Welcome to this Northern Ireland Affairs Committee session on the environmental situation in Lough Neagh. I would like to welcome our guests to give evidence: Kathleen McBride, William Irvine, Gerry Darby, Gary Curran and Angela Halpenny.

Might I just declare an interest? Lord Shaftesbury is a constituent of mine and owns the bed of the lough.

How important is Lough Neagh as a resource for your members and the wider Northern Ireland population?

Thank you, Committee, for this opportunity to be here today. As to the question, Lough Neagh is crucial to the whole of Northern Ireland, including the agricultural community. It sits in the centre of our small province. Forty-two per cent of the landmass drains into it, 40% of our drinking water comes from it, and it is a major resource for the province.

It is a major resource not just for the farming community but for the people who live around it and visit it. There is the sand trading. It is an industrial lough. It is important to remember that it is a commercial lough. There is commercial fishing happening on the lough, and sand extraction. Over 1.5 million tonnes of sand are extracted from the lough every year, so it is very important economically to the construction industry and for employing local people. It is not exactly a major visitor hub of Northern Ireland, but visiting and recreational leisure has been seriously impacted by the blue‑green algae crisis.

As the Lough Neagh Fishermen’s Co-operative, the lough is the be-all and end-all of our members’ livelihoods. Over the last three years we have seen a deterioration in the quantities of fish being caught. You will also be aware of the quality of the eels now being captured. The lough is the essence of what we are about. We are a fishermen’s co-op, so what happens in the lough has a massive economic effect on our livelihoods. It would be fair to say that, from a commercial perspective, we are the industry that has suffered most at the heart of this. We feel that the lough itself has to be brought back to some sort of balance going forward. We went from, I suppose, a reasonable income for fishermen last year to this year having absolutely nothing because of the situation with the eels. If that was to happen in any other industry, there would be an outcry, and I appeal today that there should be an outcry about going from income to absolutely zero over the last 12 months. That is how much of an impact it is having on my members and my fishermen.

Ms McBride, you set out the impacts clearly. Could I ask Mr Darby about the public health and ecological consequences of these recurring blooms?

The ecological consequences are pretty significant. The Office for Environmental Protection has made it clear that the main impact on biodiversity, habitats and species in the lough has been nutrient overload and pollution, which has consequently created the blue-green algae. As well as the blue-green algae and nutrient problems, the issues of habitat loss have been really significant around the shores of the lough, to the extent whereby, although it is a designated site, it is unfavourable. It is not identified as a favourable site, so there are pretty strong consequences. About 12% of the species in the lough are at the point of extinction in Northern Ireland. For example, as just a little anecdote, to see what a crisis we are in, there are only four breeding pairs of curlew on the shores of Lough Neagh. That is 100 miles of shoreline—the equivalent of Belfast to Dublin—and there are only four breeding pairs left. The ecological impact has been pretty horrendous, to be very frank with you.

Does anybody have a handle on the spread and the quantum of the algae this summer compared with last? It struck me that last year the headlines were very dominant across media, and this year apparently less so.

Anecdotally, I would say that, from driving around and looking at the lough, and from listening to lots of radio and TV interviews, it definitely appears to be even more significant than in year one, but you need to ask the scientists for a scientific quantitative analysis of that.

We have established that the situation provides environmental and ecological challenge and danger, which is potentially irreversible. We have clearly established that there is an impact on livelihoods as far as fishermen are concerned. Mr Curran, given the backdrop and what we know, what measures has NI Water introduced to reduce sewage entering the lough? If we can start from the premise that the current situation would be better remediated than pro tem attenuated, what are the estimated upgrade costs required in order to—I am loath to use the term “eradicate”—reduce the situation to within acceptable parameters?

In terms of the levels of sewage that are going into the lough, it is fair to say that there have been a number of reports undertaken, with slightly varying levels of apportionment. At Northern Ireland Water we are regulated to a level where we are allowed to put 185 tonnes of phosphorus into the lough. Phosphorus is what we are talking about here in terms of the blue-green algae. At the moment, our compliance levels would suggest that we are putting about 75 tonnes of phosphorus into the lough, so I believe we are already in a position where we are doing what we are asked to do. It is possible to reduce the levels of phosphorus going into the lough. We are working up costs to do that at this moment in time, along with the programme of capital investment that we have for some of our other wastewater treatment works, acknowledging that the vast majority of the works within that very large catchment are compliant.

This is a question we will probably also ask of the Minister. You have referenced reports and studies. Given the scale of the challenge and the arrival at, or certainly closeness to, a tipping point, does the panel understand and share the frustration of many at the passing of the buck, as it were, between interested parties? It is everybody’s responsibility, but nobody’s decision. A succession of reports, studies and everything else props up a wonky bookcase, but it does not actually do anything. Is there a sense of urgency, particularly against the backdrop of the evidence that both Ms McBride and Mr Darby have given us on those two very important impacts? I just don’t get it, I must confess.

In terms of the reports and the analysis that has been undertaken, there is evidence from AFBI. The latest NEW Harmonica draft results would tend to concur with the initial ones that were set out by AFBI maybe a year or two ago. Northern Ireland Water in particular has undertaken quite significant integrated environmental modelling to look at what is coming into the catchment. There are seven catchments flowing into Lough Neagh. We have completed three and are very near to completing the fourth, with another two in a year’s time. The reason it takes a year to get those ones completed is that we look at the catchments over the course of a year. We do not just take a one-off sample. We look at it over the course of the year, take samples and feed those into the models. Those are industry-standard models. It is not something that Northern Ireland Water has just developed itself. They are industry-standard models.

Mr Curran, why can the models not be done concurrently rather than consecutively?

That is because of the resources required to undertake them. They are very resource‑intensive.

Is that personnel or financial?

It is both. We started doing it several years ago—as I say, it takes a number of years to complete—before the focus was on the blue-green algae. We have accelerated the work that we are doing. Those emerging results would be roughly in line with the apportionment that we are seeing elsewhere. It is fair to say that Northern Ireland Water recognises that it owns part of the problem and is part of the solution. We are not walking away from it.

Kathleen, have you been able to calculate the extent to which the algae played a part in the suspension of the eel fishing season?

The suspension of the eel fishing season this year was unprecedented. Eels have always been fished on Lough Neagh. It would be fair to say that, over the last three years, there has been a significant drop in—I do not want to say the quality of the eels—the fat content and the suitability of the eels for the particular market. Our customers informed us up to three years ago, and I have the evidence, that the quantity of fat contained in the eels has been depreciating and getting less and less. Hence, this year, that was that. It was through good will that we were able to operate over the last three years. I have my facts here. We know that 17% of the eels three seasons ago were unsuitable. It was 29% two seasons ago. Last season it was 57%, so it has reached a point where the eels that we are fishing and marketing are now unsuitable for the market. That is the impact. When it gets to 57%, it is unviable, so that is why we suspended eel fishing, first temporarily at the start of the season, to see whether there would be a slight recovery in quality. After doing sample fishes throughout the season, it did not regain its suitability. That is when it was suspended for the season.

Mr Darby, you helpfully mentioned, as a scene setter, that Lough Neagh is a commercial lough. It is not a sanitised reservoir or pleasure facility. Though it has those qualities, it is also commercial. There has been an issue around sand dredging, and you mentioned it. Have you any discernible sense of the ecological impact of sand dredging?

Sand dredging has full planning permission at this present moment in time.

That is not the question. It is the ecological impact of sand dredging.

I am going to come to that, sorry. There has been an ecological assessment of that impact through that planning process and through strategic impact analysis. The reality is that this sand extraction is done in only about 2% of the area of the lough. Everybody thinks it is extracted from all around the lough. That is not the case. In terms of nutrient overload, which is one of the big issues, the impact of sand dredging is very minimal compared with the farming and sewage industries.

You know that the Lough Neagh action plan now has a specific remit of looking at the ecological impact. You have mentioned 2%, and I think I am right in thinking that the dredging takes place up in the north-west of the lough.

Ballyronan, yes. That is correct.

The five licences that have been issued by the Earl of Shaftesbury are not the sum total of the sand dredging that occurs in Lough Neagh. For the last decade, there has been a lot of illegal sand dredging in Lough Neagh as well. That will not have formed part of the earlier permissions that were granted after assessment of the ecological impact. Do you support a more holistic view of the impact of dredging on the ecology of Lough Neagh as part of this action plan?

In terms of ecological analysis, from my perspective and in my opinion, the sand trading is minimal and very much secondary. The science is pretty clear in terms of what the impacts have been. The Office for Environmental Protection is very clear that loss of semi-natural habitat and nutrient overload are the two main factors in the ecological decline and problems that we see in the lough today. In terms of illegal extraction, I am aware that there are some court cases at the moment. The extraction that may have happened, compared with the overall amount, is relatively small, I would suggest.

Was the illegal extraction in the north-west as well, or is it everywhere in the lough?

No, I think it is on the southern shores of the lough. That is my understanding.

Mr Curran, you are going to get different questions from my colleague Ms Eastwood around wastewater treatment, so I do not want to focus on that. You have acknowledged the scale of the phosphorus that Northern Ireland Water is pumping into the lough. There are seven entry points at which human waste is going in. That is one factor. About one third of the ecological damage in Lough Neagh is talked about being directly related to Northern Ireland Water, and two thirds elsewhere. My question is about the impact that has on your ability to provide clean drinking water. A significant proportion of Northern Ireland’s clean drinking water comes from Lough Neagh. Could you give us an understanding as to whether you have had to increase your processes and the material used to clean the water? How much more intensively have your treatment facilities had to operate in the last number of years when this algal bloom has been a more significant problem? Are you using more chlorine? Is there a greater cost? Has it been harder for you to clean the water in the last number of years compared with the last decade?

In terms of what we can influence and the overall loading in the lough, our figures are closer to 20% than a third. Focusing on the drinking water, it is certainly critical not just for Northern Ireland Water but for Northern Ireland that we sustain a high quality of drinking water coming out. We have maintained that over the years and a number of blooms. Our water is still clean and safe to drink, and we advocate the message getting out that it is safe to drink. We have noticed some taste and odour coming towards the end of the algal season. One measure that we would use to remove that taste and odour is granular activated carbon in our filters. To that end, we have been increasing and topping up the levels of that GAC, particularly at Moyola, where we notice most of the taste and odour issues.

Is that charcoal?

It is a form of charcoal, yes.

Is that disturbing the mineral content of the water?

No, it actually improves the quality of the water. Because of the carbon’s large surface area, it absorbs a lot of the pollutants and chemicals. It is something that we use in a lot of our work. It is not specific to Lough Neagh. It helps to remove that taste and odour. We have put in quite a significant additional investment at Moyola. We are looking to do the same at Castor Bay and Dunore Point.

Can you indicate to us what the financial consequence has been of this increased work to clean water around Lough Neagh?

This year, that additional GAC was £2 million.

Thank you very much to all of you. William, in the Lough Neagh action plan, DAERA estimates that 62% of the phosphorus pollution comes from agricultural sources. Is that your understanding?

We would question that percentage, but we are certainly a big player. DAERA had an information event at Greenmount for farmers on the impact on Lough Neagh. I want to read its comment on the 62%. This event happened on 29 May, and it used a slide presentation, which was put up on its website in June. Slide 17 shows the trends of phosphorus in rivers in Northern Ireland. It states that there has been a 38% increase in phosphate in Northern Ireland rivers since 2012, and that agricultural phosphorus needs to be reduced significantly to improve water quality. Then, in the same presentation, on a different slide, DAERA’s own data on slide 15 demonstrated that, over a five-year period from 2018 to 2023, when phosphate levels in rivers were increasing, the agricultural P balance declined by 29%. Agricultural phosphates were reducing.

You would not dispute that intensification of farming over that period—I think they said since 2012, but over the last decade—has reversed some of the water quality improvements.

No, because we have reduced phosphates by 29% over that five-year period, so it makes me think other factors are at play.

Other factors are at play, but is it fairly indisputable that that intensification without mitigations—and I am going to come on to some of those mitigations and the support that is needed—has contributed to a decline in water quality?

We have grown to meet consumer demand. The consumer wants full shelves of high-quality, locally produced food.

I am not trying to be blamey, because I want to talk about Farming with Nature and the supports that are and are not available. I believe that farmers, particularly family farms, are trying to achieve the same balance. I am trying to see where there is agreement that that intensification has been a contribution.

We are part of the problem.

I have said this before. There is a lot of money being made, not necessarily by family farms in Northern Ireland, but there is a lot of profit in the chain linked to land use around the lough. There are close to hundreds of millions of pounds of profit being made from that intensification.

My response is that we are feeding an increasing population at the same time as reducing our phosphate emissions.

And many others beside. We are aware of that. I wanted to talk about the supports. I do not dispute that most farmers want to make this work. Are there adequate supports? I know there is a bit of a gap between the likes of the Farming with Nature programme and some of the group schemes that are coming to an end. Are you finding that those schemes are being adequately offered and are supporting the farmers you represent?

It is unfortunate that there has been a gap in that support. It is a combination of getting future support in place following Brexit, and Stormont being down at times did not help the whole situation. There is a pilot Farming with Nature project at the moment. We think that could have been done better, but hopefully they will get there. Apart from that, agriculture has made massive strides. In 2007, Northern Ireland was designated a nitrates action programme zone. That was before anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That has been the beginning of this journey to reducing agricultural phosphates. There have been several schemes, such as the farm nutrient management scheme on how farmers spread their slurry and all those issues. A lot of money has been put into those schemes. That has also led to the 29% reduction. We have not stopped at 29%. There is a route map around digesters that can remove phosphate from slurry. There is now also science showing how we could remove slurry at farm source.

Do you think there is adequate on-farm support and co-design with farmers in some of the available schemes?

At this moment, there is not. There are a couple of blockages. Science and agriculture know what needs to be and can be done. The Environment Agency and the planning system in Northern Ireland are being obstructive to a lot happening. Government money would be well spent in incentivising that to happen.

What do you mean by the Environment Agency “being obstructive”?

Everybody knows that the anaerobic digesters and other things would be majorly helpful, but nobody wants them in their own back yard. It takes a huge amount of money and time to get anywhere in any of those planning processes, with all the hurdles that have to be jumped over. I am not asking for this to be a free-for-all, but, taking due account of all the considerations, it needs to be more timely and less expensive.

Mr Irvine, on that point, I met a farmer a number of weeks ago who said to me that he is concerned about run-off, overspray and the impact that has on water quality. If he were to put in an application for an anaerobic digester, he would be turned down on environmental grounds. His motivation would be environmental protection, but environmental protections would preclude him from proceeding with that plan. Is that a widely held concern within the farming community? I often hear from farmers that they feel like they are an easy target to be beaten for a wider problem, but when they look for solutions, they are not assisted by the people who are doing the blaming.

That is the reality of where we are in Northern Ireland. Agriculture lives in this community. We drink the water here. We want viable farms for those following us. We are not out to pillage and destroy our resource. We want sustainable agriculture to move forward.

This is for NI Water. We have already had a brief discussion about the levels of phosphorus pollution in the lough. Figures from DAERA estimate that around 31% of the phosphorus content in the lough is from NI Water. What do you think is your level of pollution and wastewater discharge into the lough?

I think the figure of 31% is for both Northern Ireland Water and septic tanks, which are not managed by Northern Ireland Water. The emerging findings we are getting from our environmental modelling suggest that the figure is closer to 20% for Northern Ireland Water—18 percentage points are from our wastewater treatment works and 2 percentage points are from our storm overflows. We are fairly confident in those percentages. That probably also reflects the similar figures that have been coming out from DAERA’s NEW Harmonica project.

How much wastewater has been pumped into Lough Neagh recently?

That is not a figure I have to hand. It represents something like 44% of our overall catchment area, so it is going to be in the order of 44% of our overall discharges going into the lough.

It sounds quite distressing, when you think about it, that we have not managed to move on. As the only MP present with Lough Neagh in my constituency, people are really upset and just sad about it all. There is a video on YouTube of a Northern Ireland YouTuber. It is not at Lough Neagh; it is at Belfast Lough. He is going around and ripping stuff out of the sand, such as huge piles of sanitary products and waste. We cannot necessarily see the shores of Lough Neagh. We do not know what lies beneath, except we know that it is killing the lough. The public want to know that there are adequate plans in place to deal with wastewater overflows. Do you feel that you have given the public confidence that there are adequate plans in place to deal with wastewater overflows?

The point to draw out is that Northern Ireland Water collects and treats the wastewater. We do not generate it; we collect and treat it. It is what arises from our homes, businesses and so on. In general, yes, the amount of treated wastewater that we put back into the lough is quite extensive. The vast majority of that is within the compliance levels set by NIEA. The lough is part of the overall water cycle, and it is integral to the drinking water as well. We fully appreciate that. You cannot separate the two. Northern Ireland Water, within its constraints, is investing not only in its drinking water, as mentioned earlier, but also in the wastewater treatment works within the catchments. Those catchments run right up to the top of the Mournes, North Antrim and so on. Where we can, we are putting investment into our wastewater, but that is within the bounds of the allocated funding that we have.

Yes, within the bounds of the allocated funding that you have—and we are getting into how you are trying to deal with a problem without the resource. Do you have any sense of a plan from Northern Ireland Water or the Minister to address the wider funding issues, and to solve the problem that we have with this environmental catastrophe and the other impacts that come from having an antiquated and failing wastewater system, including the inability to build homes? Do you have any sense of a plan?

Northern Ireland Water is putting together an extensive business plan, our PC28 business plan, in which we will identify the capital investment that is required. We are looking at the deliverable level that we can do. The levels of investment, even if we were fully funded, would take multiple price controls, so that is multiple periods of five years, to resolve the issues that we have identified. We need a long‑term view of how we are funded, and for that funding to be sustainable and reliable.

Very much so, but the issue is that we do not have multiple five-year periods. I suppose it is a political question, and it is unfair to put it on you. On this, house building and all sorts of other issues, day in and day out, we are at a crisis. We are waiting for an investment strategy from the Executive and for this to be on it. There is no immediate plan available to address the 31%, or whatever it is, that NI Water is responsible for discharging into this body of water.

In terms of what we are responsible for and the volume of wastewater we put back in, there is a plan within Northern Ireland Water to look at that. I reiterate that the vast majority is within our allowable standards. We are also looking at what we can do over and above that. If there were a phosphorus budget for the lough—and I imagine there must be an indication of a sustainable level of phosphorus that the lough can manage and hold—and targets for the various factions that put phosphorus into the lough, we would certainly work to that and have a plan built into our price control process to deal with that.

Last year, your CEO said that there was no point in prosecuting Northern Ireland Water for environmental failures. I suppose the sense was that it did not have either the ability or the resources to address them. Do you understand whether there will be any new mechanisms or approaches coming to enforcement on Northern Ireland Water in order to drive some of those improvements?

Minister Muir has made it clear that he wishes to strengthen environmental regulation in Northern Ireland, so we fully anticipate that there will be strengthened inspections and enforcement action taken against us.

Is NI Water preparing for that, and does it feel that it will be able to make the necessary changes?

The reason for enforcement is non-compliance, and dealing with non-compliance requires funding. There will be challenges around how the funding is allocated to meet the enforcement actions that come forward.

This is not your fault, but we are in one of those big circular flow charts here.

We need to be mindful of the length of questions.

Forgive me for being rude, but did you say that non-compliance requires finance?

Yes, to deliver investment to make improvements.

No, I mean that compliance would be in adhering to legal standards and requirements. You are suggesting that you need more money just to comply with the law.

In terms of our compliance with the targets set by NIEA, to effect a change, whether those standards are higher or lower, will require investment if we are failing. We need to acknowledge the level that we are at in terms of our compliance at the minute. Our sanitary compliance is currently at very high levels. Northern Ireland Water is prosecuted for overflows or pollution incidents, so there is a process that happens at the minute. I cannot talk for NIEA, but I think its view would be that it wants to start elevating that level of activity in terms of looking at prosecutions and so on. As a company, we endeavour to be fully compliant where possible. If we identify a need, because the standards have changed or because we are not meeting compliance—and there are a very small number of works within the Lough Neagh catchment that are not compliant at the moment—we need investment to do that.

I do not think I was very clear. Your Minister did not agree with your proposition about the scale of investment required. I think it was your own Minister who then ordered an audit of Northern Ireland Water because they were not convinced. I see that you are smiling, Mr Curran. It was not a Minister of my party. I am just trying to establish what is going on. Do you need more money just to comply with the law, or does your Minister believe that you are not using money adequately and appropriately to comply with the law?

I believe that the investment plans we put out would suggest that we need substantially more money to effect a change, not only for Lough Neagh but to enable house connections, economic development and compliance in both the clean water and wastewater.

I agree. Infrastructurally, I think that has been the case for at least a decade. My question is whether your Minister agrees.

I cannot talk for the Minister.

You can ask him later.

No, that is the wrong Minister. It is infrastructure.

We have had figures bandied around. We have had multiple five-year plans and reviews—“It is not X%; it is Y%. It is not Z%; it is T%”—as if that answers the question. Can I go back to this energy question? This is a precious and unique resource, which, when environmentally and ecologically destroyed, has no comeback point. Livelihoods and reputations depend on it. Who do you think holds the whip hand on this in terms of not just convening people to have a friendly chat over a cup of tea but actually giving people marching orders, telling them what they need to do and finding the resources to do it? In short, the question is whether the seriousness of the situation is clearly grasped and understood within Stormont. To whom do you turn to be fundamentally accountable for actions, inactions or getting suggestions signed off? I take Mr Irvine’s point entirely. Farmers want to do something, and they find that the red tape of planning regulation frustrates them in doing it. I take Mr Curran’s point that you need to spend money, in essence, to attenuate bad water, which is created by the problem of putting things into the water that should not be there. It is a sort of Groundhog Day, a decreasing spiral that sucks all the hope and life out of anything. Who has the whip hand and can take ownership and drive this forward to the conclusion that everybody recognises needs to be arrived at? There are so many blasted route plans out there that everybody is just running around and chasing their tail. Precious little progress is being made. That is not a rhetorical question.

Who was it to?

It is to everybody, really. Let us start with Mr Darby.

Very clearly, it is the Northern Ireland Executive. It is a collective decision. Minister Muir will be here later, but he is responsible for only agriculture and the environment. This is a multi-departmental problem. Lough Neagh has been identified as a top priority in the Northern Ireland programme for government.

Forgive me if we do not all rush out and do the conga with excitement because it has been delegated as a priority.

That is the point I am making: being identified as a priority and making something a priority are two different things. Therein lies the problem. Ultimately, from my perspective of working on the lough, we would like to see Lough Neagh being given greater priority by the Executive in a wider sense, with maybe the First Minister and Deputy First Minister taking more interest in and responsibility for solving this problem.

Is that about breaking down departmental silos and having a taskforce-type approach?

Absolutely, yes. If you look at the OEP reports, there is a very strong reference to governance issues and the siloing of different Departments. One recommendation in the 37-point plan is to set up an interdepartmental working group for the lough. We are involved in that process. Ultimately, that needs political enforcement of senior civil servants.

To go back to your question, I want to give an example. Our office sits on the edge of the lough. I am saying that, ultimately, it has to go back to the Northern Ireland Executive, but one example I want to give is that there is obviously an awful lot of water testing currently going on in Lough Neagh. In one day, I could count three different Government Departments sampling water outside my office. There is AFBI, the NIEA, the Department of Agriculture, NI Water and maybe more, for all I know. That, to me, illustrates how disjointed and fragmented it is. I believe that, to come to a solution for Lough Neagh, it has to be interdepartmental. There has to be responsibility sitting within Government Departments across all sectors. Whether we like it or not, Lough Neagh is in practically everybody’s tap and everybody’s bath or shower. We are all flushing toilets, washing and everything else, hence it is everybody’s responsibility, but I do not want that to weaken its importance. It should actually be a strength if it is prioritised. It should go back to the Executive, yes, but with interdepartmental responsibility and allocation going forward. I am afraid that the Lough Neagh plan, as it currently sits, is a good attempt but, to me, it does not strengthen where the responsibility and actions need to happen. That is just one example.

I have just two lines of context around this. There were reports of algal blooms in Lough Neagh in the 1960s and 1970s. This is a long-term problem. It has been exacerbated in recent times due to a slight temperature rise in the lough and the zebra mussels, which are an invasive type of mussel that has changed the make-up of the water in the lough. That is what has led us to the intense issues that we now have. Our Minister of Agriculture has admitted publicly that this problem was 40 years in the making, and that it will take at least that long to solve it. Absolutely, we need to look at the slow fix here. There need to be fewer nutrients going into the lough. I am also aware that there are options out there for short-term fixes. There are bits of kit that can go on to the lough to filter water and remove phosphates. I do not understand why there is a reluctance within Government to do that initial short-term fix. I am well aware that it requires a long-term fix as well, but they need to be more flexible in their approach to this, in my view.

Good morning, everybody. As a constituency MP, I spend lots of time working with and hassling the Environment Agency in England, so my question is on monitoring and enforcement. Mindful of the Chair’s gentle instructions on time, a brief answer would be helpful. Do you feel that the current system of enforcement is effective in holding water polluters to account?

Answering for agriculture, it is. If a mistake is made, short of the court system, our farmers can have significant cuts in their support payments. They feel aggrieved that they are open to this type of enforcement while other players in the issue are not. In a more severe case, they can have support payments reduced and also have a court process. It is unfair. I do not encourage or condone anyone breaking these regulations, but it seems unfair that they are fined twice for one breach. From agriculture’s point of view, we feel heavily regulated.

We are the end user in this, as a co-operative of members and fishermen. We are an end user, so we are looking at the perpetrators through the same lens as any other citizen in Northern Ireland. I suppose I have hope that the new water Bill coming forward in Northern Ireland will look at these misdemeanours and their enforcement. I am led to believe that that Bill is well under way, and I think it will bring the enforcement issue into kilter. I am aware that enforcement can be sporadic, shall we say. We are not in that. It would be wrong for the co-op to turn round and blame another body for not enforcing, or for not enforcing enough. I am going to be diplomatic and say that, going forward, I believe the water Bill will look at this and bring Northern Ireland into line with GB. That will be a good thing.

“Could do more” is my interpretation of your answer.

“Could do more”, yes.

We are an environmentally regulated company. NIEA has an enforcement policy in place, and that is applied when it assesses our wastewater compliance. If we have issues in our sewerage system because of blockages due to inappropriate items, there may be overflows. They are reported as pollution incidents and, depending on the severity of the incident, they may lead to a prosecution. It is all on the public record how many pollution incidents and fines we have had. Kathleen has mentioned the new fisheries and water environment Bill. It is out for open consultation at the moment, and it proposes to introduce fixed penalty charges for minor pollution incidents. If that proceeds into legislation, that will be another measure to deter pollution.

To be fair to the farming sector, they get an awful lot of blame. From looking at the stats, my understanding is that about 29% of point-source pollution is from the farming sector. Industry and big farm processing might be a significant contributor as well. I believe that the fines are not strong enough and the enforcement probably is not detailed or strong enough. I would support the new Bill and the new proposals. At the end of the day, if they break the law, the polluter should pay and should feel the consequences of breaking that law.

Are you confident, in the political context, that these issues will be resolved before the next Stormont election?

Strangely enough, I am confident. There is an awful lot of negativity, but we have seen a little bit of progress with the whole NAP—the nutrient action programme. We have seen the importance of the farming community and ourselves talking with the Minister. We have seen a bit of political movement there, certainly with Sinn Féin changing its position. I would be positive in terms of finding a solution. At the end of the day, you have to be, I suppose.

I probably should declare an interest, Chair. My wife often drags me to the lough shore when we go to see family, so there is an interest that these issues are resolved sooner rather than later.

Thank you very much, everybody. I have a couple of questions specifically on the Lough Neagh action plan. Kathleen, I am going to come to you first, then William and Gerry, so you have that order in your mind. This issue has already come up. To what extent were you consulted in the development of that plan? Can you share a quick assessment, please, of your evaluation of its implementation to date? Finally, are there any concerns that you feel are outstanding and have not been addressed by the plan? There are three questions. I will put the first of those to you, Kathleen.

On the first question, to be honest, as a co-operative, we were not consulted on the plan. We asked for an invitation. We asked, but we were not consulted as an organisation, a business body or a representative on the lough. However, I have to say that, individually, fishermen throughout the lough were involved in consultations. A number of smaller ones, representing themselves, turned up at meetings and organised events, but we were not consulted as a co-operative, so that bit is easy. On an evaluation, since the start of the plan, we have been kept in very good contact and communication as to its development, how it is performing and how its targets are being met. I have to say the comms are very good from the Department of Agriculture, and that is to be welcomed. We were very well informed. Meetings are interactive, and I feel that they are very good. There is a good sense of establishing something and getting delivery on it, so that has worked. Your final bit was on the concerns.

Particularly areas that you feel still need to be addressed.

To be honest, I have to say that we were very disappointed that our fishing industry co-operative, as the body responsible for the marketing of the eels—as the fishery owner, basically—was not part of that. While the Minister has now made every effort to involve us, I feel that, at the start, we had grave concerns about the plan. Looking at the plan itself, its delivery and action points, fishing does not seem to register much. I raised concerns at those meetings to say that, as a body responsible for marketing fish, we are losing ground daily. There is more information coming out about the toxins in the fish. The Food Standards Agency released an update last month to say that toxins have now been found in the flesh of the eels and perch. This is very concerning to an organisation that is trying to sell them. There is no road map within the plan for me to follow. It is “paddle your own canoe”, no pun intended. We are on our own in this. While we have spoken to DAERA about support and assistance, it seems very complex. It is extremely slow. I feel that we are getting there, but we are now also losing ground daily, because things are moving on. The Food Standards Agency has now found toxins in the fish flesh, which is a major development for us. I need DAERA to give me a bit of a steer. Is this going to be all right? Are we going to get out of this? Where is the assistance? What is it going to look like? Are my fishermen going to be the victims here? There are a few unanswered questions. Those would be my grave concerns. While the plan is about water quality, as it should be, the end user in this, I feel, is not completely embraced within the road map.

So it was a bad start, doing better now, but a very uncertain future?

Definitely, yes. There is a lot more engagement now, which we welcome. I would like to make the most of that with DAERA.

Like the fisherpeople, we were not consulted prior to the launch of this plan. Having said that, there is now a stakeholder group that meets quarterly, and we have two people on that. That is in retrospect, after the plan was put out there.

Is that body working well, as far as you know?

It is working. I suppose the other thing that is in play within Northern Ireland at the moment is that we are having a review of our nutrient action programme. That is a Northern Ireland-wide waterway issue. If we get that right, Lough Neagh should benefit from it. A strapline within the action programme is “education, investment, regulation and enforcement”. Where agriculture is at today is where successive Governments and Departments of Agriculture have allowed it to be to meet the increasing demand for food. We have always followed the direction of Governments and Departments, and will again. I would make the point that there is much more advancement to be made by working with people, incentivising them and showing them how to do things differently. That is the way to change hearts and minds and get to a better place in the long term. There has to be regulation, but I would hope that the enforcement is well down the list and that they really put the main effort into education and incentivisation.

It sounds like working in partnership as well.

Partnerships always deliver much more than heavy‑handed regulation.

That is very helpful.

I have to say that Minister Muir has been very consultative with the partnership, which is essentially a stakeholder representing landowners, communities, fishermen, sand traders and elected representatives all around the lough. In fact, I think the first meeting he had when he became Minister was out on the lough. Certainly they have been very positive and fed into the development of the 37-point plan. In terms of its evaluation, 14 of the 37 actions have been completed to date. Ultimately, the big one is the nutrient action programme. That is really the big target. It is also important to note that it is not really a Lough Neagh plan. It is a Lough Neagh water quality plan, essentially. There are more issues on Lough Neagh. Simon Hoare described the ecological impact, biological impact and habitat loss on Lough Neagh. More attention should probably be given to that. As I am here, the other thing I would really love to put on record is that Lough Neagh is the only commercial lough in the whole United Kingdom, yet it does not have a navigation authority. It is the only lough that has commercial boats without a navigation authority. It never got a navigation authority, as per the Good Friday agreement. Every navigable water in the whole of Ireland was given a navigation system with the exception of Lough Neagh. The point I am trying to make is that we have the Lough Neagh plan, but there are lots of other issues that need addressing as well.

That is very much appreciated.

I am afraid that we have run out of time. Thank you for your participation today. There are a couple of questions that we will be following up on in writing, so please expect some correspondence. Thank you for your time.   Witnesses: Andrew Muir, Alistair Carson, Julie Thompson and David Reid.

Welcome to Minister Andrew Muir MLA, Alistair Carson, Julie Thompson and David Reid, all of whom are online. Thank you for your time today. Minister Muir, if you wish to make an opening statement, you are welcome to do so now.

I thank the Chair and the Committee for the invitation to appear before you today to provide evidence on the Lough Neagh action plan and the response of my Department to the ongoing environmental challenges at Lough Neagh. By way of introduction, I am the Minister for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, otherwise known as DAERA, in Northern Ireland. With me today are Julie Thompson, head of the environment, marine and fisheries group; Alistair Carson, my chief scientific adviser; and David Reid, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I would also like to clarify that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency is an executive agency within my Department for which I hold oversight responsibility. I am very conscious that most of these matters sit within the devolved space, but I am happy to engage with you in relation to this issue. The scenes witnessed on Lough Neagh for three successive summers have been deeply concerning and serve as a stark reminder of the consequences of a collective failure to adequately address the environmental pressures that we face. You will know what the problem is on Lough Neagh. The seriousness of the lough’s pollution is an issue that we must tackle head on, and we must do that together. Sadly, this summer has yet again highlighted those challenges that we need to address. The rise in blue-green algal blooms has not only affected Lough Neagh and its catchment; it is also affecting other waterways and some of our beaches and bathing waters along the north coast, and it has also put a halt to the brown eel fishing season. The causes of the pollution of Lough Neagh are excess nutrients coming from a variety of sources, whether that is wastewater, septic tanks or agriculture. We can debate the contribution of agriculture and wastewater, as many people do, but the reality is that we need to tackle these issues together if we are to address the pollution. In addition, the position is compounded by climate change and invasive species—the zebra mussel. These are real problems, and I want to be absolutely clear that I am focused on turning them around by taking the actions set out in the Lough Neagh report and action plan. However, it is vital to recognise that we are on a shared journey. Improving the water quality of Lough Neagh and its catchment is not just the responsibility of a single organisation or sector. It requires united, science-led and sustained effort that brings together communities, Government, industry and environmental experts. I am pleased to be able to report that implementation of the Lough Neagh action plan is progressing well. Of the 37 actions within the plan, 14 have been delivered and 22 are under way. One remains dependent on another action, which is being taken forward. However, I am determined to ensure that these actions are progressed. The progress to date reflects co-ordinated efforts across several key themes: scientific research and innovation; enhanced monitoring and enforcement; education and stakeholder engagement; regulatory reform; and strategic communications. While we have made important strides, the recovery of the lough will require sustained action over many years and possibly decades, given the depth and complexity of the issues arising as a result of decades of neglect. I take this opportunity to thank the farmers for the good work they do, and for what they have done over previous decades. They are custodians of our countryside, and we must support them as we move forward together. One of the actions in the Lough Neagh action plan is to review the nutrient action programme, which is focused on the management of nutrients from the agriculture sector. My Department has recently conducted a consultation on that programme, which received a considerable number of responses. I thank people for taking the time to feed back to us. I have now established a task and finish group under an external facilitator to consider the responses from the consultation, to identify any alternative proposals and to put revised proposals back to me for consideration and further consultation. I have reached out to all political parties in Northern Ireland to ask them to engage with me on the key issues around Lough Neagh, and I am grateful to those who have met me and those who have scheduled meetings in the time ahead. Looking forward, I will also be examining how we can strengthen regulation and enforcement around sewage pollution. This will require support and collaboration. We need to be bold on the need to support the investment required with regard to wastewater infrastructure. I have previously stated my willingness to support the proposals that may come forward from the Minister for Infrastructure to allow that investment to occur. An additional factor affecting water quality is climate change. This summer was the warmest on record, and that is not unrelated to the scenes we have witnessed on Lough Neagh. My Department has recently consulted on a climate action plan. Following consideration of the consultation responses, I will finalise the plan and bring it to the Executive for agreement. Hopefully I can count on their support. In closing, I would like to reiterate to everyone on the Committee that protecting Lough Neagh is a shared responsibility. It is a challenge, and I know that, but I think Northern Ireland can meet it. It is important that we do that with urgency and resolve, with a clear focus on the long-term health of our environment, communities and the economy.

Thank you very much for your opening statement, Minister. Many of us on the Committee and in the UK Parliament are very concerned about water quality in our constituencies across the United Kingdom. This is an issue that we would also like to see addressed, having in mind what is going on in Northern Ireland and on Lough Neagh. Have you had any conversations with UK Government around the issue on Lough Neagh?

Yes, I have spoken to Ministers in Defra and in the Northern Ireland Office about the challenges we have. I have also spoken to colleagues in the south of Ireland. This is a shared north-south challenge because the catchment area for Lough Neagh goes into the south of Ireland. The issues we face on Lough Neagh are on an unprecedented scale. This is the largest freshwater lake in the UK and Ireland. It is a key environmental challenge for us all across these islands. The issues are slightly different in some ways because we also have the issue with regards to the brown eel fishing season not being able to start this year. We also have the wider mix of pollution with regards to the lough. In other water bodies, there will be a different mix of pollution sources. These are shared challenges. From a wider UK perspective, the key issue is that we have to take lessons about how we got to this position. I believe we have to grow our economy. It is critical that we do that, so that we can invest in public services for the people we are proud to represent, but we should do that in harmony with the environment. Lough Neagh is a lesson to be learned in how we got here. I would say to the Government—I have made these representations to the UK Government in response to recent policy announcements—that they need to learn the lessons from Lough Neagh for any future interventions they make with regard to planning policy, for example. It is important that whatever we do is in harmony with the environment.

On your last point, Minister Muir, it is all well and good looking forward, but to look forward and determine solutions we need to be clear on where we have come from and how we got to the position we got to. How was the environmental situation allowed to deteriorate to the point where we needed to take this level of action?

It is a very sad state of affairs. We have had three successive summers of blue-green algal blooms and ecological crisis on Lough Neagh. There are lessons to be learned from that in terms of the contribution to the pollution that has occurred. Fundamentally, we have to face up to some brave decisions around wastewater infrastructure in Northern Ireland. We have pumped and are continuing to pump sewage into the lough. That has consequences. I also want to thank all the farmers for the good work they have done over previous decades in terms of farming practices. They are great custodians of our countryside, but we will need to support them more in the time ahead so that we can address the challenges in agriculture. We also have an issue with regard to septic tanks and building in the countryside, to ensure that people are better aware of the responsibilities around discharges into our waterways. There is also a bigger issue in terms of climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record, which has contributed to the crisis on Lough Neagh. Taking action on climate change is not optional. It is really important that we do that because of the situation we are seeing in Lough Neagh and because of the opportunities of decarbonisation. If you look back in the BBC archives, you will see that scientists came forward to warn us about this situation. Sometimes it is really important to listen to scientists. I have been concerned in recent times about the deliberate debasing of science, evidence and peer-reviewed academic research around the situations we are facing. It is important that we respect the science and evidence, and that we take action in response to it.

Good morning, Minister and team. Julie, it is good to see you. I know you from my Belfast City Council days.

There is life after Belfast City Council, then.

There is, yes. We heard this morning from a range of witnesses, all of whom could be considered to be lough users. In fairness, you have tried to expand the culprits, if I can put it that way, to include Northern Ireland Water. You have been good enough to appear before this Westminster Select Committee, yet Northern Ireland Water is not answerable to you. Does the Minister in the Department for Infrastructure have questions to answer? Should she make herself available to this Committee?

Thank you, Gavin. I look forward to meeting you tomorrow, as we will be talking about this issue with you as party leader. I am grateful to you for agreeing to do that. I am happy to come to this Committee. I am happy to engage with people on this issue, which is critical for the people of Northern Ireland. Sewage pollution is an issue of great concern for me, in relation not just to Lough Neagh but to other bodies such as Belfast Lough. Belfast Lough has the potential to become the next Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland. We also have other water bodies such as Lough Erne. Sewage pollution is playing a role in those, which is a concern for me. My role is about regulation and enforcement around pollution. I have been clear that it is not acceptable to have a separate regulatory regime for Northern Ireland Water, as it is not fair. Since it was set up in 2007, due to historical underinvestment, enforcement action has largely not been taken with regard to Northern Ireland Water. It was set up under an arrangement called SORPI. I am reviewing that, and I am going to take it to Executive colleagues. What I would say—I said this in the Chamber on Monday—is that I am fast losing patience with the Department for Infrastructure with regard to this issue of sewage pollution. We need to be brave. If people bring forward proposals to turn around the situation, I am not going to be found wanting. It is important that everyone plays a role. Yes, it would be useful if the Minister for Infrastructure were to come before your Committee and engage with you on these issues. I will come forward and take responsibility for the stuff that sits on my shoulders, but others need to do the same. It is important that we do that.

A year ago, you got agreement for the Lough Neagh action plan. You have mentioned that this is an Executive-wide Northern Ireland issue and that you need everyone to put their shoulder to the wheel. You were frustrated that it took three months, but you have had a year to implement the action plan. Of the 37 actions within it, only one falls to the responsibility of another Department. You have a couple where you have joint actions with other agencies, including those within your Department, but only action 12 rests with the Department for Infrastructure. Is it one of the actions that are yet to be implemented?

It is a critical action. So that members of the Committee are aware, action 12 is, “Subject to funding availability seek to deliver on the Lough Neagh wastewater schemes as set out in the price control determination with a focus on reducing nutrient loading, especially phosphorus and nitrogen”. There is no deadline against that for when this investment is going to occur. This is a critical issue. If we are to continue to do this work, particularly with regard to the farming community, people need to understand that everyone is taking their fair share in relation to the work that needs to be done. That is my concern. We need to have clear timelines set out for when we are going to have that investment in wastewater infrastructure, not just for the environmental issues but also given the impact it is having on house building and economic development in Northern Ireland. It is a critical issue. We want families to be able to get on the housing ladder. They are not able to do that because of that lack of investment. That means we need to take tough decisions with regard to that.

How many times has the Minister for Infrastructure met you about action 12?

We have met a number of times and are meeting again in the time ahead. I will continue to engage with the Minister for Infrastructure. As I said, I am also meeting with political parties on this issue. On the issue of wastewater infrastructure, if we are to be brave on this, we need to do it together. We all need to be able to say that we are prepared to take those decisions. There are plenty of reports telling us what we could do with regard to that. One of the reports from the Northern Ireland Audit Office said that there should be an independent expert-led review. I am on record as saying that would have merit. We need to face up to these issues.

Yes, no problem. That was published in October 2020 as the RePhoKUs study. Recently, another study has been published called NEW Harmonica, which has given similar statistics. We could talk statistics quite a lot in this meeting. The fundamental point is that we have a problem. We know we have a problem because it is on our TV screens. You heard from your previous witnesses about the challenges we are having with blue-green algae. I was out on the lough again yesterday with many ambassadors to the UK who came to visit. You could still see the challenges yesterday. We know we have a problem. We know we need to do it together. We need to support people on that journey, particularly the farming community. That is what I am focused on. We need to focus on solutions. There are an awful lot of statistics quoted. I am keen to focus on how we fix things. I will bring in Alistair, as the chief scientific adviser.

As the Minister has referred to, source estimates have been produced from models through the integration of large datasets from multiple sources to investigate the relationship between inputs and outputs, and to provide reliable insights. As the Minister referenced, the RePhoKUs project, which is referenced in the Lough Neagh report, identified that approximately 62% of phosphorus inputs are from agriculture, 24% from wastewater treatment works, and 12% from septic tanks. The science advisory group, which is an independent group of scientists from across the UK and Ireland, highlighted the work that had been undertaken. As with all modelling, there are caveats and it will continue to improve. As the Minister referred to, a second report with provisional data is now coming through from an EU-funded project, which is looking at water bodies specific to Lough Neagh. The 62% is for Northern Ireland water bodies. The report indicated that around 60% of the total phosphorus load is from the agriculture sector, 29% from networked wastewater, and the remainder from septic tanks and other diffuse pollution. The evidence is showing the main sources of phosphorus pollution. Of course, models get updated and continue to evolve, but the long‑term nature of the issue is worth recognising. As well as nutrient pollution coming from livestock in the agriculture industry, through the application of livestock manures and fertilisers, there are also the long‑term losses from soil. Around 40% of agricultural land has surplus soil phosphorus and is therefore at risk from phosphorus losses. That build-up and accumulation has happened over many decades. Those are the main factors to consider in the data itself. Yes, it continues to be updated. The second study, which has provisional data, is indicating for Lough Neagh similar orders of magnitude for the sources relative to the Northern Ireland-wide study that was undertaken. In terms of agricultural inputs, agricultural soil and soil phosphorus excess that has built up over many years is an important consideration.

There are areas that the agrifood sector can take forward, working in partnership, to reduce the overall phosphorus excess going in on an annual basis. I said that 40% of agricultural land has an excess of soil phosphorus at the minute. Our objective would be to get that to 15%. If we reduced it to 15% from its current level of 40%, there would be a significant impact on meeting the objectives for soil phosphorus in water bodies. There is also a legacy issue in the bed of the lough to consider. Even addressing the phosphorus input into the lough, we have a legacy issue in terms of the sediment release of phosphorus, which will sustain issues in terms of blue-green algal blooms over many years. We know that will take 30 to 40 years. The Minister mentioned climate change, which has an impact. The contribution to Lough Neagh of phosphorus from the sediment is increasing as the water temperature increases. Finally, in terms of climate change, increased incidence of heavy rainfall events increases the risk of phosphorus loss from agricultural land. Those are some of the issues, just to link the long‑term issues and the climate impact.

I have a couple of quick questions for Ms Thompson. As no problem is ever really new, what, if any, other examples of recovery projects of a similar type or scale have you been looking at to try to learn how best to deal speedily with this important matter? Secondly, as Minister Muir said, these are bite-sized chunks. There is an end destination, but there are staging posts along the way. What are your thoughts on how better to reduce the blue-green algae? I have been shown a research paper with regard to ultrasound algae control. That is not designed to be a long‑term solution, but it is certainly an important way of dealing with things in the short term. What technologies are being looked at while the more strategic baseline stuff is being addressed?

Good morning. Going back to the work Alistair was talking about, the science group has been looking at this. We know there have been issues in the River Wye, for example. We have been looking at what they might need to do. The important thing about comparing ourselves with other places is that the contributions can be different, depending on whether it is a wastewater issue or an agricultural diffuse issue. They can have different solutions. On the technology side, we have a lot of work going on in that space. We have three small business research initiatives. One of those is looking at blue-green algae in the lough. It is about how we manage, deal with and remove it. That work has gone into phase 2 this summer. We have also worked with the UK Space Agency on remote sensing of the lough, which is to understand where the algal blooms are and to better detect how they are forming and moving around. That work is also ongoing. There is also one going on around the sustainable utilisation of slurry and trying to deal with that to avoid it going into the lough in the first place. The technology and science behind the plan is prevalent in what we are doing. Alistair has a group that is completely focused on that area in terms of ensuring that we are using and picking up best evidence and best practice. Alistair, do you want to supplement that a wee bit and talk about the work you have been doing?

We had really good support and input from scientists across the UK and Ireland, and internationally, in the development of the Lough Neagh action plan. We had a science advisory group, which had representatives from the CSA office in Scotland, Defra and the strategic evidence unit in Wales. They brought their own expertise and input from various water quality initiatives across the UK. We also had representatives from Ireland, and we had engagement with the US, China and other areas. Blue-green algae is an increasing issue on a global scale, catalysed by climate change and nutrient-enriched lakes. In terms of the in-lake mitigation measures to manage blue-green algal blooms, these were recognised by the science advisory group as worth exploring. That is not to take away from the core issues in terms of nutrient pollution, but to recognise that with sediment phosphorus release we will have a major long-term issue to deal with. There have been five successful project proposals on SBRI in terms of proof of concept, including the use of ultrasound, which you referred to, and a range of other mechanical and physical treatments. Those are now moving on to phase 2, which will be launched later this year, taking those initial projects into demonstration phases. We have tried to learn and keep engaged with scientists across the globe on this issue, but with Lough Neagh one of the major issues is the sheer size of the water body. It is 38,600 hectares. Attempts to deal with blue-green algae effectively have always come up against the issue of the size of the lough.

Minister, thank you for joining us. I have a couple of questions that refer to some of the statements you made when the plan was adopted by the Executive and some of the ways in which you will be held accountable for delivering the plan by the public and your colleagues. First, I am particularly interested in the gap in funding between what is required to implement the plan in full and what you currently have at your disposal. Could you give us some idea of how you will meet that funding gap moving forward?

There are two major funding challenges around this. The first is in relation to wastewater infrastructure and the investment that is required around that, which has been covered previously. There is also a challenge around the need to have a just transition with regard to agriculture. We made an unsuccessful funding bid to the UK Government on this, but I managed to get £12 million in this financial year from the Finance Minister. We need to ramp it up significantly to support farmers on not just water quality but air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. I have made quite significant bids to the Finance Minister—God loves a trier. I have bid for £47 million in the next year, £77 million in the year after, £106 million in the year after that and £121 million in the last of the four years of the capital budget. It is really important that we support farmers on this. We are doing a lot of work on this within the Department. We have the SBRI initiatives that Julie outlined, and there is resourcing around this in terms of having more people on the ground doing inspections. We have been prioritising that as a funding stream within the Department. To be fair, the Department of Finance has been helpful in supporting us in that regard. The big challenges ahead are around wastewater and the just transition with regard to agriculture.

I have a couple of quick follow-ups on how progress against the plan will be monitored. Could you share with us whether that information will be made public, so that people can see how the plan is progressing? In my notes, there is also a question about how much progress will be made by the end of the Assembly’s mandate. In your comments to the press, you have mentioned that it is going to take decades to see real results. When will the public start to see results from the plan? What is a more realistic timescale?

We provide updates on the DAERA website, and we write to Executive colleagues and to this Committee to keep them updated. We are being very transparent with regard to our progress. The timescale of decades to fix this comes from the issue that Alistair outlined with regard to sediment. The sediment at the bottom of the lough is like a sponge. It has absorbed the phosphorus, and it is going to take a while for that to be released. We are doing more academic research into the potential, but that is the issue for where the remediation is going to take place. We need to reduce the nutrients going into the lough, and we need to take action with regard to climate change. I would hope to be able to progress a significant number of these actions over the time ahead, but some of them also require other Departments to buy into it and other political parties to support me in the journey ahead. That is why I am doing that political engagement. I am really committed to doing this together. Hopefully by the end of the mandate we will set ourselves on a clear trajectory to turn this around. It does mean taking difficult decisions. You cannot govern by soundbites. You need to govern by clear, evidence-led policy and decision making. I know that is not in vogue in some circles at the moment, but that is what we base this Department upon.

Minister, you have regularly spoken about the funding gap and the need to support farmers. The SDLP Opposition have proposed a levy to try to use the very substantial profit that we know is being made by corporations involved in agriculture in and around the lough. You will be aware of a similar voluntary levy on agriculture businesses in the Republic of Ireland. In light of the stated funding gap that you have set out, is that something you are exploring?

I am aware of your paper and the proposal for that levy, which according to your paper would raise about £7 million. We need a lot more than £7 million.

The £7 million would be a start.

Yes, it would. My engagement with the processors will be ongoing—I think that is what your paper was focused on—in terms of how they can contribute to the support we want to give to farmers on the ground, particularly through on-farm advice. That is critical. We are continuing to engage with the Irish Government on a potential Shared Island initiative, because the catchment area goes into the south. There are similar challenges north and south. There are learnings that can be taken from that. It is important that everyone pitches in. It would be much better if it were voluntary, and if people were doing it in a collaborative manner. That is something we have already been doing, and we will continue to take it forward. I know there are good examples of initiatives that have been put in place down south. That is key. There is one other point that I want to make in relation to agri-environment schemes. When we were in the EU, we had funding in seven-year tranches. We then left the EU, and the ringfencing of that funding ended at the end of March this year. I was the only Minister in the UK to get that funding ringfenced for agriculture, agri-environment, fisheries and rural development in Northern Ireland, which is really important. We want to deliver that support on the ground in terms of agri-environment schemes. One of the consequences of Brexit is that we in Northern Ireland have to design our own farm support policies. That is what we are doing. We have lost pace with regard to this, particularly as a result of the absence of Ministers. I am very keen that we scale it up and deliver that support on the ground through that ringfenced funding for farmers under Farming with Nature.

Others, and possibly you, Minister, have spoken about some of the challenges of one Department being responsible for both agriculture, with its obvious importance to our economy, and environmental protection. Many, including me and you, have spoken about the need for an independent environmental protection agency to weigh in and mediate. What is the path to doing that? Will you have one in place by the end of this Assembly mandate?

It is important that, as a Department, I am very supportive of the idea that all those functions are together. It is useful because it means we have to own the issues and work through them. What I set out last year was about setting up an independent panel to look at this issue in terms of what an independent environmental protection agency would be and what its functions would be.

I am sorry. The Chair is giving me the evil eye about the time. We have been discussing this for two decades. There has been a series of reviews, panels and assessments. There is consensus that we need an independent environmental protection agency. That is something I think you support as well. What is the likelihood of that being in place by the end of this Assembly mandate?

The panel was commissioned, and an interim report came out back in June. The final report is due very soon. Once I receive that, I will be going to the Executive and the Assembly—it is important that I give both institutions their place—to set out a way ahead. I am very clear in terms of my commitment to an independent environmental protection agency.

Will we have one in place by the end of the mandate?

Good things come to those who wait. I will be setting this out to the Assembly and the Executive very shortly.

I have one last question, perhaps to you, Alistair, about the review of sand extraction. It was discussed earlier. Gerry Darby from the Lough Neagh Partnership was talking about the environmental impact, which is probably less than has sometimes been foregrounded. There is obviously now a regulation in place. There had not been for decades. Have you completed that review? What action is being taken on reports of illegal extraction?

The initial review is due to be completed by the end of October. This is looking at all the evidence in relation to sand dredging. The timescale of the initial review is the end of October, and that work is ongoing. Perhaps David will want to make reference to the second part of your question. The science review work is ongoing with that timescale.

Illegal sand dredging is not something we are directly involved in. That would be something for DFI and the planning authority. It would not really sit within NIEA’s remit.

I am sorry, David. The quality of the sound coming through was not very good.

Thank you for making yourself available to the Committee today, Minister. It has been invaluable to have your contributions for the Committee to understand a wee bit more about what you are doing in your role. I find it a wee bit frustrating that we could not put the same questions to the Infrastructure Minister. That is a shame. With that being said, in terms of the commitments that you have already outlined to the Committee today about the issue of phosphates and your intention to work closely with Northern Ireland Water and DFI in meeting those obligations, what steps is the Environment Agency taking to ensure that wastewater works meet phosphorus removal standards?

I will bring in David on this in a wee bit. In terms of wastewater infrastructure, my responsibilities sit around regulation and enforcement. The decisions on investment sit with the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister for Infrastructure. Those questions can be taken up with her. With regard to this, I have been very clear that we need to have stronger regulation and enforcement around sewage pollution. It is very clear to me that the situation at the moment is not tenable. I will be bringing a paper on this to my Executive colleagues in the time ahead. I will bring in David to talk about the specifics of your question. I do not know whether we still have David.

David, we will write to you and ask for a response, if you can pull something together. Is that all right, Minister?

Yes, that is no problem.

I will finish off with my question. Given recent political disagreements on the draft nutrient action programme, how confident are you that the Executive are going to approve the final plan?

In the Lough Neagh report and action plan, we said we were going to consult on a revised nutrient action programme. It is also a legal requirement to do that. We have consulted on that, and we have received the responses. I have set up a task and finish group to look at responses plus any other proposals that people may wish to table. I have a clear basis to move forward. There is an independent facilitator, Karen Brosnan. She is in the front seat. I am going to let them get on with their work. It is important that we respect people’s ability to do that within the room. I am going to take a bit of a step back from that and let them get on with it. Once they have finished the work, they will come back to me with the report. I have made it very clear that I am asking for three things: for it to have realistic timeframes, for it to be workable at farm level and for it to meet our legal obligations. If it meets those three things, I will go out to do further consultation and bring a paper to the Executive. If the group can agree it, I do not understand why politically we would not be able to support that. Hopefully, people will take the politics out of this and allow us to support the farming community in the time ahead.

You talk a lot about timescales. When do you want to see this delivered?

I have asked the group to come back with an interim report before Christmas and to finalise the work by winter. We will go out and do that further consultation and take a paper to the Executive. I would like to be able to take that paper to the Executive next summer. It is important that I am able to do that. This is the timescale. I want to give people an opportunity to give their feedback with regard to these issues. It is really important that I allow them to do that, but also that we move at pace on this because we have legal obligations.

We wish you the best of luck with that. We are here to help and support in any way we can. I would like to thank you all for your time today.