Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I welcome, via StarLeaf, Mr Declan McGeown, deputy secretary of the resources, governance and EU group; Ms Susan Anderson, director of finance; and Mr Conor Loughrey, director of network services (Roads). There seems to be a bit of background noise on the line, so I ask those who are not participating to mute themselves while the presentation is being given. I will hand over to the officials to give us their briefing.

I am not getting any response from the officials. If you can hear me, please raise your hand.

Mr Declan McGeown (Department for Infrastructure): Can you hear us now?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I can indeed. Is that Conor? No, it is Declan. I can hear you now. Do you want to begin your presentation?

Mr McGeown: I will, thank you. Apologies for the connection issues.

Thank you for the opportunity to attend the Committee today. I welcome the chance to provide an update to members on the October monitoring round and to provide an update on our Department's in-year budget position. I am joined this morning by Susan Anderson, our finance director, and Conor Loughrey, our director of network services. First, I want to sincerely apologise for the lateness of the written briefing being provided to Committee members. As members will appreciate, monitoring rounds require careful and close scrutiny of the financial position, and there are a number of financial uncertainties that we have been considering over recent days to ensure that the most accurate and reliable position is reported and that the bids that are put forward are robust.

I propose today to focus on the 2021-22 Budget and I will, in due course, provide a separate briefing to the Committee on the 2022-25 Budget at the appropriate time. Before I turn to the October monitoring position, I will advise the Committee on the outcome of the June monitoring round. As you will see in the written briefing that we have provided, the outcome was disappointing for the Department, with only £3 million of our non-COVID resource pressures being met. That has meant, therefore, that the starting position for October monitoring has been challenging, as significant services remain unfunded, creating real difficulties in delivering and maintaining a reasonable level of public service.

With regard to October monitoring, the Committee has been provided with a written briefing that outlines resourced non-COVID bids that total £49·6 million. These bids reflect the baseline pressures that remain at this stage of the year and the inescapable external influences, such as energy costs, that the Department, like many others, is subject to. In particular, increasing energy costs are a significant pressure for Northern Ireland Water, as it is the largest consumer of electricity in Northern Ireland. While funding was secured for NI Water in the opening Budget and at June monitoring in order to meet the Utility Regulator's price determination, a further £19·7 million is now required to meet the unforeseen substantial increase in electricity prices.

In addition, the pressure facing our public transport service is £24 million, which reflects the shortfall in funding for Translink. That level of

ensure that the cost of running our public transport network can be met. Further resource bids have been submitted, including £4 million for the winter service, which is required to deliver in what would be considered an average winter, along with £1·9 million for roads pressures, including energy costs for street lighting.

COVID continues to have an impact on the income that is generated by the Department and its arm's-length bodies, and bids totalling £26·4 million have been made to address that. In addition to lost income from public transport and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), a bid has been included for support for the taxi industry. Our Minister is keen to provide support for the taxi industry, and therefore a bid has been submitted to support the Minister's plans to provide financial support to first-time taxi drivers, which is aimed at addressing the shortage of taxi drivers, and covering the cost of taximeter tests following the consultation on revised taxi fares.

Finally, on capital, the Department is carefully managing and scrutinising its capital budget. There remains significant uncertainty over the deliverability of the structural maintenance budget as a result of the legal challenges and potential cost increases that are emerging in the delivery of the complex A6 Dungiven and Drumahoe flagship scheme. The Department is continuing to seek to maximise spend on structural maintenance. Therefore, given the high level of uncertainty at this stage, no bids or reduced requirements are being declared in October monitoring, though of course that will be closely monitored throughout the remainder of the year.

In closing, it is important to reiterate that the Minister is very keen to get the Committee's views and support in shaping and delivering improvements to people's everyday lives, and she welcomes your constructive challenge and input. I hope that this discussion on the October monitoring round will assist the Committee in understanding the challenges that the Minister faces and the difficult financial decisions that will have to be taken in the coming months, depending on how the resource position in particular develops. Thank you. We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK, thank you, Declan. I want to reiterate that it was not befitting for the Committee to receive the briefing at 8.30 on the night before it was due to meet and discuss the Budget briefing. It does a disservice not only to DFI but to the Committee in its scrutiny of such an important session, given the uncertainty and the pressures that are facing the Department at present. I want to put that on record, and I hope that it is not a recurring theme in the time that we have left in the mandate.

You asked for £36·7 million for non-COVID pressures and got £3 million. What was the impact of that? What was there that you should have done but did not have the money to do? That is going back to the period in October.

Ms Susan Anderson (Department for Infrastructure): The impact of that is that we have had to continue to put those bids forward as part of October monitoring. The largest element of that relates to the Translink pressure, which you will see is carried forward into the current monitoring round. In terms of that —.

Mr Beggs: Chair, I cannot pick up what is being said. It is very bad reception.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Susan, unfortunately, you are a wee bit of a distance from the microphone, and it is hard to pick up the sound at the Committee.

Ms Anderson: Apologies. Can you hear me better now?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I can. Yes, that is perfect. Thank you very much.

Ms Anderson: Apologies; I will start again.

The majority of the pressure remaining at June monitoring relates to the Translink pressure. As members will see, we have bid for that again as part of the October monitoring round. That Translink pressure is really the difference between the costs that Translink expects to incur this year versus the income that it expects to receive. It has not impacted on operational delivery, because Translink is continuing to deliver the service as planned.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Does anybody else wish to add anything to that comment? It is a broad overview. No? You are happy enough? OK.

How much do you expect to get from this monitoring round? Do you have good cause for optimism, given what you have bid for in the past and the small allocation received?

Mr McGeown: There are competing priorities right across government at the moment, so it is difficult for us to say at this stage what exactly we think that we will get, but we hope that we will get enough to continue running vital public services.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. On winter services, the state of many of our rural roads in particular has been placed on the record in this Committee and on the Floor of the House. The rural roads fund will go some way to try and help to alleviate those pressures, but I am a bit concerned. Obviously, it talks of a £4 million bid, which will hopefully be enough to service an average winter, but given the state of our roads and given the potential that we could have a harsher winter — that is always an option; nobody is in control of the weather — how sure are officials that that bid is adequate?

Mr McGeown: I will pass to Conor in a moment, but, typically, in recent years, the total cost for winter services has been in and around £7 million. So we have that time series, for want of a better expression, to demonstrate that that is in and around what the cost will be. As you said, some roads need more repair than others, but we are fairly optimistic that £7 million should be enough to provide that service. Conor, is there anything that you want to add to that?

Mr Conor Loughrey (Department for Infrastructure): Yes, Declan. The £4 million really tops up the £3 million that we have received to date, which gives us £7 million. That is our average cost for gritting services over the winter. We will see how the winter pans out between now and January, and we will take stock again in January for January monitoring, when we will be better placed to have a feel for what the likely out-turn might be. We will know then what sort of a winter we will have had, or at least have a better picture.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Conor, your line is particularly difficult. Maybe it is your Wi-Fi.

I want to get my head around the roads winter services. Is this £4 million and the other £3 million top-up that you talked about entirely an in-house budget, or will contractors potentially be involved in some of the scheme, in particular with gritting and other issues to help to alleviate winter pressures?

Mr Loughrey: That £7 million is purely for gritting. That is the internal cost for gritting. It does not deal with any consequentials of a bad winter or potholes or anything like that. It is purely the gritting service.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I suppose that that answers that question. Following on from that, given the uncertainty over the delivery of structural contracts due to legal challenges, if this budget is not spent, can you use it for some other priorities?

Ms Anderson: Structural maintenance is part of the capital budget, so we were managing that capital budget at an overall global level. As members will be aware, we had an over-planning amount of around £22 million at the start of the year, which was good prudent financial management. We are trying to work that balance down as well. Initially, we will use any potential easements that come through in any of the capital schemes, not just the structural maintenance, to offset the over-planning amount, and, after that, any other pressures that may arise on other schemes or anything else in capital. We will also look for further contingency projects, as we did at the start of the year. We are closely monitoring some further potential emerging cost pressures as well, and we will keep a close eye on that between now and the final monitoring round of this financial year.

Ms Kimmins: I thank all the officials for coming to the Committee this morning. The road resurfacing contracts are some of the big ones, so I want to get a sense of how much of the funding has been affected by the current legal challenge. The delayed planned programme of resurfacing affects my constituency in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. What will happen to the funding that has been set aside for that if the work has not been completed by the end of this financial year? I want to get a wee bit of an idea of the impact of that.

Mr McGeown: Originally, the Minister bid for £120 million for this year. On account of the legal challenges, we have recalibrated that and are looking more towards £80 million. We are developing mitigation plans and are hopeful and optimistic that we can come in somewhere in the region of £85 million. To give you a sense of the regional breakdown, it is £10·2 million for the eastern area, £17·9 million for the northern area, £21·6 million for the southern area and £20·6 million for the western area. So we are optimistic, sitting at this point today, that we can come somewhere close to £85 million.

Ms Kimmins: OK, thank you. I do not know whether this is a question for yourselves, but will the works in the planned programme that do not get completed within this year be put on hold until next year? My concern is that they could be put to the bottom of the list. Will the funding for them be set aside?

Mr Loughrey: Maybe I can answer that.

I will probably just

the whole maintenance issue. As Declan said, we bid for £120 million; the Minister bid for that and was successful in getting it. You are obviously aware of the legal issues

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Conor, I do not know if other members are having this problem, but in the room here we cannot hear anything that you are saying. It is more to do with your connection than anything else.

Mr Loughrey: Is that better or worse?

Ms Kimmins: That is better.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): That is better. Try again.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Try again.

Mr Loughrey: Can you hear me?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Yes.

Mr Loughrey: OK, I will start again.

The Minister bid for £120 million this year for structural maintenance and was successful in getting it. However, you will be aware of the legal issues that we have, which affect contracts in four of the 12 areas that are covered by

and there are another five contracts that will end in November. Clearly, all of that impacts on our capacity to deliver in a number of areas. What are we doing about it? Recognising the problems that we have encountered this year, we have come up with a new procurement strategy. Instead of having 12 contracts, we are moving to

going to have a greater number of contracts in smaller areas and for shorter terms. Hopefully, that will reduce the risk of legal challenges going forward.

Of course, that leaves us with a problem for this year

acknowledge, and, as Declan said, we are seeking to maximise our spend this year through other contracts and the use of

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Conor, we are having extreme difficulties hearing you at the Committee. Can you please turn off your video and use just audio? That might help.

Mr Beggs: He cannot hear us.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Can the DFI officials please mute their line while Conor speaks? We are having a lot of feedback on the line. Conor, your screen is now just on to audio, which is good. We may be able to hear. Do you want to try again?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): We are having connection difficulties. Apologies, Conor. Can you please put that response in writing? That was useful information and will help the Committee. We will move on to another question.

Mr Loughrey: I will just maybe try to answer Liz's question. Schemes that are affected this year because they are on hold will certainly be part of the new contract and will be top of the list when we get the new contracts in place as they roll out next year. It is not that schemes that are cancelled will go to the bottom of the list. They will remain priority schemes, and we will be getting to them as soon as we can.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): That is better. We can hear that now. Liz, do you want a follow-up question?

Ms Kimmins: Thank you, Conor. My next question was going to be to get a wee bit more information on the new scheme that Conor has alluded to. The information that I was able to get was helpful.

Chair, I have one other question, if possible. It is around the A1 project. Obviously, I have mentioned that in previous meetings. We were told that, once the orders and the business case were made, a conversation would have to be had with the Minister on her priorities on this. Can the officials provide a comment on that and on whether any further consideration has been given to this project within the current budget? It is a crucial one, and we are keen to see it pressing ahead as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you. I think that was more of a comment, and, if nobody wishes to respond, we can come back.

Mr Muir: Thank you, officials, for coming to the Committee. I have three very brief things. I share the disappointment of other members that there is no bid in the monitoring round for roads resurfacing. Bids for roads resurfacing have been a clear feature of monitoring rounds from time immemorial. The fact that there are not significant bids for that is disappointing because I know that many areas, including in my constituency, are in desperate need for action on roads and pavements. Obviously, we are conscious of the procurement issues that have arisen with that. Is there any potential that there will be a surrender of any budgets for roads resurfacing at the end of the financial year in light of the procurement issues that have taken place?

The bids in this monitoring round are completely unusual. Obviously, we are in unprecedented times, but there are significant — I mean significant — bids for support to Translink and to NI Water. The bids, from my understanding, are quite critical to NI Water for electricity costs, as Northern Ireland's biggest consumer, and to Translink for operating costs. If these bids are not met in full, what will the impact be on Northern Ireland Water and on Translink? I have never really seen such significant bids in my time for those non-departmental public bodies. I am concerned about what the impact would be on front-line services for citizens of Northern Ireland if those bids are not met.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Who wants to take that one?

Mr Loughrey: I will comment on the first point. Can you hear me OK?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Yes, we can indeed, Conor.

Mr Loughrey: I think that it is worth saying that the Minister and ourselves are disappointed that we are not in a position to be bidding for more funding for structural maintenance, but I think that it is acknowledged that, with it being the difficult year that it is, we will not be able to fully spend the £120 million, for many reasons that are outside our control. The best guess at the minute is that we are looking at spending between £80 million and £90 million of that.

As Declan said earlier, the capital budget is managed at a departmental level, and there are uncertainties across a number of areas. It is my understanding that, in the light of those uncertainties, there is no bid for funding or any identification, at this time, of any reduced requirements.

Mr Muir: The issue is that it is impacting not only on citizens in Northern Ireland but on employment. As you will know, large companies rely on those contracts. I cannot express how disappointed I am about this situation. It is not that there have not been previous reports documenting the need for investment in that area; there have been. If there is no ability to proceed with procurement contracts in some council areas, there is most certainly an ability to proceed in other areas. The Department has a list of projects that could proceed in different council areas, so there is real disappointment about that.

The state of the roads is an issue that is often raised with me. It is not just about vehicle traffic. Cyclists, when cycling along roads, have been thrown off their bicycles because of the state of our roads and lack of departmental action on that. So, I am very disappointed to hear the figures of £80 million and £90 million.

Mr Loughrey: I agree. We know what the need is out there, and we want to address it, but, obviously, there is a

That is why we had a good look at our procurement strategy. We had 12 contracts and 12 areas of longer terms, and then we have had legal challenges on a number of those, so we are now moving to 24, which are smaller terms and smaller areas, and, hopefully, that reduces the risk of legal challenges to contract awards, but only time will tell.

Ms Anderson: I will pick up on the second point on the impact on Translink and NI Water if the significant bids put forward are not met. Looking to NI Water first, that relates primarily to electricity and increasing energy costs, which, again, are fluctuating quite significantly. It is also inescapable, so nothing can be done to avoid those costs. We will engage with NI Water to see what actions need to be taken to live within budget up to the end of this financial year, if the bid is unsuccessful. Unfortunately, the impact of energy costs affects many other

citizens and households, so

With regard to Translink, members will be aware that, in the last financial year, Translink received additional funding to replace historic underfunding. The bids for pressures that have been put forward are to address the in-year anticipated loss. The Department will work with Translink to see how the overall position is managed, bearing in the mind that an additional £50 million was received last year for reserves as well.

Mr Muir: Thank you for that. I am conscious that other members have questions, but, on the NI Water situation, you are completely correct that there are inescapable demands, but have you had any indication from NI Water about what its alternative plans will be if the bids are not met?

Ms Anderson: We do not have that detail yet. That is something that we will work through with NI Water when we get the outcome of the monitoring round. We need to carefully manage the energy prices and see whether they continue to rise or whether there is any stabilising of prices.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much. At every monitoring round, we get this paper through from you, and it details your bids. Then we get an outcome of the monitoring round, but we do not really come back to it here, in Committee. So, what generally happens is that you bid for all that and you do not get an awful lot of it. That is where the most important discussion should occur: what is the impact of those bids not being met in monitoring rounds?

I suggest that, once the monitoring round is completed and published, we should invite you back to have a discussion on the impact of those bids being met or not met. That is an important discussion to have, rather than leaving it to the end of the financial year when the situation is played out in public services. I do not know whether the Committee would be content with that, but I think that it would be good to have an informed discussion about what has happened as a result of whether the bids have been met or not.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. We can come back to that point at the end of the briefing. Thank you, Andrew.

Mr Boylan: I welcome Declan, Conor and Susan. Most of my questions are probably directed to Declan and Susan.

Will you indicate what the current reserves are for the DVA, NI Water and Translink?

I listened to what you said, and I know that the question about energy prices was answered a wee bit. What are the total costs for those rises in energy prices, aside from those in NI Water? What are the total costs for the Department?

My third question is about COVID pressures. Is there any difference between your current and previous projections? Is the situation better or worse than you thought previously?

Will you answer those three questions, please? I have another two quick questions that I want to ask after that.

Mr McGeown: Mr Boylan, thank you for the questions. We are not able to answer the questions on the reserves and the total cost of electricity at this point. We will follow that up immediately after the meeting.

On COVID-19 more generally, we are seeing an improved picture, particularly for Translink, the Strangford and Rathlin ferries etc, where we are seeing more passenger uptake. That is putting us in a more positive position going forward. I hope that that will continue in the weeks and months ahead, particularly as we head into the winter months. Generally, it seems as though the situation is improving, and that has certainly been reflected to us by Translink and the other service providers. We are on a positive trajectory, insofar as people are returning to using services. Hopefully, that will narrow the gap in what we need to bid for in future monitoring rounds.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that. You can write back to the Committee to answer my other two questions.

Moving on from that, the DVA was under pressure, but I see that there has been an uplift in its business. Will you comment on that increase in its operations?

Ms Anderson: DVA operations showed a loss up until the end of August. After that, the working assumption has been that it will return to full capacity. That is the assumption that was factored into the pressures that we put forward, but, again, that will be monitored throughout the rest of the year.

Mr Boylan: That has increased. Sound.

This is my final point. At a previous meeting, officials mentioned a £56 million bid to replace Connecting Europe Facility funding. Will you give us an update on that bid and what that fund, ideally, would be used for? You may need to write to the Committee with that detail.

Ms Anderson: EU funding?

Mr McGeown: It was. It was about replacement funds. We will follow that up.

Mr Boylan: OK. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr Beggs: Thanks for the update. I want to be clear about what was said. Like other members, I am very disappointed that there are no bids for increased structural maintenance, given the defects on our roads. You indicated that you plan to spend only between £80 million and £85 million this year. If I picked this up right, you said that five more contracts were coming to an end in November and that that was restricting your ability to make bids. Is that correct?

Mr McGeown: Conor, can you come in on that?

Mr Loughrey: Yes. Four contracts are impacted by the legal challenge, and five will expire in November. We will obviously

We also have the new tranche of schemes. They will go through the tender process shortly, so we expect replacement contracts in the new year. Those will be the first tranche of

We hope to award those in January.

Mr Beggs: Why on earth is the new contract not in place months before the old one runs out? We are missing a huge opportunity to improve our road structures. It is also impacting people's lives. Those workers will not have work and will be laid off while something urgently needs to be done. Why is the new contract not sitting ready to kick in before the old one runs out?

Mr Loughrey: We have to go through due process on them and go through a tendering process, which we are doing and have done, obviously, with the four contracts on which we had the legal challenge. Unfortunately, we have not been able to implement those and get them on the ground. The new contracts will come out in January; there will be six new ones so, hopefully, we will be able to spend under those contracts in the current financial year. We will consider that as part of January monitoring.

Mr Beggs: I appreciate that there has been a legal difficulty and that you have had to re-tender for those four contracts. Looking at the other five, however, why does the Department not schedule the tendering process so that it is completed before the previous contract runs out and have some degree of overlap so that you are not caught out like that? That strikes me as being incompetent, I have to say. Why is there a gap of contractor?

Mr Loughrey: We cannot have overlaps on contracts. Work was carried out with —.

Mr Beggs: I am sorry; you have picked me up wrong. Why do we not have one contractor in place, notified months before the old contract runs out so that, on day one of the new period, you have a contractor in place?

Mr Loughrey: Obviously, we are moving from 12 contracts to 24. We are implementing a new procurement strategy. So, with more contracts there is a

dimension to that in terms of putting those contracts in place.

Mr Beggs: Mr Chairman, if that was a private company, it would be out of business. You are cutting off work for months because you have not scheduled your tendering process. That is ridiculous, and I fail to understand it. We need to delve further into how the procurement process operates.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK, we can come back on that.

Mr Beggs: In terms of Northern Ireland Water, we are aware of huge expenditure being needed to upgrade our sewerage systems and our water pipes. I appreciate that there are difficulties in spending money on that mid-year, in that contracts have to be issued and designs have to be made etc. Are there not, at least, some stock items that could be purchased, whether that is equipment for pumping stations or pipework that can be put in stock, so that they are sitting ready to be used as soon as work is available, so that money can be usefully drawn down for Northern Ireland Water? Did you not consider a bid for that?

Mr McGeown: We are very much guided by Northern Ireland Water's plans for purchasing equipment and so on. We work very closely with Northern Ireland Water and it has a very clear, planned schedule for managing its budget throughout the year. We work closely with it on that. We take our lead from Northern Ireland Water insofar as what it feels is appropriate to buy and when. As with most machinery, some of it can become obsolete before you even use it. It is about buying at the right time to use it at the right time. We very much take our lead from Northern Ireland Water on when it thinks is the right time to buy things.

Ms Anderson: I will add that, in this financial year, we have funded the capital requirements and the price control (PC) determination, plus a further £15 million in contingency projects. There has been an uplift, compared with what was set out in the PC21 determination — the Utility Regulator's determination. So we have engaged with NI Water on that point in order to allocate that £15 million.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK, we are moving on.

Mr Delargy: Thank you for your answers so far. In your briefing, you state that there are two technical reduced requirements, totalling £0·27 million, which the Department is returning to the Department of Finance. Are you able to expand on that point and on exactly why they have to be returned? On a wider point, can you explain the circumstances when the Department does not have to return that and when, instead, it can be used to fund other areas?

Mr McGeown: I apologise; we were unable to get the member's question.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK, do you want him to repeat it? Go on ahead, Padraig.

Mr Delargy: The briefing states that there are two technical reduced requirements, totalling £0·27 million, which the Department is returning to the Department of Finance. Are you able to expand on that point and explain exactly the circumstances in which those have been returned to the Department of Finance? On a wider point, can you explain any circumstances where the Department does not have to return unspent money and can, instead, use it to fund other areas?

Mr McGeown: Thank you for repeating that. I will pass over to Susan to answer.

Ms Anderson: Thank you. To clarify, the two technical reduced requirements are items that we must return to the Department of Finance, in line with the monitoring guidelines. Those are very specific amounts, with the largest being £200,000 in relation to an over-accrual. That was an amount that we had scored in last year's budget, but when the invoices came through, they totalled less than the amount that we had accrued. We cannot use that balance to fund any expenditure this year and must return it. That is just us following the monitoring guidelines.

Anything else that we have to return to DOF are those items that are ring-fenced or the funding earmarked specifically for certain areas by the Executive. For our Department, things like our flagship projects would fall into that category. So, in capital, we cannot use flagship funding to fund other areas within our capital budget; we must return that for an Executive decision on reallocation. Those are the key areas in our budget.

Mr Delargy: In our correspondence with the Department, you state that you are looking at a grant scheme to help reservoir managers to make sure that their reservoirs are safer. Has any funding been put aside this year for that grant scheme?

Mr McGeown: Sorry, I missed the last part of that.

Mr Delargy: Has any funding been put aside this year for the grant scheme?

Mr McGeown: The grant scheme is part of the wider reservoirs package and will be consulted on in due course. As you know, we took responsibility, from 2 June, for the Reservoirs Act, and we are working through next steps. It is unlikely that there will be a grant scheme in operation any time during this financial year. It is likely to be something that happens in the next mandate, not least because we would have to go out and consult on the best way forward. In short, no money has been set aside for a grant scheme in this financial year.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Happy enough?

Mr Delargy: Yes. I have another two points that I want to ask about briefly. Regarding the blue-green fund, I notice that a large proportion of the funding was not spent last year and want to know where that funding was redirected. My concern comes from the fact that the same funding has been allocated this year. If it is not going to be used, it would be preferable to put it into the likes of green initiatives like cycle lanes, which are desperately needed across the North, particularly in areas like the north-west.

Ms Anderson: I will pick up on the first point and hand over to Conor on the Roads element of the

budget.

On the underspend in the last financial year, as I have outlined, we managed the overall capital budget in its totality. So, we do not necessarily take an underspend in one area and redirect it. Members will be aware that our out-turn for last year on capital was significant; we had only a very small underspend, so we did our best to maximise capital expenditure for the last financial year. As you outlined, in this financial year, there is another capital allocation of £20 million for blue-green, of which £10 million is being delivered on the Roads side. Conor will you pick up on the second part of that question?

Mr Loughrey: Yes, a budget of £10 million from the £20 million is on our side. The expectation is that the £20 million for blue-green will be fully spent.

Mr Delargy: Finally, I see that the A5 has received some funding in the June monitoring round. Will you detail what that money has gone towards? It is really important that that money is being spent properly by the Department to make sure that we are ready to go when works finally commence.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Do we have anybody to respond?

Mr Loughrey: We will probably have to come back on that in writing.

Mr Delargy: Sorry, can I just clarify the point?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Briefly, please.

Mr Delargy: All I want to know is what has been done with that money. It was in the June monitoring round, so I want to know where the funding has gone. It is pretty straightforward.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Do we have anybody to come back on that particular?

Mr Loughrey: I am not in a position to answer that. We will come back to the Committee on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK, as with a number of issues, we will come back to that one. Finally, I want to ask George Robinson if he has a question, because he has had trouble with the hand icon. George do you have a question? Sorry, if I have missed you, but you have not come up on my screen.

OK, George does not have a question; I do not see him on the screen.

I thank the officials. This has been an extremely difficult meeting from a technical point of view more than anything. We will have to ensure that that does not happen again, and if that means that officials have to be here in person, we will put arrangements in place to make sure that that happens. I thank the officials; we will follow up with you on a couple of points in writing. Thank you.