. I think that the then Minister felt that that was not necessary. That is my recollection, but I can check the 2016 Act. The two key things in it were the introduction of SuDS, which encouraged developers to consider SuDS and enabled us to consider SuDS, and the removal of the requirement to install meters to all new properties. My recollection is that it is a short Act. I had my hand on a copy of it this morning, and I replaced a file, but I am happy to look at it to see what it contains.

Mr McNulty: Notwithstanding the fact that there are positives around hosepipes, SuDS, flood protection, environmental impacts, miscommunications and a sewerage undertaker, it should have been implemented a long time ago. Are developers and contractors now obliged to implement SuDS? What is the requirement? Is it greenfield run-off? Where do things stand? What is the threshold for the implementation of those guidelines? Are they obliged to do so?

Mr Brow: In most cases, when a developer is doing a development, DFI Rivers — not Northern Ireland Water — will say that they have to be restricted to a greenfield run-off. Alternatively, if we have to take the water into our surface water network, we, ultimately, have to discharge it into rivers. A charge will be imposed on us for that, so we pass that back up the line.

In a lot of cases, developers are being required to put in sustainable drainage systems, and they want to do the right thing; they want to create an attractive development. However, it is quite tricky for them to build the right type, which is soft SuDS green features. Typically, they go through a process of wanting to put in green SuDS. That might be cheaper and more attractive, but, at the end of the day, they know that they will get us to approve the design for hard SuDS, which is an oversized concrete pipe or a big geo-cellular system, so they go down that route. DFI wants to give developers options to help them to reduce the cost and build more attractive things. We support DFI in that respect. That is why the Bill enables that subsequent legislation to be brought in after the consultation.

There is work ongoing. We are not through to that stage yet. We have to work with the other partners, such as people involved in drainage, to work out how we are going to do that, but let us look forward to a future in which a developer can come to a SuDS approval body, which is chaired by whomever, with whatever members; they get great guidance about the type of SuDS that we would like them to build; they are clear on the design guidance; they design it; and they get approval. That would be great, but we are not there yet. That is the future, and we all want to get to that point.

Mr McNulty: Forgive the pun, but that is downstream. [Laughter.]

I am delighted that an innovative approach has been adopted in Newry to free up connections to up to 400 units, with £26 million having been invested. What did that innovative approach entail? Was it about separation and offsetting through separation or an upgrading of the Warrenpoint Road pumping station? What are the innovative solutions on that front?

Dr Venning: Too often, people say that I come to the Committee and decry a lack of investment. It is clear that Northern Ireland as a whole is struggling with the amount of capital that is available. NI Water, in trying to play its part, has a huge programme of capital investment that is looking at drainage, and we took an innovative approach. In the past, a water treatment works may have been at capacity. Invariably, it needed to be made bigger, which costs a lot of money. We therefore decided to look at the whole system. How does stuff get to the water treatment works? It comes through a sewer network. What is connected to that sewer network? What traders are there? The world has moved on, and there have been all sorts of innovations with sensors, IT equipment and systems. Through the small business research initiative, we worked with some companies that had innovative products. We put sensors in the sewers and were able to take signals from them in order to understand what was happening in the sewer network.

Paddy talked earlier about unwanted water. We can identify areas where there is unwanted water in the network. We worked with local traders in the area who, for their own good reasons, were looking at their effluent. Their effluent was coming to our works and taking up a large chunk of the treatment capacity. They took steps to do more pre-treatment on their site, thereby reducing the load on our works. Having taken all of that into account, we were able to apply a whole-catchment approach in Newry, as well as to invest maintenance money in our works, look at our processes and upgrade some of our equipment, although not build new tanks, and we have been able to create the space that took us from a place in which we were having to say, "That town is closed to new development" to one in which we can say that we have created some space to connect development.

When we do the traditional build, we are future-proofing. We are perhaps getting 20 or 30 years of future-proofing and are designing for enhanced environmental standards. We know that Environment Agency standards are increasing, as they are in the rest of the UK, so our investment programme will be looking to say, "In building for the future, we need to meet these standards". The Bill does not do that, although it does not make the environment any worse. It provides some environmental betterment but not the level of environmental betterment that we need and want and that the Environment Agency asks of us. The Bill makes things a little bit better and has created some capacity, but it is not a fix. People could get very hopeful and say, "You can do that everywhere, and that will be great". Look at some of the things that are happening in Belfast, including the pollution that exists in Belfast lough. We will not be able to address that unless we invest in big waste water treatment works and in some of the sewer networks.

We used Newry as a pilot. We did not know whether it would work, but we now think that it will. We now believe in it and are investing our money in it. Every catchment is different, with different types of traders and connections, so we are looking at four other areas to see whether we can get some additional capacity there. Again, that is not a quick fix, because the areas have to be studied for the guts of a year in order to understand the flows in the network. Seasonality also has to be taken into account. The worst thing for us to do would be to make a judgement based on summer flows, only to have flooding when the winter comes. We are therefore looking at four additional areas and asking, "How can we utilise this type of innovation to make sure that, when we put in our bid for the next capital programme, we make the best use of the investment?".

Mr McNulty: I applaud that collegial approach. Working with traders and other stakeholders is positive. I know that it is a drop in the ocean, given the number of housing developments that have been stalled because of lack of access to the treatment network. The rampaging elephant in the room is capacity, because no drains means no cranes.

Have you conducted an audit to determine what the economic downside is to having a lack of capacity in the sewage network? Do you have knowledge to be able to say that a certain level of economic development is being held back at a certain annual cost to the economy? There are huge economic positives to getting the construction sector up to its proper capacity, which it cannot get to now, because of the lack of capacity in the network.

Dr Venning: People generally welcome that kind of work when independent third parties do it. I point the Committee to the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council's report on water sustainability, which contains some good analysis. There is also some of the work that the industry bodies are doing. The position paper that the Construction Employers Federation, alongside Grant Thornton, produced also contains some interesting facts and figures. It quantifies the current reduction in building activity in Northern Ireland. We have done some work in the past with Ulster University on the economic benefit associated with investment in water and waste water infrastructure.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Justin, I ask you to focus your questions on the Bill.

Mr McNulty: In the six-page wish list that you mentioned, what was not included that you had wanted to be included?

Mr Burke: I will get the wish list out again.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We are all dying to see the wish list.

Dr Venning: For time's sake, we should get back to you on that question.

Mr Burke: There is a range of areas, but I will happily get back to you.

Dr Venning: It is probably fair to say that people have only so much capacity and that the Department has taken on board the most important areas.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): You will provide the Committee with that wish list. Justin, we will get sight of it for you. It will certainly be interesting for the Committee to have a look at.

Mr McNulty: I have one final question. How do you enforce when there are miscommunications?

Mr Brow: Typically, people and companies are horrified when they find out that there has been a misconnection and are quick to work with us. The hotel in Belfast and the supermarket that I mentioned earlier dealt with theirs very quickly. As I said, there was a caravan park owner — I will not mention the site — who did not want the season to be interrupted by digging up the caravan park to fix the connection, and that was frustrating. Typically, however, people are very responsible, although there are sometimes instances in which they have commercial interests that do not align with environmental interests. We are very much driven by protecting the environment and protecting customers from flooding. That is what drives us. Where there is a clash, that is where the legislation will be helpful.

Mr Burke: I can confirm that no one has been prosecuted under article 166 of the 2006 Order.

Mr McNulty: If a business refuses to comply, what are the enforcement powers?

Mr Burke: If there is a misconnection under article 166, we have the power of entry to repair the connection. Following the Bill's amending of that article, we will be able to recover the costs. Under the current legislation, we can recover the costs only from the offender, which is someone who has caused the misconnection. Under the proposed legislation, we will be able to recover from the occupier, as the current owner. They may not have caused the misconnection in the first place, but it is now their problem. Once the amendment comes into force, we will be able to recover the money from them.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Thank you John, Sara and Paddy for what has been the longest evidence session that I have experienced in my time in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I hope that it was respectful and thorough, which is what this Committee tries to be. I know that you are dying to come back to us really soon to talk about finance. No doubt, we will be lying awake looking forward to that one in, hopefully, the next few weeks. That will be an important session for us. Thank you for coming and answering all the questions. The Committee will probably write to you to request more information on a few additional points.

Dr Venning: Thank you.