Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I welcome Kevin Monaghan, Stephen Bradshaw and Carole Sheldon. I presume that you are leading off, Kevin.

Mr Kevin Monaghan (Department for Regional Development): I am, Mr Chairman, yes. Thank you for inviting us to brief you this morning on the Department's safety barrier replacement policy. I will introduce my team. We have Stephen Bradshaw, who is our principal engineer from engineering policy branch in headquarters in Clarence Court; Carole Sheldon, who leads our consultancy services team in eastern division; and I am the manager in the eastern division.

We will brief you for about 10 to 12 minutes, if that is all right, Mr Chairman. I will ask Stephen to talk you through the Department's policies on safety barrier inspection and replacement. I know that the Committee is very interested in the safety barrier that was removed and not replaced at Malone Road —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Kevin, I will just stop you. Rather than going into that specific one at the start, you can give us your policy. We may refer to that specific one in our line of questioning, rather than you trying to gloss over it now. Obviously, that is why you are here today. Some of us are very concerned; we want to know about the policy and how it was adopted. A safety barrier was there, then someone in the Department decided to remove it, and now, thankfully, it has been replaced. If you could talk about your policy, we will get to that during the questions, and we will want to know how you arrived at the various milestones.

Mr Monaghan: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is fine; I am happy to deal with it in that way. Carole has a photograph of the measures that we are going to put up, so we will circulate that and explain it to you. We will do our best to answer the questions that you ask us.

I will ask Stephen to say a few words first about the policy.

Mr Stephen Bradshaw (Department for Regional Development): Thank you, Kevin. Initially, we will consider what a safety barrier is and what its function is. The most commonly used safety barriers that are evident across the entire network have steel posts and corrugated rails. However, in the past posts were often wooden. Many terms are used to describe those safety systems: crash barriers, safety fences and safety barriers. The EU terminology is "vehicle restraint system". Much research and investigation has been carried out over the years, and that has led to the development of a European standard. To be installed on the public road network, all safety barriers must now demonstrate compliance with that standard and go through a rigorous regime of crash-testing. For clarity, safely barriers are only intended to provide containment for an errant vehicle, and they are defined by several factors.

The first is containment: what size of vehicle is the barrier intending to stop. In most cases, it will be a one and a half ton vehicle impacting the barrier at 20 degrees. The second is impact severity: what effect will a collision have on the vehicle occupants. Flexible barriers move sideways during impact, and that helps to reduce the severity of the crash. That movement sideways is known as a barrier working width. The working width for flexible systems can be up to as much as four metres but normally no more than one and a half. Generally, there are three main reasons why road authorities install safety barriers: to minimise injuries to the occupants of vehicles that leave the carriageway; to protect third parties; and to protect property and equipment. However, it is also recognised that safety barriers can in themselves be a hazard.

In 2006, a new standard for road restraint systems was introduced in the UK following the Selby rail crash. That is the principal design document; it sets out where safety barriers are used and the performance requirements for the systems. It details the requirements and the criteria to be met and gives a much greater emphasis on guidance, provision, design and layout.

Risk management is also key to the standard, and that introduces processes to identify the hazards, assess the level of risk at each, and determine appropriate actions to eliminate, minimise or control a hazard to mitigate the risk. Possible mitigation measures must be considered before the installation of a safety barrier. For example, you should remove, or reduce the severity, of the hazard. Only if those options are not possible should you install a safety barrier.

Across the UK, we normally provide safety barriers only on roads with speed limits of 50 mph and above, where there are significant hazards, such as bridges, retaining walls, embankments or vertical drops, water hazards, road lighting columns, large signs or trees. In Northern Ireland, as with other road authorities, we do not generally protect the majority of those roadside hazards in 30 mph zones. For all road categories, unless there is a very significant risk — for example, a location where large numbers may congregate regularly for significant periods — a safety barrier is not normally provided for the protection of pedestrians on footways.

Finally, if we focus on policies and procedures that are specific to DRD, those documents are called director of engineering memoranda (DEMs), and I believe that they have been provided to the Committee. DEM 109, entitled "Road Restraint Systems", introduces TD 19, the UK design document previously described.

There are 25,000 kilometres of road network, so it is not feasible or practical to install safety barriers along the entire road edge. Therefore, in 2010, several DRD committees, internal to TNI, or Roads Service as it was then, requested that DEMs be developed to provide a consistent approach across Northern Ireland for new sites for barriers and for the management of existing barriers.

DEM 128, entitled "Management of Existing Vehicle Restraint Systems", was developed to provide a common framework across the network, where inspection data is used to assess a barrier's condition, leading to a priority ranking for repair, replacement and, potentially, removal.

DEM 127, entitled "Prioritisation for Potential Sites for Road Restraint Systems", was mainly developed to deal with the numerous requests received and the provision of safety barriers at locations where there is a perceived hazard.

The overall process for assessment and analysis incorporates factors such as collision history, hazard type, road category, traffic speed, site characteristics and the practicality of installation. From that analysis, a low, medium or high priority is recorded for each site, which assists in the final decision-making process and the next steps to be taken.

I hope that that provides the Committee with sufficiently high-level detail and overview. I pass you back to Kevin to deal with the implementation of those policies in the eastern division.

Mr Monaghan: You said that you would like us to pause so that you could ask us some questions. If you want, I can talk a wee bit about the barriers.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We all know why we are here. Unfortunately, we are coming on the back of a road death: Enda Dolan lost his life last year. This is not an easy subject for any of us. Yesterday, we were in the House talking about speed limits and the 20's Plenty for Us scheme. John Dallat made the very pertinent point of the cost of a life. I think that it was John, although many made contributions about the value of a life.

Stephen, as I listened to your presentation, I wondered whether DRD listens to anything to do with the cost of a life. A figure quoted yesterday was £1·95 million, which is the amount lost to Northern Ireland as the result of someone losing their life. You have given us the information on how you make decisions about placing barriers. In your final comments, you talked about the types of hazard and the practicalities of installing barriers. Let us look at this specific case. Unfortunately, the hazard type had been identified in the past, because there have been numerous accidents. David McNarry, who knows that road well, has raised concerns about that over many years, and I am sure that he will get on to it himself. Given that it was installed initially many years ago, the hazard type had been identified. Even in your own policy, that hazard type was to identify how practical it is to install something, but, in this case, you did not install it; you removed it. In your introduction you gave no reason on how you come to a decision to remove something.

There is another thing that I want to correct. You talked about where they are normally placed. Most of us travel round the countryside and around towns and villages quite a bit, and most of the ones that I can think about are all within 30 mph limits; so, if you are saying that your policy has been generally in excess of 50 mph, then there is obviously something wrong with whoever wrote the policy. The first examples that I can think of in my own area are in very built-up residential areas. You went to lengths to tell us about the wooden posts that were used in the past. Yes, even the ones that I can think of had wooden posts. DRD took out the wooden posts and, within a day or two, replaced them with the new type of fencing. It did not do what it did on the Malone Road: it did not take them away without any other mitigation. Kevin, in this specific case where it had been identified that there was a need for a safety or a crash barrier in the past, can you tell me who made the decision to remove it and why?

Mr Monaghan: First, I will start with the removal of the barrier. That barrier was erected about 35 years ago, or even longer; it was a long, long time ago. It was inspected relatively recently and was found to be defective. I will explain some of the defects that were found and the reason why it was removed. First, it was too low. It was about four inches lower than it should have been so, in a collision a vehicle could have gone over the top of it. Secondly, you mentioned the wooden posts. Those wooden posts were rotten, and in a collision they would not have performed as they had been designed to. Finally, the barrier ends did not meet our current standards. The most recent barriers are ramped down as opposed to the curved-in ends, and that meant that, if there had been a collision at that location, the barrier would not have performed as it had been designed to. Unfortunately, it would probably have collapsed had there been a collision. That deals with why we removed the barrier.

In relation to why we did not replace it, Stephen has given you the background, the policies and the DEMs. He said that we do not normally place safety barriers in urban areas. I know that there are barriers in urban areas, but that is a throwback to a long time before the new standards were developed. Once we work our way through the new standards, we do not generally put barriers in urban areas any more, unless there is a very good reason for it.

I referred to the site assessment. That was completed in accordance with the current standard. As Stephen said, those standards do not apply just to Northern Ireland; they apply UK-wide.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When was the assessment carried out?

Mr Monaghan: I think that it was carried out in the autumn of 2013. The Committee asked for the assessment report and the information. I was hopeful that the Committee would have received that information, but I am not sure that you have. If you have not, I apologise. I cleared the report on Monday evening, so it is somewhere in the system and on its way to you. That is the report I am referring to, and that is the timing of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We requested that report.

Mr Monaghan: You did.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): And we were refused it. It is not that you have not sent it to us. We were refused it on the basis that there was a live police investigation. However, when the BBC contacted the PSNI about the barrier, the PSNI told them that, as there was no barrier, it would not be part of an investigation.

You seem to be confused, Kevin. You are making excuses about why we do not have it, but I am certainly of the impression that the departmental Assembly liaison Officer (DALO) wrote to tell us that we would not be getting that report because of an investigation. Do you want to read through your notes to find out —

Mr Monaghan: I do not need to read through my notes. We have been working very closely with the police —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): If you could maybe answer that point.

Mr Monaghan: Yes. We have been working very closely with the police on the investigation. When the Committee originally wrote to us — I think on 8 January — we did not have permission to release the information. We continued to liaise closely with the police and, at more or less the exact time that the police said we could release the information —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When was that?

Mr Monaghan: I do not recall the exact date. It would have been around the date of the Committee's letter of 12 February. Do not quote me on the date, but I think that it was around then. At that point, the police came back to us and said that it was OK to release it. That was on the same day as the letter or within a day of it.

For that reason, we have attached the information and have forwarded it to the Committee. It has not —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When did you forward it?

Mr Monaghan: It cleared my desk on Monday night, so it is somewhere in the system and on its way to you. There is no issue with the Committee getting the report or any of the information. In order to work with and comply closely with the police request not to release information at that early stage, we did not release it. Once we got clearance from the police, we were happy to release it. There is no issue from our side about releasing the report. It should be with you shortly.

Can I just go on then —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, I want to take you back, Kevin. You said that in consultation with the police in or around 10 February or 12 February —

Mr Monaghan: Please do not quote me on the dates, but it was in and around that date.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, why did you release it to the BBC on 4 February?

Mr Monaghan: Well, I am not —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Does the BBC have more power than the scrutiny Committee for DRD?

Mr Monaghan: No, not at all. I see the Committee —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Why was it given that report before the Committee, given that the Committee had requested it in January?

Mr Monaghan: I am not exactly sure of the date that the BBC received the response to its freedom of information request.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Let me help you with the dates. We requested it on January. To date, we have still not received a copy of it. The BBC received a copy on 4 February. I am not tying you to dates and will allow you either side of the 10 February or 12 February. You said that you cleared it. Who cleared it for the BBC?

Mr Monaghan: They were all cleared around the same time and within a day of each other. They were all cleared around 10 February.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I said that I was not holding you to dates, but you said that it was between 10 February and 12 February. You also said that you cleared the report on Monday night, so we can work back easily. It is now 18 February, so you cleared it for us on 16 February. Who cleared it for the BBC to receive it on 4 February? I go back to my main point: who has priority over the scrutiny of the DRD, the Committee or the BBC?

Mr Monaghan: Clearly, Mr Chairman, it is the Committee. What I would like to do —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Can you tell me why the BBC received the report almost two weeks ago while we still have not received it?

Mr Monaghan: What I would like to do is to come —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): No, if you could answer my question.

Mr Monaghan: I would like to come back to the Committee and confirm the dates and the timeline.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have confirmed the dates, Kevin. You said, on record, that you signed it off on Monday night and that you would hope that the Committee would have had it. The Committee does not have it. However, we are clear in our minds that the BBC got it in the first week of February. Why did the BBC get it before we did? Who signed that off? Who gave it to the BBC?

Mr Monaghan: If I could go back to check the records. I think — I could be wrong — that the Committee only requested that report in its letter dated 12th.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Of?

Mr Monaghan: Twelfth of February. I can check the reports, but I think that the Committee only requested it then.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will let you check that.

I want to ask about the safety barrier and the report that was carried out in late 2013. In your own words, I think that you said that the barrier went up in the late 1970s. Given Stephen's very detailed summary and the condition of the wooden posts, when was the previous inspection prior to the 2013 one?

Ms Carole Sheldon (Department for Regional Development): It is a five-year rolling programme of inspections.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Can we get a copy of the previous inspection reports?

Mr Monaghan: You certainly can.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Before the BBC gets it.

Mr Monaghan: You also asked why we did not replace the barrier and about the accident history. May I explain that?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Yes.

Mr Monaghan: I said that, once the location had been assessed and a decision had been taken that the barrier was defective and needed to be removed, a further assessment was carried out under the current standard, which is 127/11 to establish whether we needed to replace it or whether some other measure was required. That assessment takes a risk-based approach and looks at collision history, which you mentioned, road type, traffic speeds, hazard situations at the road edge and practicality. You mentioned the collisions specifically. The standards require us to check on the collision histories over five years. When it was checked, we found that, within the five years, there had been no recorded collisions. The officers looked a wee bit further back than that and discovered that there was one collision in January 2008. That was five years and eight months previously, which was outside the period. When they looked at the detail, it turned out that it was a shunt on the north-bound or city-bound lane for a vehicle turning right into Sans Souci Park. So, it would not have been a relevant collision to take account of when deciding on whether to put up a barrier.

We subsequently checked our records with the police back to 2001. There have been no other recorded collisions back as far as 2001, which is as far back as we keep records. It is 12 years or so. There has not been a history of collisions at that location that we or the police are aware of. Another factor that we took into account is the traffic. It is a busy road, as you all know; it is a 30-mph B-class road. When we looked at it, we found no recorded history of speeding or complaints of speeding. There were no particular hazards on the site for which you normally put a barrier in place; there were no water hazards and no significant vertical drops. The report scores all the factors and takes a risk-based approach, and it concluded that the provision of a safety barrier would be of low priority.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): No priority or low priority?

Mr Monaghan: Low priority, and I very much apologise about the report.

Since that, the Minister has had a private meeting with the Dolan family, after which he asked officials to review the site and see whether additional measures could be put in place to address any perceived public-confidence issues, because we were clear in our minds that, in accordance with the policies that are in place, there was no requirement for that barrier to be replaced. Nonetheless, the Minister said that, based on public-confidence issues, he wanted us to have a look at it, and so Carole and her team and I had a look at it and presented him with some options. The Minister decided that it would be appropriate to install something. It was not a safety barrier, because safety barriers are not specifically designed to protect pedestrians; they are designed to protect car occupants. Having looked at the options, we felt that a thing called a high containment kerb — you will have seen some of them along the road network — with a pedestrian guard rail would be the most appropriate solution. I have a couple of photographs, if the Committee would like to see them. We can show you what that looks like. It is not a safety barrier. We feel that it is a much more appropriate measure for that location.

Ms Sheldon: Chairman, are you content that I hand these out?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Just give them to Barry.

Mr Monaghan: We have the details, if you would like us to talk about it.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate that you are only circulating the pictures today, Kevin. Are those the new measures that you are considering?

Mr Monaghan: Yes, those are the measures that the Minister has asked us to implement.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Have you any pictures of the old crash barrier before it was removed?

Mr Monaghan: I am not sure that I have any to hand; however, there are pictures of it, and we can get them to you.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will see what Carole has.

Ms Sheldon: It is not a very good picture.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Maybe we could see enough from it if you do not mind passing it around. Do you want the BBC to see it first? What is that photograph?

Mr Monaghan: That is a photograph of what the new measures will look like typically. It is a high containment kerb; some people know it as a trief kerb.

Ms Sheldon: It acts in three main ways. It gives a very clear visual signal to drivers that they will not be able to access the footway. The 25 mm upstand gives the driver a physical indication that he is leaving the carriageway. Above that is a sloped shoulder, which assists the driver to steer back onto the carriageway again. Finally, at the top of the profile, you will see that there is a concave section, designed to trap the bulge in the side wall of the tyre. That acts to redirect the vehicle and to prevent it from mounting the footway. Overall, we assessed this as a safer option for pedestrians, as it acts to prevent the vehicle from moving onto the footway. There is no deflection into the footway, so it segregates pedestrians and vehicles more effectively . We are also going to put a guardrail onto it to prevent any trips onto the carriageway.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Thank you. Obviously, I was nosy when you gave me this report because this was the report that we have been waiting for.

Mr Monaghan: That is the one that you requested, Mr Chairman.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate that members do not have a copy of it. Maybe the BBC or you will get us a copy. However, there is an interesting bit at the bottom of appendix 1. Maybe the members would be interested in this:

So, Kevin, this is on a corner where there has never been any accident history, but there is accident damage to the safety barrier.

Ms Sheldon: The damage is to the ends of the barrier, in the end round in Sans Souci Park, as if someone has been reversing.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So that does not protect people.

Ms Sheldon: Not the anchorage at the end, no.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, can I clarify what I mean by "collision history"? Damage-only collisions are not recorded for the purpose of our records; it is injury accidents that are counted. If you go back to the standards required, that is what the count is: injury accidents — or collisions, I should say. What you can find is that installations, such as the one in the picture, could be damaged by damage-only accidents, or they could even be vandalised.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Or it could have been someone who mounted the footpath and knocked down or killed a pedestrian.

Ms Sheldon: The far end would be more likely to be impacted by somebody coming from the other direction.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Yes, but that would have stopped the car. If someone had been on the footpath, and there was no barrier, they would have hit the pedestrian.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Let us be frank here: we are going round in circles.

Mr McNarry: Indeed.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I do not blame the Minister for this because he has a difficult job, but I think that he is trying to hide your blushes. This report, which you have tried to prevent us from seeing, clearly says that there is accident damage to the barrier. Carole, with the greatest respect, you can come up with whatever excuses you want about how the damage occurred, but this barrier is damaged.

Ms Sheldon: We feel that perhaps —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, I am speaking.

Ms Sheldon: I beg your pardon.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): This barrier is damaged. If the barrier were not there, there would be a greater likelihood of accident. Unfortunately, in this case, someone lost their life. Someone in their wisdom — they may think it wisdom, but I have other words for it — made a decision to remove a barrier that has been damaged. I will let the Deputy Chair see that, and then I will pass it around the members.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, can I comment? I fully understand where you are coming from. We understand the seriousness of this, and we have thought about it very carefully. We have gone back over the decision-making process, and we are sure that it complies with all the standards and policies that are in place. We have gone back and checked that. To be extra sure about it, the Minister has asked that that decision be reviewed by an independent expert, so somebody will come in in due course and look at the decision and the process to see if they were appropriate. We are content for that to happen. We are open, our documents are available and we are not hiding from you in any way whatsoever. I want to be clear about that.

The investigation of the incident is at a very early stage, and our minds are very much with the Dolan family; it is a very difficult time for them. The investigation will take its course and will establish the facts around the incident, such as the circumstances around the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle, the location of the incident and all the other facts. We are all talking about an incident that we do not know the facts about. I respectfully suggest that we await the outcome of the factual criminal investigation to see all the details of what happened.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I appreciate the point you are making. However, this happened on 18 September, and, within one month, unfortunately Enda Dolan lost his life because someone made a bad judgement call; it cannot be described in any other way. I have never met the family, but, as a father, my heart goes out to them. The very least that that family would expect is that another family will not have to suffer what they are suffering and that the Department will urgently make the right decision. All the signs are that the Department is dragging its heels. Someone made the right decision in the 1970s to put a barrier up; someone made the wrong decision to take it down; and we are now talking about a fatality, a young fella who was in the prime of his life. Declan, you are next.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, may I make a comment on that? I absolutely refute your allegation that it was because someone in the Department made a bad call.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You can refute it if you like, but it is a fact. Unfortunately, a young fella is not with his family. That life could have been saved if the barrier had been in place. I see you nodding your head, Carole. Someone made the decision to put it up, and someone made the wrong decision to take it down. You can refute it all you like, Kevin, but that is a fact. Also, you have tried to evade giving the Committee the relevant documentation, but you are quick to give it to others.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, with due respect, I say again that the facts will be established when the outcome of the investigation is known.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): That might be the case, but the PSNI is not interested in the fact that the safety barrier was not there. They are interested in the driving aspect of that accident, not the decision that someone made to take the barrier down.

Mr McAleer: It is important to reiterate that, at the heart of this, a young fella is dead, his family is devastated and so is the community, including the student community up in Queen's University. I share the frustration about getting information from the Department. I tabled a question to the Minister and received the same response: that the Department was awaiting the PSNI investigation. It is highly frustrating to hear that the PSNI confirmed to the BBC that it did not form part of their investigation. That is the same response that we got here from the officials.

If we rely on a record of collisions, it is not going to be very accurate. In most circumstances, a car will bump into the barrier and move on; the driver is not going to voluntarily record that. So, you are not going to get an accurate reflection of the number of vehicles that have hit the barrier. It is very, very frustrating that it was removed because, amongst other things, it was four inches too small, yet it was left wide open. It is so tragic that it took that young fella's death for something to happen at this location. He had everything in front of him. Clearly, the hazard has not been removed, so that was left vulnerable, and unfortunately, in the intervening time, young Enda was killed.

What consultation took place before the barrier was removed? Was the local community consulted? Were the students who live in the Elms Village consulted?

Mr Monaghan: We consulted the frontager who is directly at the location; I think it is 1 Sans Souci Park. One of our officers called with that frontager to explain the plan to remove the barrier, but there was no one in, so they left him a letter and contact details. It is a matter of history that there was no response from that frontager. That is not a criticism, because quite often we do not get responses from frontagers.

In a wider sense, I hope that the Committee accepts the principle that we do not need to consult on every single thing that we do. So, there are set activities, such as laying asphalt, putting up new signs or taking down old signs — routine maintenance and repairs — on which we would not generally consult. We would, though, usually inform the frontagers of our intentions. The powers that enable us, under the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993, give specific circumstances for when we should consult, such as when we are taking land or are processing a speed limit or parking restrictions. That is the way the legislation is built, and it is designed to allow us the practicality of getting on with the day-to-day work and consulting with people on important activities. That is the context.

Mr McAleer: It was removed, and clearly the hazard was there. I still cannot work out why things did not move quicker to get it re-erected or put mitigating measures in place.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I will go back over that. Following the incident, one of our officers reviewed the site with a police officer. That is quite common and happens following all fatal collisions. We checked back through the assessments that were done, and we felt that the assessment was correct. It was only when the Minister returned from his private meeting with the Dolan family that he said, "I would like you to look at measures". I agreed that we would look at measures for him. That was the process, and that meeting was in early January or so, which is why there is a perceived lag between the date of the incident, which was in October, and the date when things began to move after January.

Mr McAleer: The response that I received said it would be inappropriate to comment prior to information being received from the PSNI and that the information that I asked for was no longer required. When did the Department get clarity from the PSNI that the information that we were looking for could be made available to the Committee and me?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I have undertaken to come back and confirm that date and the timelines. My recollection is that it was the same date that it appeared in the media. We did not get any advance notice; we heard on the same date. If we had had some notice, it would have helped us and it might have removed this difficulty that we have had with the Committee. We have not been hiding anything from you, I promise.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You went to lengths to explain where you would consult and where you would not. On this occasion, you felt it necessary to consult, because you consulted someone. Can you tell me, Kevin, why you consulted only one person?

Mr Monaghan: What I said, Mr Chairman, was that we normally call with the frontager and explain what we are doing. That was the only frontager —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, it was not a consultation.

Mr Monaghan: Well, you can call it a consultation. I will have to go and get the letter. In fact, the Committee has asked for a copy of the letter, and you will see it. It explains what we are doing, and it says that, if you have any comments or would like to discuss, please either call this number or contact us. You can call it a consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): But it was not deemed necessary to consult anyone else.

Mr McNarry: It is extremely sad that a tragic death has caused the Committee to address this situation. If the truth was also told, Chairman, had it not been for Kevin Magee from the BBC bullishly pursuing the case, the issue, more than likely, would have been buried. Certainly, that appears to me to be the Department's intention. It was not interested.

I am sad to say, Kevin, that I am listening to an attempt at a whitewash, which seems systemic in the Department overall, no matter who sits opposite us. Are you, on behalf of the Department, willing to admit negligence in front of the Committee for the tragic death of this young man?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, the answer to that is no, because I do not believe that the Department was negligent. I believe that the Department carried out the initial survey in accordance with the prevailing standards; I believe that the Department carried out the risk assessment in accordance with the prevailing standards; and I believe that that pointed to a low-rate priority for replacement, so the Department behaved in the way that it should.

Mr McNarry: If you are not prepared to admit negligence, can you give me your professional opinion on why that accident happened?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I go back again, and I am not trying to avoid the Committee at any stage: what we —

Mr McNarry: Well, you have done a mighty good job of it since you sat down. Let us have some direct answers. Can you give me an answer to the last question?

Mr Monaghan: We have to be very careful, because there a criminal investigation going ahead at the moment, and none of us around this table should —

Mr McNarry: Could you elaborate on the criminal investigation?

Mr Monaghan: — or could do anything that would prejudice the outcome of that criminal investigation.

Mr McNarry: A criminal investigation against whom?

Mr Monaghan: My understanding is that two men were arrested following the incident.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I think that we will stay out of that area. We will stick to the barrier itself.

Mr Monaghan: I think that we should, too, Mr Chairman.

Mr McNarry: All right. So, we have to wait.

Was a works order issued to remove the barrier — the rotten one that was only four inches, the one that was unsuitable?

Mr Monaghan: Yes, Mr Chairman, there was.

Mr McNarry: Could you provide us with a copy of that works order?

Mr Monaghan: Yes. We have no difficulty with that.

Mr McNarry: Was a works order issued, or was it necessary not to replace the barrier?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, there would be no works order. I think that the Committee asked that in writing. There would be no works order committed for work that we did not plan to carry out.

Mr McNarry: So, if you are removing something, you do not need to say why; you just remove it.

Mr Monaghan: I am not exactly sure where you are coming from. The explanation of why we removed the barrier is contained in the report —

Mr McNarry: In which report?

Mr Monaghan: The report that the Chairman now has.

Mr McNarry: This report that you have just landed on our table now, which I have not read.

Mr Monaghan: That is correct, and which I have done my best to get to the Committee. I have also explained to the Committee the rationale behind the removal of the barrier and the rationale behind the decision not to replace it.

Mr McNarry: OK. Can you tell me what changed the Department's mind from removing the barrier that length of time ago, leaving a dangerous situation, to now planning to put a barrier in the same area? What actually changed? How did that happen? What changed your mind?

Mr Monaghan: Yes, Mr Chairman, I am happy to explain that again. Following the incident, our Minister met the Dolan family in early January. That was a private meeting. Following that meeting, the Minister asked officials to have a look at the location and see whether there were any measures that could be put in place to address public confidence issues. That is the reason why no action was taken until now and why the Minister has now decided to ask us to put measures in place.

Mr McNarry: How come, after a ministerial visit, it seemed important enough to put this barrier in, but, even a week before the ministerial visit, it was not important at all? How did that arise? How come it took the Minister to meet the family but, for some great length of time, it was not important to do anything about this accident spot?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I have already said that we had formed the view that it was not necessary to take action at that location, and it was following the Minister asking us to review it. We follow our instructions from the Minister.

Mr McNarry: In these particularly tragic circumstances, the Minister was right to visit the family, but it was brave and handy then for him to tell you how to do your job. Is that not what he is doing?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, it is inappropriate for me to answer that question. The Minister does not tell me how to do my job; he leads the Department in all the strategies and initiatives that are taken forward that are agreed through the Executive and the Assembly.

Mr McNarry: From your choice of words, it is clear to me that the Minister did tell you how to do your job. That is why you are doing something different from sitting on your backsides and doing nothing about it.

What is the length of the barrier that we are talking about on the Malone Road?

Ms Sheldon: It is approximately 30 metres.

Mr McNarry: At the time, what would have been the cost of replacing that 30-metre barrier?

Ms Sheldon: It would not have been a hugely significant cost. I do not know exactly what it would be, because it depends on services and other information. We would have to get service information.

Mr McNarry: I want you to clarify something. I am looking at the photograph that you have submitted. Is that actually what will be put on the Malone Road at the area?

Ms Sheldon: It will be very similar to that, yes.

Mr McNarry: No, no, tell me: is it actually that? Where —

Ms Sheldon: We are still considering what guard rail —

Mr McNarry: Does it have this back railing and —

Ms Sheldon: The parapet? No.

Mr McNarry: So it does not have this.

Ms Sheldon: I beg your pardon? No, that is because that is a bridge over the motorway. That is a motorway parapet.

Mr McNarry: Can you provide us with a photograph of somewhere else in Northern Ireland where you have already provided this high-kerbed installation so that we know exactly what we are going to get?

Ms Sheldon: Yes.

Mr Monaghan: Well, Mr Chairman, that is it. We can show you other locations, but you are not going to get other locations that have exactly the same hedge and —

Mr McNarry: No, no. You have shown us this photograph, but it bears no resemblance to what you are going to do. Why present it? It bears no resemblance to what you are going to do. Could you tell me what the cost is likely to be for this new bit of engineering that you are going to do? What is the cost of that?

Mr Monaghan: First, Mr Chairman, that has a very clear resemblance to what we intend to do. The only difference is what you see at the back of the footway. That is fairly clear. If the Committee would like us to, we can do a mock-up to show you what it would look like or maybe a montage.

Mr McNarry: No, just get a photograph.

Mr Monaghan: I can tell you that these are not high-cost measures. It has not been an issue of cost for the Department. They are relatively low-cost compared with all the other things that we do in our normal everyday activities. Cost is not an issue.

Mr McNarry: OK. Finally, you said that you do not normally place barriers in urban areas as a matter of policy without good reason. What is the reason for doing so now?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I will go back and relate what happened. The Minister had a private meeting with the Dolan family in January —

Mr McNarry: So, we are back to the point that the Minister is telling you how to do your job.

Mr Monaghan: — and following that meeting, he asked us to look at the site again to see whether there was anything we could put in place to address public confidence issues.

Mr McNarry: In addressing public confidence issues, how come that initiative was not taken by you or any of your officials? How come it took the Minister to do that when you or your officials could not take that initiative to present a case to him?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I will go back to what I said earlier. Our officials examined and assessed the site, and, on the basis of the assessment that was carried out in accordance with the current standards and guidelines, it did not require the barrier to be replaced at that location. That was the decision that came from the assessments. That is why we did not move until the Minister asked us.

Mr McNarry: You did not even move in response to a very tragic accident. You did not move an inch in response to a tragic accident. It took your Minister to go to the family and tell you what to do. You could not present any initiative to him whatsoever. You could not decide what was in the public interest or what might help public confidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I did not want to do this now; I wanted to let Ross in. Ross is next, but I have a question on the back of that. Carole, in the assessment that you carry out, how do you measure collision history? What are you looking for?

Ms Sheldon: Any personal injury accident. I think that the initial assessment is over five years.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You have got me now. This is unfair to the other members because they do not have a copy of this, but appendix 2 shows how your Department carried that out, Kevin. It is interesting because it is a prioritisation of potential sites for road restraints. That site already had one in place, so we are not looking for a potential site but one that is in place. In your scoring matrix, the first heading is "Collision history". By your very definition, Carole, for the benefit of the other members, collision history has been scored here at zero. How would there have been a collision history if there was a safety barrier in place protecting the pedestrians?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, Carole looks confused. I will explain that better for you, Carole. The pedestrians have been protected by a barrier. Yes, they have. I know that you look frustrated, but, on other occasions, you have put up barriers to protect people. In this case, the pedestrians were protected because there was a barrier there. The pro forma that you use is for going out to a new specific site and so you were never going to fit a score in the collision history because the pedestrians were previously protected. How was that going to feature better, Kevin? You seem to want to answer that one.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, the pedestrians were probably not protected because of the condition of that barrier. That is the reality.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): What was wrong with the barrier?

Mr Monaghan: There were three problems with it. The first was that the barrier was some 4 inches too low. The second was that it was constructed from wooden posts that were rotten. If there had been a collision, it would not have held up. Finally, the ends of the barrier were not in accordance with our current standards. We normally use the sloping-down in urban areas.

Mr McNarry: You left it there anyhow.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I asked you earlier, Carole, about when it was previously inspected prior to the 2013 report. When did you say that was?

Ms Sheldon: We currently have a five-year inspection programme, but I will have to look back to see —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will remind you: it was in 2011.

Ms Sheldon: No, that was the inspection.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Was that the inspection when you decided to take it down? You are now telling us that the barrier was unsafe and did not meet your current standards, yet it took you almost four years to take it down.

Ms Sheldon: It takes a while to consider these things, yes.

Mr McNarry: For God's sake, Chairman.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): This may be more of a question for Stephen, because he seems to be up on the report stuff. Sorry, Kevin —

Mr Monaghan: Sorry. I was just —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is Stephen OK?

Mr Monaghan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Stephen, what does the terminology "terminals" mean?

Mr Bradshaw: Sorry, can you explain that?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Terminals.

Mr Bradshaw: Terminals are the way that we anchor the ends of the safety barriers. They are normally, in current standards, a ramp down. In that scenario, they were a curved piece of steel. That is a mechanism to terminate the barrier.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is there a difference between a terminal and a departure terminal? What is the difference?

Mr Bradshaw: I imagine that they are the same.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have looked at the section on terminal condition. There is a category for "Terminals with Minor Impact". That is damage, Carole. It says, "Yes". There is then a different category of "Departure Terminal with Major Impact". It says "Yes".

Ms Sheldon: The departure terminal is the one leaving; it is at the far end —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, there is a difference. You and Stephen —

Ms Sheldon: It is still a terminal, but the departure terminal is the one on the —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): When I asked you earlier, you said that the damage was only to the ends. It seems that there are terminals between the ends that have impact damage. Kevin, you are shaking your head, but this is the report that you evaded getting to us. It says, "Terminals with Minor Impact". That is impact; it is damage. It says, "Yes".

Mr Monaghan: My understanding is that terminals are at the ends; they are not in the middle.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, why are there two different ones?

Mr Monaghan: Because there is one at each end.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Well, if one is called the departure, why would the other one not be called the entry?

Mr Bradshaw: The "approach terminal" would be the terminology.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): But it is not on this form. So, there are no terminals anywhere else.

Mr Bradshaw: It would be the ends of an individual length of barrier.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, one of them has had major impact, Carole, and one has had minor impact. Is that what we are saying?

Ms Sheldon: There was damage to the terminals, yes. We —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): And there was no damage along the length of the barrier.

Ms Sheldon: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Can you get us pictures of the barrier before it was removed?

Mr Monaghan: We will do our best. Whatever pictures we have, we will be happy to forward them to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I am sure that you have them.

Mr Hussey: I begin by expressing my sympathy to the family. For Declan, Joe and me, it is a constituent who lost his life.

Before I go into the report from 'The Irish News', I want to ask this: what height, in feet and inches, was the old barrier?

Mr Monaghan: Barriers are supposed to be 2 feet, or 600. It was 4 inches too low, so it was around 500, which is 18 inches.

Mr Hussey: So, it was about 18 inches. It was a visible barrier. If you were driving, you would have seen it. If nothing else, it was visible to anyone driving along; there was something there.

'The Irish News' states:

Correct?

Mr Monaghan: Yes.

Mr Hussey: How did you ascertain the speeds on the road?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, it was said earlier that the speed limit on the road is 30 mph.

Mr Hussey: I know that, but the article states:

We all know that, where there are 30 mph speed limits, not everybody pays much attention to those. How do you know the history of the vehicle speeds on the road?

Mr Monaghan: It would have been a site assessment carried out on the day. I want to be clear: no speed measurements were taken.

Mr Hussey: So, an assessment was taken on the day. How long did that take?

Mr Monaghan: I cannot tell you, but we can check.

Mr Hussey: If it was a traffic survey, you would have sat there for a day or a week. You would have had the little doodahs that indicate the number of cars that go through. If somebody came along, pulled up, sat there and looked around them for 10 minutes and everybody was obeying the law, off they would go. You then move on to site characteristics. The characteristic of that site is that it was near the university. Again, if you watched that, anyone with a titter of wit would have seen a pile of people moving about. Is that in your report as part of the site characteristics?

Mr Monaghan: That would have been taken account of. No formal pedestrian counts were carried out, if that is what you are asking me. No formal traffic speed assessments were carried out. An assessment would have been made on the day by the officer, who would be familiar with the area.

Mr Hussey: I find those two issues shocking. First, if you come along for a few minutes anywhere — even in Omagh, they sit on the side of the road outside Omagh Academy — you will see people observing the speed limit. If you come along at other times of the day, you will see people not observing the speed limit. The fact is that the site characteristics for this are that it was a university site. My background is in insurance. I know about risk, and I know how to assess risk. A 10- or 20-minute overview would not be fair.

Queen's University was not consulted about the barrier's removal, despite the road being a main route for students walking. I would look at the risk, the site and the comments on the site characteristics. If I were writing a report, the site characteristics would indicate that this is a main thoroughfare that is used by students to get from A to B. That does not appear to have been taken into account.

We then move on to the barrier, which we know had been there. I believe that the barrier, whilst it was in place, was an indicator to traffic that there was an issue. This report, which refers to trief kerbs, was handed to us today. It was set down before us, and you would almost believe that trief kerbs had just been invented. From reading the report, you find out:

There is no trief system on this road.

Mr Monaghan: No, Mr Chairman, not at present.

Mr Hussey: That system has been available since 1962. It is nearly as old as me, Mr Chairman — not quite, but nearly. I assumed, when I picked up this report, that it was some wizard wheeze and a new device that would solve everything. It has, however, been available for a long time.

You said something that shocked me: we do not need to consult. Those were your exact words. Somebody went to a house but, for all we know, nobody lives there. We know that a letter was sent because it is referred to in here so it has obviously been released to the press as well. One house on the Malone Road, at or near Sans Souci Park or wherever, is not a consultation, but, of course, you did not need to consult. That reflects very badly on DRD. For anyone who knows this area or knows the road, common sense would dictate that, because of the number of people on the footpath, it is not road safety that is at issue but pedestrian safety. I have to say that I agree with the Chairman and others that somebody somewhere has made a major blunder. The fact that we did not have the report that the Chairman now has seems to show great disrespect to the Committee. The fact is that the BBC reported it. To me, the 'The Irish News' article reflects badly on you as well. I go back to that:

There does not appear to me to have been any assessment of the road category. How were the vehicle speeds determined? Was there a police officer standing with a radar? No, there was not, so that was not done. The hazard to be protected were the people who were trying to get from A to B. Anyone who uses this road would know that a lot of students use it. "Collision history" is a marvellous answer because, with my background in insurance, I know that, if you scratch your car along the side of the road, that is not an accident because you are going to fix it yourself. If you back your car into a hedge or a wall and scratch it, that does not count. However, if people keep bumping into something, something is not right, and there is a history of people bumping into it. This is a comedy of errors that has led to the death of a young man, and there is a major problem.

We cannot blame DRD for the death of this young man, and we are aware that a criminal investigation is ongoing. However, on the basis of what we are told here, the assessment was not done properly. Stephen gave us a lot of gobbledygook about the ifs, buts and maybes and the European standards. Something is missing here: common sense. When you read what was supposed to have been done, and with my background in insurance, if I had done that and submitted a report based on that nonsense, I would not be here today. That is how it appears to me.

The statement that this included an assessment and so on came from DRD, and, to me, the assessment was not carried out. I will not carry on, Chairman, because I am sure that other members want to speak, but this is a tragedy that could have been avoided.

Mr Dallat: I notice in the report, which we have just got our hands on, that you have gone to enormous lengths to redact names. Does anyone take responsibility for anything in your Department?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, there have been redactions to the report but not of all the names. I think that there are names in the report. That is not correct.

Mr Dallat: You will appreciate that I have not had time to go through the whole thing. So far, any names are gone.

Mr Monaghan: There are names in the report.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is the author's name on it?

Mr Monaghan: I think so. I will just check.

Mr Dallat: Later in the report, we find "inspected by" — the name is redacted. Another inspection was carried out on 23 September 2013 by — the name is redacted. Do I need to go any further, or have I made my point?

Mr Monaghan: I apologise. The first page clearly gives the name of the client and the names of those who approved and accepted the report. I do not wish to read them out, Mr Chairman.

Mr Dallat: The names are certainly redacted on the page that I am looking at. What is Roads Service Consultancy?

Mr Monaghan: Carole represents Roads Service Consultancy. I should explain that our name has changed from Roads Service to Transport NI. When this report was carried out, it was Roads Service Consultancy. It is now known as engineering services.

Mr Dallat: Carole, did you write this report?

Ms Sheldon: No. People in my section wrote it.

Mr Dallat: This is getting too much for me. A minute ago, I thought that this was your Roads Service Consultancy or Transport NI or whatever.

Ms Sheldon: I manage that section in the eastern division.

Mr Dallat: Did you take responsibility for this report?

Ms Sheldon: I do.

Mr Dallat: I notice that, in the photograph on the front, which presumably was taken at the time of the inspection, a sign for a school is almost completely obliterated by trees, and the paint seems to have largely disappeared from the crash barrier. Are those not indications of someone who could not care less?

Ms Sheldon: Those are not the responsibilities of the consultancy end of the division. The report — the assessment of the road characteristics and all that — was done in accordance with standards.

Mr Dallat: Now that we have all that information, difficult as it was to extract, it does not come as any surprise to me that somebody inspected the barrier, four years later it was still there, only for it to disappear and not be replaced. One hand does not know what the other is doing. That is the impression that I get.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, we have explained the process that we went through for the inspection. We have been through that.

Mr Dallat: At the beginning, you said that you were influenced largely by the criteria that apply in Britain or England or Scotland —

Mr Monaghan: Across the UK.

Mr Dallat: Are you telling me that the road conditions in, say, Blackpool, Liverpool, Manchester or Birmingham are like here? What I see here is a fairly rural road, with trees, gardens, houses and a church. Does anybody in your Department or consultancy have a mind of their own when deciding where barriers are needed?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, it makes sense to have a set of standards that apply across an area. It is easier to administer the same administrative standards across all areas in the country. We just comply with the same standards as elsewhere.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, Kevin, on the back of what Stephen said earlier, you left your standards outside. Everyone in this room knows that about the 30 mph limit: Stephen went to great lengths to explain it. These only really occur in 50 mph zones. I could put the question to every member around this table and to every one of our constituents in residential areas. Some of them want the speed limit to go down to 20 mph, but at the moment it is 30 mph. We are inundated with barriers. Whatever your standards are, they are out the window. You tried to refute something earlier, but this report was done in 2009. There was an inspection in 2009. There was then an inspection in 2011, and the barrier was removed in September 2014. Kevin, do you deny that you would have been responsible if something had happened at what you deemed a dangerous safety barrier between 2009 and 2014? Would you have accepted responsibility for that?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, you would have to wait for the outcome of the investigation for the facts of an incident. For example —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): The fact is that your report states that it was an unsafe barrier. It took you from 2011 to September 2014 to remove it. The facts are what they are. That is your report. You are saying that it was unsafe. If an accident had happened between 2011 and 2014, would you come here today to accept responsibility?

Mr Monaghan: You would have to look, Mr Chairman, at the circumstances of the case —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You would cover that up as well.

Mr Monaghan: If I may finish —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): No, I am chairing this meeting. It is a yes or no answer. Would you accept responsibility?

Mr Monaghan: There would be a case for contributory negligence.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): There would be. There is a case for negligence here as well.

Mr Monaghan: You would have to look at the individual circumstances.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We are moving on. John, you are next.

Mr Dallat: I am trying to get to the bottom of who makes the decisions. You have these standards that you told us about earlier. You repeated that they are based largely on what influences decisions in another place. I have an email in front of me that has just come in. For the third time on Gortnaghey Road in Dungiven a vehicle is hanging from a precipice with a 15-foot drop into a farmer's yard. Your Department decided against barriers. Is that the type of standard that you have come here to defend?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I am not familiar with that location or that case. I can find out —

Mr Dallat: It is Gortnaghey Road, Dungiven. For the third time, a vehicle is dangling from a 15-foot drop into a farmer's yard, and for the third time you have said no. Is it any wonder that you did not get the message on the Malone Road?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I am not familiar with the circumstances of that site. We are happy to come back to the Committee and explain how the decision was arrived at not to provide a barrier.

Mr Dallat: Your standard —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): We will not bring you back for that, but if you could write to the Committee, that would be interesting.

Mr Monaghan: I am happy to do that.

Mr Dallat: Two miles from where I live, a decent man was killed, and, after it happened, the barriers went up. Is that the standard criteria you are working by and that your consultancy, Carole, is feeding into? Does anyone have any discretion or decision-making powers?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I am not familiar with that particular location. I do not know the circumstances behind it, so I would not like to comment.

Mr Dallat: However, you do know the circumstances on the Malone Road. To be honest, everything that you have told me this morning makes my heart bleed for the family. I have no further questions.

Mr Byrne: Unfortunately, nothing that we can say will bring back this young man. I have a question about the inspection in 2011 and the removal of the existing barrier in September 2014. At the point of removal, had a decision been made to put in a replacement?

Mr Monaghan: Carole, you can keep me right. My understanding is that the assessment for the removal and the risk assessment of whether it should be replaced were done at the same time.

Mr Byrne: What was decided would be put in place of what was taken away on 18 September?

Mr Monaghan: Sorry?

Mr Byrne: What decision was made about what should be put in place after the removal of the existing barrier on 18 September?

Mr Monaghan: At that stage, Mr Chairman, the report scored the location as low priority, so there were no proposals to put anything there.

Mr Byrne: Even though it had been there since 1977. Its condition had been assessed on numerous occasions. The decision taken to remove the existing barrier involved the consequential decision that nothing should be put in its place.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I have explained the process that we went through with our decision to remove the barrier.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): The problem is that you are not convincing anybody here, and maybe that is why Joe is still asking the same question.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I accept that, and I understand where the Committee is coming from. I can explain it again, but I do not think that that is what the Committee wants to hear.

Mr Byrne: So it took a death, a ministerial meeting with the family and a further conversation between the Minister and you before a decision was taken to erect the new high-kerb waist-high barrier. Is that right?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I would not agree with that form of words. I have related the history behind what happened when the barrier was inspected, and it was deemed that no action was necessary. I have related the history of the Minister's meeting with the Dolan family and his request to us to look at options following that meeting. I would not put it as you have put it.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, Joe. There is no other explanation. If the Minister had not intervened, you were not going to change your mind.

Mr Monaghan: If the Minister had not asked us to —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So it has taken the Minister to waken the sleeping lion, if you want to put it that way.

Mr Monaghan: It was at the Minister's request, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So Joe's point is right. If you could acknowledge that to Joe, that would be very useful.

Mr Monaghan: I would not use the form of words that you have used, but I accept the comment that you have made, Mr Chairman.

Mr Byrne: So there was no sense of urgency by any official in the Department. It took a tragedy for a public row and furore to develop. There was an investigative journalist, and it took Jim Beggs, whom I know personally, to make a comment about not being consulted about the reality of groups of people walking up and down the road every day in danger. It took the Minister's interest to impact on you guys that something needed to be done.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I have been clear before. The report showed that it was a low-priority action at that site, so it was not necessary —

Mr Byrne: So it was low priority —

Mr Monaghan: It is still the case —

Mr Byrne: Pardon me —

Mr Monaghan: It still would be a low priority —

Mr Byrne: So a low priority —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, Joe is still speaking.

Mr Byrne: So low priority means that no conscious decision was made objectively to put up a replacement for the structure that had been there until September.

Mr Monaghan: I agree with that.

Mr Byrne: In the absence of proper and qualitative consultation, it is obvious that somebody made a subjective decision to remove the existing structure, but nobody made a decision to put a replacement there.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I cannot agree that the decision was subjective. It was an objective decision based on the standards and the guidance that are nationally applied. It was not subjective.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Of course, the guidance that you used was to look at a report based on the fact that there never was a barrier there, so your guidance was flawed.

Mr Monaghan: That is a nationally applied system. That is all that I can say.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): That may be, but, whether national or otherwise, the Department should waken up to the fact that it can make mistakes and that, in this case, you have. You used the data that you normally gather to draw evidence as to whether something is required when it has not been there. In this case, you based the decision to remove something where it had been previously used for another purpose.

Mr Monaghan: All I can say is that the Minister has indicated that an independent expert will review the decision process, and he will be able to identify whether the decision was correct.

Mr Byrne: I have one further question. When will the new structure be erected?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, we are working to have it erected as quickly as possible. I cannot give you an actual date, because certain works need to be carried out. We need to consult with utilities, the materials need to be ordered up, and we also need to do a small amount of design to ensure that, for example, we do not hit BT or NIE cables, so that will take some time. I have said to the Minister that I hope to have it in place — I will work very hard to have it in place — within six to eight weeks.

Mr Byrne: Lastly, Chairman, I want to acknowledge the good work by Councillor Declan Boyle, who has been highlighting this issue for many weeks.

Mr Lynch: I want to move on to the criteria. I know that that issue has been ventilated by all members. Stephen, I come from an area — Fermanagh — where there is much water. It floods. I have been trying to get a barrier on a road. The road was raised by one metre because of flooding in 2010. There is a bank with a two-metre drop into water. The water is there only during flooding, which is six months of the year. They have refused to put up a barrier. Quite a number of people drive on the road, which is narrow and dark. The verge goes into a swamp, and, for half the year, that is two metres of water, because the Erne floods for six months of the year. The residents have been shaking their heads and asking why they cannot have a barrier.

Mr Bradshaw: As was mentioned, we have a procedure for potential sites. All I can suggest is that that conversation be revisited with the division in question. There is a procedure to score and prioritise existing parts of the road network where there is no barrier, and there is a perceived hazard.

Mr Lynch: Do we wait until an incident happens, as was the case in the incident that members have been outlining, and then put up a barrier? In that case, it seems to me that the family was proactive, and the Minister visited them and listened. It was not even the Minister who directed that this barrier go up again; it was the family. Do we wait until there is a fatality?

Mr Bradshaw: On a general basis, the prioritisation framework does not require an incident or collision to be recorded for it to be prioritised.

Mr Monaghan: We are happy to look at that location and to come back to you, if you would like us to do that.

Mr Lynch: OK; thank you.

Mr Moutray: We have been sitting here for the last 90 minutes discussing this tragic issue. I have a son who started Queen's last September — the same time as young Enda Dolan. My heart goes out to that family. He was a young fella starting out in life. I know the site well. The barrier had been there for some 35 years. We are told today that you do not have to consult to remove it, and a call was made to one house. Hundreds of students go up and down that road every day and night from the Elms village. Transport NI is good at talking about policies and procedures. Does anybody ever think outside the box and talk to the authorities at Queen's? In my eyes, the barrier is placed in a pretty unique situation. It was placed there all those years ago for a very valid reason, then, all of a sudden — well, not all of a sudden, but two and a half years after an examination —it goes missing, and we are told that a call was made to one house. Kevin, do you accept that there have been failings in the division that you lead on this issue? Could things have been done better?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, there will be an independent review of the decisions. I will leave it until the outcome of that review before I make any comment.

Mr Moutray: At this point, there is nothing that you feel —

Mr Monaghan: I feel that the Department has acted in accordance with existing design guidance and standards. You can take issue with the scoring and the data that was collected for the report, and you can challenge that; we are content for it to be challenged. I suppose that the review will take account of that. From my understanding of the case and the history, the process was correct.

We will just have to wait until the independent review tells us whether that was the case or not.

Mr Moutray: Was the decision taken to remove the barrier made by your organisation in isolation or was it made in consultation with other statutory bodies? I am thinking of the police and people like that.

Mr Monaghan: I have already covered the consultation, and I have been up front and said that the only body consulted was the frontager. There was not a wider consultation, and it is not something that we generally do when we are doing our general works to improve and maintain the road. Generally, we do not consult far and wide on everything we do. We would find that impossible, from a logistical and resource point of view. The places where we should and do consult are set out in legislation.

Mr Moutray: There was no consultation with the police in relation to road traffic accidents at that site.

Mr Monaghan: I suppose that that might be slightly inaccurate. We obtain details of road traffic collisions from the police on an ongoing basis. That information is analysed to identify places where collisions cluster, and that information will also have been —

Mr Moutray: Are those injury-only accidents?

Mr Monaghan: Yes, they are injury-only collisions.

Mr Moutray: We have heard today that the barrier removed was damaged; so, there is an indication that accidents had happened, whether or not they were injury-only accidents.

Mr Monaghan: I did not see the barrier. Like the Committee, I have only seen photographs. There was evidence that the barrier had been damaged, but we cannot say how it had been damaged. It could have been vandalised or it could have been damaged by vehicles. We just do not know.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): This is a folded steel barrier. Can you tell me how vandals would damage that?

Mr Monaghan: I am just saying that I do not know how it was damaged.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will tell you the truth. For you to come out with that, and to suggest that, is just appalling. Maybe Stephen should tell us, because he knows an awful lot about them. I assume, Stephen, that these barriers are constructed to withstand a fair degree of impact. Is that fair or otherwise?

Mr Bradshaw: It is.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Right, that is fair. Kevin, tell me then how you think that someone could have vandalised it. We are not talking about something that is made of glass.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw that remark.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I think you should.

Mr Monaghan: It would have been more appropriate for me to say that we do not know the circumstances of how the barrier was damaged.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Your attitude to this meeting today and your demeanour says a lot for how the Department has responded to this incident, Kevin. I am talking about your demeanour; I am not talking about Stephen, and I am not talking about Carole. I am sorry, Stephen, David wants in briefly.

Mr Moutray: That is OK, yes. I have heard all the answers, and they just do not stack up. It is unbelievable.

Mr McNarry: On the matter of collating collisions; I hope that I do not get into trouble for this, but I recall hitting the original barrier. There was snow on the road, and I slid into the barrier, not at any great speed. I do not know whether that was a collision. I had a good look at the barrier then, and it seemed to me that it had taken quite a few knocks. Are you able to tell us, during the lifetime of the barrier that we are talking about, how many repairs to it were carried out due to vehicle impact?

Mr Monaghan: I do not have that information, but we can check. I am not sure that there were repairs, but I do not know the answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I think that Carole wishes to come in.

Ms Sheldon: I was just going to say that there is no record of —

Mr McNarry: Just a moment ago, you were painting a picture, in response to Mr Moutray, that it had taken a knock. From the photograph that John Dallat referred to, it seems that it is something that has just been left there.

I know that I have hit it, and I am quite sure that a whole load of other people had hit it before me and that people hit it afterwards. I am wondering how many repairs there were, because that might have been a better indication than the police information and the wandering about in the dark about collisions. It might have been an indication as to how effective the barrier was.

Let me tell you this: as a motorist, I thought that it was very effective, and I also thought later on how glad I was that there was nobody behind it. I did not mount the barrier, but I was glad that there was a barrier there. It is a dangerous part of the road. I know it very well. If you have any reports or figures on the repairs, they may give us some indication as to how necessary the barrier was and how appalling, dreadful and woeful the decision was to remove it under any circumstances. I do not think that the Department will ever survive any denial that it was the wrong decision to take it away. It has no feet to stand on.

Ms Sheldon: The condition of the beam was good. It showed no indication of collisions that the inspector could see, and we looked back for records of repairs over the past number of years. We may hold records for only up to about five years ago, but we could find no evidence that —

Mr McNarry: You are saying that it was an effective barrier. It had been there a long, long time. It withstood people like me bumping into it. Lots of people did that. It was very effective yet you took it away.

Ms Sheldon: There was no evidence of any repair having been carried out. The beam was in good condition and there was no evidence of any repair having been carried out over a number of years longer than the intervention level for collisions.

Mr McNarry: You are making my point. Thank you. It was good. It was there. It was serving a purpose. It was useful. And it would have saved a life.

Mr Monaghan: I related to the Committee the three major defects that we spotted on the barrier, and I did not mention the beam. The issues were the height, the rotten wooden posts and the ends. Those were the reasons.

Mr McNarry: The thing was doing its job right up until the moment that somebody decided to take it away, and, from then on in, lives were at risk. In that context, you have to stand up and say that it was a great decision to take it away. You can talk about protocols, science and whatever you like, but you did not replace it with anything. It took all that time and then for the Minister to give somebody a kick up the backside to come up with a new form. You cannot get away from the fact that the barrier did its job. It really worked, yet somebody took it away.

Mr Monaghan: All I can say is that we are not convinced that the old barrier would have worked had there been collision when it was in place. We were concerned about the condition of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Can I take you back to your report? You have a copy in front of you, Kevin, albeit you have names on yours and we do not. It is unfortunate that we do not all have copies of this today because we could all be looking at it. I had to leave the room momentarily, and, when I came in, Ross was talking about speeds. This is the first time that I have seen one of these forms and so you can correct me if I am wrong. You add up your points and a multiplication is done. Is that right, Kevin? That is to arrive at a decision on whether it is a priority or not.

Mr Monaghan: I am not an expert on the scoring system.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Is Stephen more au fait with that?

Mr Monaghan: Between the three of us, we can answer.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): It is fair to say that, when it gets to a priority, the maximum score is 100, and that will inform your decision on whether to replace something or otherwise. Is that fair?

Mr Monaghan: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Ross made me focus on this point. In the debate yesterday, we talked about 20's Plenty. We are familiar with the fact that, in a 30 mph zone, most people do not do that speed, and, in a 20 mph zone, they will probably not do that either. In appendix 1, you scored "Road Speed adjacent to Hazard" zero because you said that it was a 30 mph zone. Was a traffic survey carried out on the road to make sure that the majority of the vehicle traffic was doing 30 mph? Most of us who work with Transport NI in our areas know that, in a 30 mph zone, the average speed is usually about 35 mph. In a 40 mph zone, it is usually more. Whoever did the report has scored it zero. Was a survey done?

Mr Monaghan: My understanding is that a formal traffic survey was not done.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I will take you to "Priority for Repair/Replacement". Someone has trouble with their multiplication. Is it 27·5 or is it 33?

Ms Sheldon: A percentage of inspections are reassessed by a higher grade officer. There is a percentage quality assurance check.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Sorry, none of this has been changed, other than the fact that, when someone multiplied 5·5 by 6, they decided that it made 33, not 27·5. Was that part of the original report, or was that somebody coming behind who could multiply better than the first person?

Ms Sheldon: The checker.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Right. So, maths is not their strong subject. This is based on a report where no speed survey was done for the road.

Mr Monaghan: My understanding is that no formal speed survey was carried out.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): On the back of today, Kevin, will you do me a favour? I do not know whether the rest of the Committee will support me in this, but could we get a survey done on that road to see what the average speed of the traffic is?

Whoever did this report did not bother their backside doing one; they did not care. They went, with all intents and purposes, thinking, "This barrier is coming down, and this stacks up our case to remove it, so we'll just say that all the traffic's doing 30 mph because that's what we think they're doing". There are no statistics to back it up.

Mr Byrne: That is why, Chairman, I say that a subjective decision was made.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): You are right, Joe.

Mr Byrne: There is no empirical evidence. It was a flight of fancy.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): They came to the decision first, and it was then, "Let's get the evidence based round the decision".

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman —

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Kevin, you refuted it earlier. You did not like it earlier, but that is the fact. This was guesswork, or, to use the Minister's word, a "guesstimate". There is no evidence to suggest the average speed of the vehicles travelling that road. If everyone round the table were honest, they would say that they are guilty of driving too fast, as the majority of the population of Northern Ireland are.

Mr McNarry: If you drive fast on the approach to that bend, it comes on you very quickly. You then slow down, without the snow. That is what is happening; it has been a godsend that nobody has been hurt.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): So, Kevin, are you going to give me an assurance today that we will get a survey done on that piece of the road?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I am happy to arrange a survey.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Will we get the full report rather than an edited version?

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I would be happy to provide you with a full report.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): And it will come straight to us, not via the BBC.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, I do not have control over the information that goes out to the BBC and the timing of it. All I can tell you is that I did my best to respond to the requests that the Committee made. I looked back when we were talking there; the date of the Committee's request was 11 February. We do our best, but I cannot control what the media say.

Mr Easton: You decided to remove the barrier because there were defects in it, and you were not going to replace it. Is that correct?

Mr Monaghan: Yes — more or less. That was the assessment.

Mr Easton: So, despite there being two deaths, although they were some considerable time before, you did not feel the need to keep it up.

Mr Monaghan: Mr Chairman, we have to be mindful that there is an investigation. We do not know the facts at the moment about the incident, where the exact location of it was or the circumstances surrounding the incident. With due respect, I ask whether it would be possible to await the outcome of the investigation, which will establish the facts. The nationally agreed system that we talked about requires us to look at incidents and collisions back five years. That is what our officials did.

Mr Easton: Did the police not say that, because the barrier was not there, it was not part of their investigation?

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): They did.

Mr Easton: What does that have to do with my question? Very little.

Mr Monaghan: I think that it says a lot, actually, that the barrier is not part of the police investigation.

Mr Easton: I am taking about the barrier. It is not part of the investigation. There seems to be an issue for you with me asking you questions.

Mr Monaghan: I may have picked you up incorrectly, but I thought that you were implying that the incidents that occurred would have been stopped by the barrier.

Mr Easton: No.

Mr Monaghan: I am not sure that that is the case.

Mr Easton: I was asking you, because there were previous incidents years ago, and two deaths, would that not mean that, because of the serious nature of those incidents years ago, you would be keeping that barrier up? If there have been deaths at a certain spot, and a barrier has been put up because of that, it does not make sense to take it down.

Mr Monaghan: The first incident was — and it is on press because there are no records of it — in the 1970s. The nationally agreed standards do not require us to take account of that. In relation to the most recent, very tragic incident, I am saying that we have to await the outcome of the circumstances of that and the investigation into it to find out whether it was relevant or not.

Mr Easton: Does the DRD do regular inspections of the barrier?

Ms Sheldon: Yes.

Mr Easton: You only have records for about five years.

Ms Sheldon: I will have to check, but it will be seven years as per the disposal schedule.

Mr Easton: OK. How often would they check the barrier?

Ms Sheldon: Since the Selby report and the new TD19 on inspections, we have a rolling five-year programme.

Mr Easton: So, once.

Ms Sheldon: It will be inspected by the roads inspector every two years.

Mr Easton: So, there is an inspection once every two years.

Ms Sheldon: That is just a visual inspection. Someone will come to look at the structural elements of the barrier every five years.

Mr Easton: So, the removal was due to the structural inspection.

Ms Sheldon: Yes.

Mr Easton: Large sections of the barrier were in decent or reasonable shape.

Ms Sheldon: The beam was in good shape.

Mr Easton: OK. What was not in good shape?

Ms Sheldon: The posts were in poor shape.

Mr Easton: Would it not have been better to do repairs, change the posts and keep the barrier in place, rather than remove it for good?

Ms Sheldon: It really was not feasible. The barrier was low, and the end terminals were not satisfactory either. With the length of the beam, it was not cost-effective to replace bits of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I have to say, Carole. This session has been an hour and a half. Your last comment was that it was not cost-effective. No one around this table could question the effectiveness that it may have had. We might not have been having this discussion if it had remained. A young fella has lost his life. Cost-effective? It cost £800 to remove it.

Ms Sheldon: Can I say something? Sorry, everybody. The money we put into these things is money that is taken out of something else. If we put up one barrier, we do not have the money to put a barrier up somewhere else where the risk may be higher. That does not mean that we know where the accident will take place.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): Maybe you should come out of your silos. As I said, there was a debate yesterday where there was talk of it costing between £23 million and £25 million, at a guess, to change signage in Northern Ireland to enforce 20 mph limits. If we did that purely on a cost basis, it would not be financially viable. As Pat Ramsey said, if it saves one life it will be money well spent.

Someone made a very good decision back in the 1970s to put a barrier up in that place. Kevin, you can take all your policies and do what you like with them, but the fact is that someone made a decision to remove it. You will not convince anyone around this table that they did not make the wrong decision. Kevin, you have left your door open, and we have an open door policy as well. As soon as the police investigation is finished, we will be very happy to bring you back. Some of that investigation will focus on the accident, but many of us around this table know that there will be no reference to the barrier because the police have been very clear that they are not looking at the barrier at the minute. When you come back, we will look at the barrier, we will talk about where the incident happened and the road around the footpath. You can bring whoever you like, because the fact is that, if the barrier had been there, there is every likelihood that we would not be having this discussion today. We will leave it there today. It is sad how you made your presentation and how you have tried to defend the indefensible.

Mr Monaghan: It has been a difficult meeting, but thank you for taking the time to talk to us.

The Chairperson (Mr Clarke): I look forward to seeing you again.