William Irwin
Newry and Armagh · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely together, and I hold you in high esteem. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into the matter. I was at the funeral on Sunday, and the family are devastated by their loss. The lady was going to get her hair done and was killed on that main road.”
“I thank my party colleagues and Members from all sides of the House who have wished me well on the occasion of my retirement. It has been an absolute privilege to represent Newry and Armagh since 2007. I think that most people will recognise that I represented everyone irrespective of their class or creed.”
“The Minister may be aware that the Bramley apple industry in County Armagh is worth in the region of £20 million to the local economy. For growers, cold stores are vital to the protection and keeping of the apples. Most of those cold stores are now 30, 40 or 50 years old. Growers need help to replace and renew those stores.”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and for her efforts on the matter. The deputy First Minister will be aware that a large number of vaccines are used by the intensive farming sectors. Does she agree that it would be a serious issue if those medicines were not available?”
“I thank the Minister for his responses so far. We are aware of the reports that thousands of tons of raw sewage has been pumped into Belfast lough. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unacceptable and that something needs to be done as soon as possible?”
“That having been said, securing PGI status for the Armagh Bramley in 2012 was hard worked for and very welcome. That has been a valued and unique selling point, not only for the Bramley variety in the Armagh area but for apples generally in all their varieties, as well as apple-based products.”
The complete record
Every one of 984 lines we hold for William Irwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 20.
“I welcome the opportunity to speak, today, as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development. As such, I represent the views of that Committee. The views that I will express today on the Budget Bill will be very similar to those I made last week during the debate on the Main Estimates. The Committee last received an oral briefing from the Department on 2 June 2015, on the Main Estimates. During that briefing, a number of concerns were expressed by Committee members, namely about the payment of grants to farmers, the voluntary exit scheme and TB compensation. I will elaborate on these in more detail as I go through my speech. <BR /> <BR />As I stated on 15 June, DARD has responsibility for the payment of EU grants to farmers, and we do not underestimate the work involved in that.”
“I welcome the fact that the Minister has made efforts to resolve the labelling saga. Does she feel that we are any nearer to a resolution?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept, given that farmers can be fined under cross-compliance for having noxious weeds on the ground, that it should be a priority for him and his Department to ensure that noxious weeds do not seed and spread over farmers' land?”
“I refer the Minister to paragraph 11 of her statement and the management agreement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Ireland. She will know that that agreement is required to enable the agency to carry out its job fully. Will she outline what progress has been made since the issue was last discussed in the Assembly during the ministerial statement in February 2015?”
“We, as a Committee, cannot understand that, and we are not happy with the explanation that we have been provided with. We questioned DARD officials on 2 June, and we will be keeping a very close eye on administration expenditure in the future. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.”
“The answer was not reassuring. The Department basically told us that it was exploring contingencies, that none of them were palatable and that difficult decisions would have to be made. A final point to make on the issue of TB compensation is that the additional bid is due to a spike in TB incidence. That is something that we are not happy with, and we have called for additional information. <BR /> <BR />The final issue that I want to cover, which was raised at the Committee, is the upward trend in departmental administration costs. Those costs have risen from £54 million in 2013-14 to nearly £58 million in 2014-15, and the Main Estimates show a further increase to just over £60 million in 2015-16. On top of that, programme costs over that same period have dropped considerably.”
“<BR /> <BR />Testing for TB in cattle and the payment of compensation are statutory responsibilities: they must be done. Given the uncertainties over the Budget process, we, as a Committee, had to ask the "What if?" question. Mr Poots directly asked the DARD officials:”
“This year, for the first time, we see the full costs for TB built into the Main Estimates. Previously, there had been a structural deficit in the Main Estimates in that only around £5 million was allowed for TB. That meant that the Department had to constantly seek additional funding for TB in the monitoring rounds. Our Deputy Chairperson, Joe Byrne, referred to the Department’s reliance on the monitoring round for TB compensation as being like relying on a slush fund. He was not too far wrong. <BR /> <BR />This year, for the first time, we saw a baseline of £12·5 million in the Main Estimates for TB. You can imagine the Committee's disappointment when it was informed that that line in the Estimates was incorrect and that an additional £4·5 million bid was being made in the June monitoring round.”
“As a result, the Committee keeps a very close eye on the costs of TB, including not just compensation paid to farmers but the costs associated with testing and research.”
“The Committee is aware that DARD is expected to make savings in salaries of £5·9 million from the exit of staff. The Committee was interested to explore the firmed-up figures and any assessment the Department has made regarding the figure of £5·9 million. The Committee was interested in DARD's assessment of whether it would make that saving and what impact it would have on its Main Estimates if it did not. Unfortunately, the officials were unable to tell us very much, other than that DARD staff who had applied had received letters that morning. That was 2 June. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also questioned DARD on the budget provision for TB compensation. As the Assembly and Members are aware, TB compensation has been very costly to the public purse.”
“We, therefore, fully expect that DARD will be able to meet the same payment timetable as last year. <BR /> <BR />There has also been some speculation in the media regarding the legalities around the payment of the EU grant in the event that no Budget can be agreed and the permanent secretary of DFP takes over the Budget for Northern Ireland. This is the issue of accruing of resources. I was, therefore, pleased to note that the Minister of Finance and Personnel stated during Question Time on 9 June that she was taking steps and was confident that the basic farm payment would be paid, even if it is not through the normal processes. Northern Ireland farmers will take some assurances from that. <BR /> <BR />In its further scrutiny of the Main Estimates, members of the Committee questioned officials on the voluntary exit scheme.”
“All applicants need to provide proof that they are an active farmer, and that proof needs to be checked and verified by DARD. <BR /> <BR />In the past, the Committee has received assurances from the Minister and DARD officials that the basic payment system is the number one priority for the Minister and the Department. The Committee acknowledges that the system has changed and is more complex to administer, but there has also been a fall in the number of applications. This year, we have seen an increase in the number of applications made online, which makes the administration easier. Those two factors — the falling number of applications and more applications made online — plus the additional support that DARD has requested for IT systems in the June monitoring round should counter any proposed increase in complexity.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee is adamant that the main priority for DARD should be its front-line services to farmers and the wider rural communities and, specifically, the payment of the EU grant. The Committee recently received a separate written briefing on the numbers applying for the EU grant through the single application form. We are aware that this year is a time of great change and flux for DARD. The system has changed, and, instead of a single payment of an EU grant to a farmer, there are now up to five separate areas where the farmer can claim payments. All those new areas need to be checked, inspected and verified, and some of those inspections are new and different from what went before. For example, all applicants to the fund now need to meet a new criterion called the active farmer.”
“I am speaking today as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will represent the views of that Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received material and documentation from DARD on the Main Estimates and took oral evidence from officials on 2 June 2015. In carrying out its scrutiny of the Main Estimates, the Committee noted the following issues and concerns. First, and most importantly, the Department is the paying agency for EU grants to farmers. The Main Estimates that DARD presented to us on 2 June show a figure of just over £245 million for CAP. The administration and payment of CAP funds is DARD's single biggest task and responsibility. It is no surprise, therefore, that when we examined the Main Estimates, that is where the Committee focused its attention.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Does the Minister accept that the elderly and vulnerable who have been victims of crime in their home feel very vulnerable and should be worthy of funding?”
“I thank the Minister for her response. Does she accept that there is frustration in the industry over the length of time it has taken to get this scheme up and running?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. Given that a fairly recent survey identified that up to 50% of filling stations in Northern Ireland are selling laundered fuel, does he feel that legislation is in place to deal with the problem? Naming and shaming filling stations is one thing, but surely it is a criminal offence to sell illicit fuel.”
“The fifth group of amendments were brought forward by the Minister. They were not seen or discussed by the Committee during the Committee Stage of the Bill. In fact, the issue that these amendments cover was never raised in any of the evidence presented to the Committee. Departmental officials informed the Committee of the amendments and provided it with the text, but it never took a position on them. Thank you.”
“<BR /> <BR />As additional protection, the paused parts of the Bill will require affirmative resolution in the Assembly to be commenced. The Committee discussed this proposal and associated amendments at some length. Concerns were expressed by all Committee members. However, after due consideration of all the issues and the proposal, and on foot of reassurances from the Minister, the Committee indicated that it was content and commended the Department for bringing this revised approach and the amendments to clause 120 on commencement and clause 29. <BR /> <BR />I, therefore, put on record that the Committee is content with the ministerial amendments in this group.”
“It proposed a new approach that would allow for an initial financial assistance package for reservoir managers to enable them to undertake the first inspection process as detailed in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is to be enacted but with only certain sections commenced. Other recurring sections will be paused until the initial financial assistance package has been provided, the inspections undertaken and the findings provided to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: these amendments create two phases. Phase 1, which will be enacted upon Royal Asset, brings in the definitions and makes clear who is responsible for the reservoirs. Phase 2 covers all the recurring elements of the Bill, such as the visits by the engineers.”
“Secondly, an audit would have allowed an informed assessment of the level, type and criteria of any grant aid likely to be needed to bring reservoirs up to the minimum safety standards that the Department would expect. Thirdly, it would have gone some way to addressing the real worries, concerns and, indeed, distress that some reservoir owners are experiencing regarding the potential impact of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Last but not least, an audit would have addressed the information vacuum that appears to exist around the condition of reservoirs in Northern Ireland and the cost of bringing them up to an acceptable standard for public safety. The Department responded to the concerns of the Committee and proposed a fundamental shift in policy approach but within the confines of the existing Bill.”
“Let me be clear: the Committee fully endorses the need to ensure that reservoirs are safe and the public are protected. However, it is strongly of the opinion that the Department should not rely on anecdotal evidence that suggested that some private sector and third-sector reservoirs were old and in poor condition. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered that an audit would have had the following benefits. First, by defining the condition of reservoirs, particularly in the private and third sector, the Department might have provided definitive rather than anecdotal evidence that the Bill in its current format is actually required.”
“Many of these artificial structures were designed with the aim of providing water for industrial usage. Like any man-made structure, they need to be maintained and kept safe. After all, if you own a building, you maintain it to ensure that the roof is sound and the electrics safe. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received evidence from the Department that indicated that the vast majority of reservoirs in Northern Ireland were constructed from clay core embankments, which are now more than 100 years old. It appears that the engineering involved would be considered primitive compared with the standard of reservoir construction today. The Department went on to state that anecdotal evidence suggests that many reservoirs in private and third-sector ownership have not been subjected to any type of maintenance regime over the years.”
“In other words, we can take some comfort that 75 of the 137, or around 54%, are already more or less operating to the spirit of the proposed Reservoirs Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is mindful that the Department is primarily concerned about the 50 reservoirs in private ownership, the nine that are in the ownership of the third sector, and the three in which ownership is still unknown. It is those 62 reservoirs and, particularly, the 31 that are high consequence and the 12 that are medium consequence that are the cause for concern. It is those reservoirs that will be obliged to comply with the entire operating regime in the Reservoirs Bill. The low-consequence reservoirs will have a light touch operating regime. <BR /> <BR />After all, reservoirs are man-made.”
“An audit would have provided the proof that the Bill is required and that the policy approach in the Bill, for example, the panel engineer system, is the correct approach. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that the lack of information concerning the condition of reservoirs and the likely cost to repair and maintain them has made decision-making in other areas of the Bill difficult. The Committee is aware that, of the 137 reservoirs, 48 belong to Northern Ireland Water, and those have been maintained to the standards set out in the Reservoirs Act 1975, which applies in England, Scotland and Wales. Another 27 reservoirs in the public sector belong mainly to local authorities and Departments and, with some exceptions, they are also maintained to the spirit of the Reservoirs Act 1975.”
“<BR /> <BR />During its scrutiny, the Committee examined the evidence provided to it and had concerns that the Department had not proved the need for the Bill. The Committee is strongly of the opinion that, before the Bill was introduced to the Assembly, the Department should have carried out an audit of the 150 reservoirs, which were initially anticipated would fall under the remit of the Bill. It was the Committee's opinion that Rivers Agency should have carried out an audit of the reservoirs before the Bill was introduced to the Assembly. Such an audit could have provided basic information on the condition and likely cost of bringing the reservoirs up to an acceptable standard for public safety.”
“In my speech on this group of amendments, I will be explaining some of the background to the phased commencement and talking about an audit of reservoirs. This audit is not mentioned in the Bill. In fact, it sits outside, and is separate to, the Bill, but I have mentioned the audit in every other speech I have made, so Members can be in no doubt of its importance to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />This is a vital aspect of the whole agreement that we came to, as a Committee, with the Department. I think it is fair to say that without the agreement from the Department to do an audit and without the proof that the audit has started none of the other amendments brought here today would have been agreed. In fact, we might be in a very different scenario whereby we would be voting against the Bill.”
“That is the independent body that will hear evidence from the reservoir manager and the Department, and it will make an independent decision. The Department will have no say once the appeals mechanism has been engaged by the reservoir manager. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased, therefore, to restate the Committee position on this issue. After detailed discussions with departmental officials, the Committee voted that it was content with the amendments. The Committee agreed that its decision should be reflected in an addendum to the Committee report on the Reservoirs Bill, to be provided to the Assembly in time for the Consideration Stage debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Earlier in my speech on this group of amendments, I referred to Committee concerns that engineers, by their very nature, often over-specify and go beyond the minimum needed and that private or third-sector owners would lack the expertise and confidence to challenge such specifications. The reassurance that the inspecting engineer must give specific reasons why extra supervising visits are required went a long way in helping the Committee to make its decision on this aspect. If a reservoir is given a clean bill of health and is found to be safe, the Department will readily amend the frequency and number of visits. If, for any reason, the Department decides not to do that, the reservoir owner could appeal that decision to the Water Appeals Commission.”
“The Department also confirmed that the detail will be in the regulations, which can be made only after a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. Therefore, the Committee and the Assembly will have every opportunity to scrutinise, challenge and, where necessary, suggest changes to the draft regulations before they are made. <BR /> <BR />Members noted that the inspecting engineer can specify additional visits by a supervising engineer over and above that required in the regulation, but, in doing so, the inspecting engineer must specify why and how many. That decision is open to challenge and appeal by the reservoir owner. Indeed, officials stated that, when the Department receives information regarding the condition of a reservoir, hopefully the reservoir owner will have nothing to appeal.”
“<BR /> <BR />In an oral evidence session on 10 February 2015, the Department confirmed that the standard minimum number and frequency of visits by a supervising engineer will be reviewed when the Department is presented with information that suggests that the reservoir has achieved an acceptable standard of safety. That information will take the form of an inspection report, an inspection compliance certificate or an annual statement from a supervising engineer. In giving evidence to the Committee, officials noted that they had not yet decided how that would manifest itself, but the number and frequency of inspections would be reduced. <BR /> <BR />In oral evidence to the Committee, officials stated:”
“The Committee further indicated to the Department that it should assume that the information from the reservoir audit, when available, may influence the thinking of what the Committee would like to see in the proposed regulation. The amendments were made available for the Committee to consider at its meeting on 10 February 2015. The full text of the amendments can be found at appendix 1 of the addendum to the Committee report. <BR /> <BR />The proposed amendments will introduce new clause 25A, which will make provision for the Department to make regulations regarding the frequency of visits to a high- or medium-consequence reservoir by a supervising engineer. The proposed amendment will provide that the regulation can vary the frequency of visits by a supervising engineer once the reservoir is brought to an acceptable safety standard.”
“As an early indication, the Committee would like to see a regime whereby the supervising engineer would visit a high-consequence reservoir at least once in every 12-month period, and, for a medium-risk reservoir, at least once in every 36-month period, until the reservoir is brought to a standard that is acceptable. Thereafter, the Committee would like to see the number of visits by a supervising engineer reduced. <BR /> <BR />The Committee indicated that its position on that issue was based on the lack of information about the condition of reservoirs in Northern Ireland. That lack of information means that it was extremely difficult for it to judge whether the schedule of supervised visits, as proposed in the Bill and the amendment, was at the correct level.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 11 November 2014, the Committee revisited that issue and, after a closed-session discussion, consideration of various options and open-session oral briefing with the Department, the Committee confirmed its position. The Committee wrote to the Department requesting that it bring forward an amendment to the Bill to provide that the regime for the number of visits by the supervising engineer to high- and medium-consequence reservoirs is done by regulation subject to draft affirmative procedure. That would replace the provisions in the Bill at clause 25(2)(k) and clause 33(4)(i). The Committee further indicated that the detail of what is in the regulation will need to be discussed with the Committee in due course.”
“That issue is dealt with in another set of amendments that was debated previously, but it is mentioned here because it impacted on the Committee's thinking on the issue. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, during the Committee Stage, the Committee voted that it was not content with clause 25(2)(k) and clause 33(4)(i). Subsequent to that, the Department proposed amendments that would reduce the number of supervised visits at clause 25. The first set of amendments was rejected by the Committee as not going far enough. The second set of amendments was received too late for Committee consideration as it was signing off its report, and the Committee felt that it had not been given adequate time to decide whether it was sufficient. Copies of both amendments are in the addendum to the Committee report at paragraphs 9 and 10.”
“It was also felt that no consideration was given to the impact of this requirement on private owners, such as farmers, and third-sector groups, particularly as a reservoir owner could be charged around £500 each time the engineer called on a supervising visit. <BR /> <BR />The Committee felt that there was insufficient protection for the reservoir owner. There was a feeling among Members that engineers often "over-engineer" — that they will go beyond the minimum that is required. Most of our private-sector or third-sector reservoir owners lack both the expertise and the confidence to challenge reservoir engineers.”
“This was because it affected the ability of the engineer to see and assess changes in the condition of the reservoir that could lead to a breach in the dam wall and flooding. However, the Committee felt that these provisions and requirements were gold-plated, particularly as the Department could not prove that this level of supervision was required for reservoirs in Northern Ireland. This point harps back to the requirement or need for an audit of reservoirs, which I referred to in my opening remarks and on which there will be a different debate. <BR /> <BR />No one is doubting the professionalism of the engineers, but there was a feeling that the Bill was geared too much towards what engineers considered was necessary and not enough to what is actually needed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Supervising engineers are to be retained by the reservoir owner or manager. They are on call at all times for high- and medium-consequence reservoirs. It is anticipated that the supervising engineer will, over time, become familiar with the reservoir. The Department strongly advised that, in this respect, the Bill had been designed around the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers and its reservoir panel. Engineers felt that the provision in the Bill was the minimum standard that the engineers could, in their professional capacity and for professional indemnity reasons, stand over. <BR /> <BR />The Department initially resisted attempts by the Committee to reduce the requirements to one in three for high- and one in five for medium-risk reservoirs.”
“Clause 24 requires a high- or medium-consequence reservoir to be under the supervision of a supervising engineer at all times; ie, on an ongoing basis. Clause 25 sets out the duties of the supervising engineer, with clause 25(2)(k) specifying a minimum number of visits by the supervising engineer per year to high- and medium-consequence reservoirs. <BR /> <BR />Clause 33 requires a high- or medium-consequence reservoir to be subject to an inspection at specified periods and sets out the duties of the inspection engineer. Clause 33(4)(i) provides that the inspecting engineer can specify visits by a supervising engineer over and above that provided for in clause 25. Members will have a copy of the Bill available to them, and there is therefore no need for me to read out the exact provisions or requirements in the clauses.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 10 February 2015, the Department also asked the Committee to note that it had managed to reduce the number of reservoirs falling under the Bill to 137 and that, of those that had been eliminated, 10 are privately owned and three are owned by local councils. The reduction in numbers is, in part, down to the insistence of the Committee that the Department commission and use the information from more detailed flood maps. That has led to an assessment of capacity, which shows that some reservoirs are actually below the 10,000 cubic metres threshold. The Committee expressed its delight at the reduction in numbers. <BR /> <BR />I will now take a few minutes to lay out for you the position regarding the number of visits by engineers.”
“One area that was not initially addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee was the issue of frequency of visits by the supervising engineer. As a result, the Committee voted that it was not content with the relevant clauses in the Bill, namely clauses 25 and 33. The Committee revisited the issue on 11 November 2014, when it finalised its position. That position was presented to Rivers Agency with a request that it bring amendments to address the issue. Rivers Agency returned to the Committee with proposed amendments on 10 February, and, after scrutiny, the Committee agreed that it was content with those proposed amendments. These are the amendments that we are debating now.”
“This group of amendments is on the frequency of visits by supervising engineers. <BR /> <BR />During the time that the Committee carried out scrutiny of the Bill, we identified a number of concerns. Rivers Agency brought draft ministerial amendments to address those concerns, and the vast majority of them were agreed by the Committee. The detail on those amendments can be found in the Committee Bill report and in the addendum to the Committee report. In fact, I recommend that any Member who is speaking today, particularly to this group, ensures that they have both the Committee report and the addendum as source documents.”
“While the Department stayed away from the term "over-engineering", that is the Committee's understanding of what this amendment means. It is the Committee's understanding that the amendment will allow the Department to address reservoir managers’ concerns about over-engineering. The Committee indicated that it welcomed and was content with the amendment to clause 106. <BR /> <BR />As the DUP spokesperson for agriculture, I welcome the amendment put forward by Tom Elliott and Robin Swann. It is a good idea and we have absolutely no problems with it and welcome it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee therefore welcomed proposals, sought by the Committee and brought by the Department, to amend clause 106 to allow the Department to scrutinise the contents of reservoir engineers' reports. When presenting this amendment, the Department noted that instead of there just being reference to the "quality" of the reports, it has added the words "and content". The word "quality" could relate to just format and type, and whether it is in the right paragraphs or covers roughly the right issues. The amendment goes further and allows the Department to consider what the report actually says. <BR /> <BR />Where a reservoir manager is concerned about over-engineering, the Department will have an interest in that as the reservoir authority.”
“<BR /> <BR />We were very concerned that the Bill lacked sufficient checks and balances on the engineers particularly, but not exclusively, around costs and charges and prevention of requirement of works above what would be necessary for minimum safety standards. Many who spoke to the Committee indicated concerns that an engineer would over-specify works on the precautionary principle, ie, that works would be over-engineered on a risk-averse principle. Part of this concern arises from what the Committee considers is an information vacuum around the types of works and associated charges made by the various reservoir engineers. In general, lay people do not understand the engineering associated with reservoirs and lack the knowledge and confidence to challenge reservoir engineers.”
“The final amendment I will mention in this group concerns clause 106. The Committee had concerns that the Bill could be viewed as — and some of those who spoke to the Committee called the Bill — an "engineers' charter". The Committee considered that this may be a particular concern for the private-sector and third-sector reservoir managers who are lay people and are, perhaps, less able to understand and challenge recommendations that reservoir engineers may make regarding the number of supervising visits and/or the repair, capital and remedial works that may be required for a reservoir, or other similar such requirements.”
“The Committee, therefore, welcomes the new clause 106A that proposes that the Department:”
“Many had assumed it was a natural structure and were unaware of the potential for and consequences of dam failure due to the fact that flood maps had never been issued to advise of the risk. <BR /> <BR />Most were also unaware that, under common law, they would be responsible for any failure of the reservoir. An amendment at the request of the Committee will see that the Department will collect and publish information on actual costs incurred by reservoir owners and managers in Northern Ireland. While this will not be helpful in the short term, it should help to address another information gap around the Bill in the longer term. It will also allow reservoir owners to compare and contrast costs with other reservoirs and help to assure them that they are getting value for money.”
“For example, Newry and Mourne District Council raised concerns with Members regarding the estimated costs of over £2 million for the remedial and capital works for Camlough lake. We have been told that Camlough lake is an extraordinary case with extreme costs associated with it and that those costs are unlikely to be repeated for any other reservoir. <BR /> <BR />When we spoke to the Institution of Civil Engineers about the potential costs, they stated that the big issue was the capital cost of repairing dams and bringing them up to the standard of public reservoirs. They also advised that funding for inspections and repairs is a serious issue in the UK. In addition, the Committee discovered that some reservoir owners or managers in the private and third sectors did not realise that the body of water on their land was a reservoir.”
“As with the information on the condition of the 137 controlled reservoirs in Northern Ireland, it is the Committee's opinion that there is an information gap on the costs that reservoir manager can expect to meet to comply with the Bill. Despite the fact that legislation of a similar nature has been operational in England, Scotland and Wales for decades, the Committee could find no public information on the financial cost of compliance. The engineers also did not appear to any such information at hand regarding costs, which, of course, surprised us. <BR /> <BR />What little information was available appeared to suggest that capital costs could often be extremely high, and that has caused concern and, indeed, distress for some of the private- and third-sector owners, who worry about their ability to meet such costs.”