Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome the Minister for Infrastructure and the permanent secretary to the meeting. I remind Members that this agenda item has to finish at 10.30 am — we will keep to that — because the Minister has a subsequent engagement.

Are members agreed that the meeting be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I invite the Minister to make a brief opening statement, after which we will have questions from members.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): Thank you, Chair, for your invitation and for the opportunity to update the Committee. I want to say a few words about what we have done over the last seven months and look ahead to some of my priorities over the coming months and years. Infrastructure, as I have said previously, is an economic driver. It is the foundation underpinning the economic, environmental and social well-being of our people and our society. It is the assumption that underpins every public service. Infrastructure delivers for people every day by providing and maintaining the things that we all need to go about our daily lives, the things that make this place work.

I came into the post during a particularly challenging period, due to over a decade of austerity and underfunding by the British Government, which required some difficult decisions. Significant progress has, however, been made during that period: namely, the publication of a new road safety strategy to 2030; protecting community transport and providing a 4·2% increase to support staff costs for front-line public transport providers; protecting concessionary fares; the publication of the all-island strategic rail review; tackling regional imbalance by ring-fencing funding of £4·7 million for the Coleraine/Derry phase 3 rail improvements; and announcing the A4 Enniskillen bypass, the A29 Cookstown bypass, the Newry southern relief road and upgrades to the A1. We have had the operational opening of the Grand Central and York Street stations in Belfast; the phased roll-out of 100 environmentally sustainable buses in a £64 million investment in our public transport; progress on the A5 western transport corridor; and filling more potholes and improving the maintenance of our roads and infrastructure through a £9 million road repair fund and an investment of £8 million in a series of road improvement schemes.

We continue to prioritise active travel, including through a £2·6 million active travel scheme between Ballykelly and Greysteel; £800,000 for improvements to Newtownabbey; progress on Belfast cycling network schemes; and proposals to upgrade sections of the Black Paths network in Craigavon and the £25 million Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge. We have also progressed the Belfast tidal flood alleviation scheme to help to protect at least 1,500 properties, completed the review of the autumn 2023 flooding and made progress on updated water, flooding and drainage legislation to provide guidance on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).

Looking ahead, I am keen that we find new ways to make the best of what we have. Infrastructure, as I said, is central to our quality of life; it all starts here. For that reason, I have asked officials to focus on five key areas. The first is climate change. We are living through a climate crisis and a biodiversity crisis, and we are a rural society, so sustainable cars and other vehicles must be part of our future. In support of that, the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate provides for 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans sold to be zero emission vehicles by 2030. We are progressing that legislation through the Assembly. Our approach will provide a clear statement of intent to tackle emissions and increase sustainable travel in a way that is fair to our rural communities. Active and sustainable travel initiatives will play a key role in decarbonisation, achieving our climate targets and improving people's well-being.

If our roads were stretched into a straight line, we could travel to Sydney, Australia, more than two and a half times. Of roads that are classified, we know that 340 kilometres are in poor condition: 3% of the road network. Repairing it all would be a massive challenge, but at least that is a finite number. My officials are increasingly focusing on the quality rather than just the quantity of road improvement. That means not driving past five small potholes that are still developing in order to repair one big pothole that has become deep enough to justify repair on a given scoring system. That approach will be incorporated in a new road maintenance strategy that I intend to publish in the new year.

I will move on to blue-green solutions for water. We need to stop cutting nature out of our water management systems. Doing so will improve the quality of our rivers and the efficiency of sewerage systems. It will reduce electricity costs for pumping and treating waste water, the spillages of sewage into waterways and the risk of flooding. More rain running off developed land leads to rainwater in our sewerage systems. Blue-green solutions can store rainwater, safely letting it dissipate slowly, as nature intends. For those reasons, I have asked officials to begin to work up a plan to introduce nature into the system. That will not solve all our problems, given the historical underfunding of water infrastructure. We continue to provide record levels of capital, but more is needed, and I will work with my Executive colleagues to secure more funding. I am also keen to engage developers and encourage them to contribute to improving our sewerage systems. That can include developer-led contributions and sustainable urban drainage schemes.

I turn to planning. We have an improvement programme in place that seeks to respond to the raft of reports and recommendations, but it is time to move forward into another phase. I continue to believe that the two-tier planning system is the right solution. Planning decisions need to be made under democratic scrutiny, but we need resources for appropriately qualified people in local and central government in order to meet all our demands.

Inclusive travel is hugely important to our society: people need to be able to travel in order to achieve quality of life. One in four has a life-limiting or long-term health problem or disability. Almost a quarter of those who live in a household and whose day-to-day activities are limited do not have a car. On average, people with a mobility difficulty make 44% fewer journeys. We need to find ways to make transport more inclusive, particularly for people with a disability. In particular, we want to play a full role in improving the experience of women and girls, young people and people from ethnic minorities by ensuring that they feel safe when using our public transport system.

Before handing over for questions, I pay respect to and thank the teams of dedicated people in my Department, its arm's-length bodies and partner organisations for keeping the roads, buses and trains moving safely; keeping our drinking water clean and treating our waste water; and keeping and developing a built environment in which we can live and thrive.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We appreciate your taking the time to come to the Committee today. If you are content, I will move straight to questions.

This morning, we saw the news about developer contributions for NI Water, and I noted that the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) said in the media that that will be good for bigger developments but will not cover smaller developments. In that event, what other options are you looking at? Will that be a silver bullet for solving the issues? Will the legislation for that be tagged on to the sustainable drainage Bill that the Committee will scrutinise?

Mr O'Dowd: I have not come to a definitive position on the legislative process. We are still exploring whether primary legislation is required or whether that could be done through regulations. I will keep the Committee informed of the pathway that we use.

It is not a silver bullet. It is part of a suite of policies and initiatives that I plan to bring forward to tackle underinvestment in our water infrastructure and to ensure that we have a sustainable model. I have been mentioning for some time that I plan to explore developer contributions. I noted the comments from the Construction Employers Federation this morning, and I will examine that issue. On the face of it, it is possible for larger developers to contribute, but that means that there is a danger of leaving out small to medium-sized enterprises. I am conscious of that risk. We will look at that to ensure that the process, as we move through it, is fair and equitable.

In my opening comments, I mentioned that we need to work with nature. You alluded to the SuDS policy. It is an important step forward, but is not, on its own, a silver bullet. It is important that we use different methods to separate rainwater and storm water from our sewerage and waste water treatment systems, allowing that water to enter the system more slowly so that the system does not become overrun or overpowered. I am working with my Executive colleagues to secure additional funding for NI Water. I have said publicly — I do not think that I am breaching confidence by doing so — that there is support around the Executive table for increased investment in NI Water. My Executive colleagues understand that, without investment in infrastructure, their projects cannot move ahead.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You mentioned a number of projects, some of which, such as the A4 bypass and the Lagan bridge, come under the city and growth deals funding. Will you detail what is happening with projects in the Mid South West growth deal and the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal that may fall under the remit of Infrastructure?

Mr O'Dowd: I am moving ahead with planning for those. Of course, we have to await the outcome of the British Government's review of funding, but I am moving forward on the basis that any projects that are under my remit will proceed. When the decision is made, I hope that it is the right decision. On Monday or Tuesday, you and others joined the Finance Minister, the Executive and councils on the steps of Stormont's Parliament Buildings in a unified approach in support of those deals moving forward.

I hope that the right decision is made and that funding is kept in place, and I am preparing on the basis that it will be. When the announcement is made, assuming that it is a positive announcement, I will be able to continue my planning.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You are committed to funding, and, regardless of whether that is paused, those projects will go ahead.

Mr O'Dowd: I cannot commit to funding regardless of whether the funding is confirmed, but I am committed to proceeding with my elements of those deals until that confirmation is received. I hope that the announcement is positive.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Before moving to questions from other members, I will ask about the A5. We are aware that there could have been an announcement in mid-September about your formal decision on the A5. Where is that? What is the likely timescale for an announcement?

Mr O'Dowd: I have submitted the final papers to the Executive. Those papers constitute what is probably one of the most comprehensive documents submitted to the Executive in recent times. I hope to get that on to the agenda of an Executive meeting and secure a decision as soon as possible. The decision for the Executive is whether to allow me to make the formal decision to approve the scheme. I have completed my journey in the sense that all the paperwork — the recommendations, the studies of the environmental aspects and the legal requirements — has been completed and submitted to the Executive. The Executive now have to make a decision on whether they are prepared to allow me to make the formal decision to move ahead.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. I will move to questions from the Deputy Chairperson.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for coming here today, Minister and permanent secretary. I will start by thanking your officials, Minister, for all their correspondence — they have got back to me on a number of issues — and I want to highlight the great work of your staff across the Department on the many issues that I and others have contacted them about. That does not go unrecognised: I appreciate it.

We all recognise how good Grand Central station is. It is incredibly impressive. I am keen to tie up whether you are aware of any safety or logistical issues that will prevent rail services starting on time. If so, when will they be overcome? When can we expect to see rail travel starting from Grand Central station?

Mr O'Dowd: First, I thank you for your comments about the staff who work in DFI at all levels and in all branches. It has to be recognised, as you did, that the staff and teams who work in Departments have a difficult task, particularly during austere times. They are all local people who want to do their best to improve the lives and the lots of the people whom we all serve. It is appreciated that you recognise their work.

There is a safety process to go through at Grand Central station. It is a normal regulatory safety procedure that has to be followed before any new rail infrastructure is opened. That is happening at Grand Central station. Nothing presented to me caused me alarm or concern that it was out of kilter with normal process in such matters, but I expect my officials to carry out, as they are doing, a diligent inspection of the paperwork that Translink presents to them. As I understand it, it is then my Department's role to forward that paperwork to the regulatory safety authority. That work is ongoing.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister.

We all welcome the 4·2% additional investment in community transport. What does that look like in real terms? How does it filter down to those who require the money?

Dr Denis McMahon (Department for Infrastructure): I think that it is just an increase to the existing grants. We can get you more details.

Mr O'Dowd: We can get the exact figure. It may be in my pack somewhere. It was in recognition of the cost pressures that community transport faces, particularly with salary and pay increases. Many staff who work for community transport are on a national wage, so there is a legal obligation and, indeed, a moral obligation on their employers to increase those rates. I increased their funding to help them to do that. We will forward the exact sum to you.

Mr Stewart: Have all those who will be positively affected been made aware?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr Stewart: OK.

The final question is on MOT test centres. I want to know the impact — hopefully, positive — of the exemption certificates that have been put in place. When do we expect to see Hydebank test centre open?

Mr O'Dowd: Trying to get the Hydebank centre open has caused great frustration to me and my team. There are commercial sensitivities around the matter, and my officials will brief you on those in the near future. Considerable due diligence has been shown by the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and my team on getting Hydebank operational and on the reasons why it is not operational. That work is ongoing. As I said, there is some commercial sensitivity that my officials will brief you on. I suggest that that should happen in closed session, but that will be the Committee's decision.

We expect the full result of the exemption certificates to filter through in early spring next year. One measure of their impact is that my mailbox of correspondence on MOT tests has greatly reduced. I might be tempting fate by saying that, but the intervention has been positive, as has the work of DVA staff in supporting members of the public who need to pay their vehicle tax and need to get MOT test slots at short notice. Thus far, I am content that the intervention has been positive.

Dr McMahon: Is it worth adding, Minister, that 115,000 cars may be eligible for the exemption certificate? That will be a significant chunk.

Mr Stewart: That is good to know.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Minister, for the lighter inbox relating to MOT tests. I appreciate that.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for coming along, Minister. I echo John's comments about your staff. If they were not working with us, we would get little done. We need quality staff in every Department. We need those people.

I want to talk about water quality. We have touched on it in the Chamber, particularly with regard to the water coming out of Lough Neagh. I am looking at two Waterline updates. One was on 10 or 11 September, and, to be fair, it went to everybody. It indicated that water treatment works that extract water from Lough Neagh are designed for the removal of algae. I presume that that is not a new thing and that they were not designed yesterday to do that. I am also looking at an update on 19 September that refers to a flushing exercise on the network, so that was an update on what you had done. What was the reasoning behind that flushing of the network or parts of the network? What was the thought behind that if there was no issue?

Mr O'Dowd: I suspect — we will get you the technical reasons for it — that it was due to the fact that it is under intense pressure with the volume of algae that is coming through the system. The system was designed to deal with algae, but the quantity of blooms coming through, particularly on Lough Neagh, is, I suspect, a challenge, but a challenge that is being met. The flushing out of the system is, I suspect, a result of the quantity of material that is coming through. However, we will get you a full technical response on that.

Mr K Buchanan: Just on that theme, if I may — this is still my first question [Laughter.]

— we know that the algal blooms will not go away tomorrow, next year or the following year. Is investment required in additional water treatment more broadly? Yes, we want the algal blooms to be removed and that issue to be resolved, but that will not happen over one or two years; it will be a long-term thing. However, considering that we are hitting the end of this year, do you see any investment being required in water treatment?

Mr O'Dowd: At this stage, I have not had any request from NI Water for additional water treatment in those circumstances. Obviously, there is a portfolio of investment required across the system. The systems currently in place are capable of dealing with the pressure that they are under. NI Water is the expert in that regard, and we are in close liaison with it. If evidence is found that further investment is required, NI Water will make us aware of that, but I am not aware of any at this stage.

Mr K Buchanan: Can I ask another question, Chair?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I counted two questions. My counting is not good, but I counted two questions there —

Mr Boylan: The second of six, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): — so this is your final question for now.

Mr K Buchanan: I get lots of communication about planning, whether for a small house in Mid Ulster or something larger. There are still issues with that process. You have consultees and delay. To be fair, some of that is not directly your responsibility, but what are you doing and what more can you do to address the planning issue? Whether the planning is for wind turbines or green energy, it is a process, but it is a long and drawn-out one

Mr O'Dowd: I suspect that many of the planning issues that you and other members get communication about are council-based. First and foremost, I encourage people to engage with their local council on how they run and resource their planning system and on what processes and procedures are in place.

As for DFI having a governance role, we have to respect that councils are autonomous, sovereign, democratic institutions. However, we work with them, and we work with them because they cooperate with us. In some circumstances, councils could tell me to sling my hook because it is none of my business, but they do not. They work with us because they are keen to improve their planning systems.

My officials will engage with planning officials and planners — the councillors — over the coming months on how best practice is being deployed and developed in a number of councils. When you look at the statistics, you see that some councils are dealing quite well with volumes of planning applications, local and major, while others face challenges. Some of those challenges are unique to those councils, and particular agendas may be at play in various councils, so that may be a reason behind those.

In my role of supporting the statutory consultees under my remit, I have made a bid to the transformation fund. Thus far, that bid has passed a number of phases and is now going through to the next round of deliberations by the board. I hope that that will be successful, because, if it is, I will be able to properly resource a number of statutory consultees to ensure that their responses go back to the planners in time. I also made a bid to employ independent examiners to alleviate the work of the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). I will be able to use those independent examiners to alleviate some of that pressure and to develop and deliberate on the schemes that are delayed in the system.

Mr K Buchanan: I cannot ask any more questions, apparently.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will come back to you if we have time.

Mr Boylan: I apologise for being late, Minister. The motorway from Keady to Belfast is not complete just yet. You may have touched on some of my three key points already. I want to talk about road safety, rural access to Translink and the June monitoring round.

As you know, Minister, any death on the roads has a serious impact on not only families but communities. Where are we with road safety? Maybe you have already touched on where we are with the strategy and everything else. Can we have your commentary on how we can achieve fewer fatalities on the road?

Mr O'Dowd: The key message around fewer fatalities on the road is that every one of us has personal responsibility when we use the roads. The actions that a road user takes decides whether they arrive home safely and whether the people with whom they share the roads arrive home safely. That is the bottom line.

We recently launched a road safety strategy that is based on three international best practice principles: safe people, safe vehicles and safe roads. The "safe people" principle is the point that I made about each person taking responsibility for their actions on the roads. "Safe roads" is about ensuring that roads are properly engineered to allow vehicles, pedestrians and other road users to use those roads safely. At this juncture, I will point out that 95% of road traffic collisions are a result of road user error. The third element of the strategy is ensuring that we have safe vehicles on the roads. We have talked about MOTs and, going forward, about further developments around road safety features in vehicles. Those are the three key elements.

The road safety strategy was developed in conjunction with the blue light services: the police, the Fire and Rescue Service and the Ambulance Service. There is commitment among us all — it has been endorsed by the Executive, it has to be said — to move forward and use that road safety strategy to reduce road deaths to zero. It could be said that that is an ambitious plan, but what other plan can we have? One death on the roads is far too many. We have to reduce serious injuries on the roads as well. That is our plan moving forward.

Mr Boylan: You may have touched on the £6 million resource from the June monitoring round earlier. What will that be used for? Can you expand on that?

Mr O'Dowd: Some of that resource has been used for internal pressures in my Department in a number of areas. Denis may have the detail. We had pressures related to public liability, road drainage and another one. Was it PFIs, Denis?

Dr McMahon: Yes, PFIs. We have schemes for major roads where, because they were public-private partnership (PPP) contracts, maintenance continues to be funded through the unitary payment to those schemes.

Mr O'Dowd: There is still a small sum of money to be allocated through that. I am conscious of winter pressures as well.

Mr Boylan: I have a final point, Minister. Thanks for coming in today. The new Grand Central station is up and running. It has always been an issue for us to encourage people out of cars and on to public transport, but we have had an urban/rural divide, and it is hard to connect rural areas. What are your views on that? Where we will go over the rest of the mandate in trying to encourage people to use public transport and creating more routes and making them more viable?

Mr O'Dowd: Before you came in, we touched on the increased investment in community transport that I announced recently to assist with some of the pressures that it faces, although it still faces a number of pressures. I should have mentioned that there is a review of community transport to see how we move forward in the most effective and efficient way to deliver services to the service users.

Public transport requires more investment, and I am of the view that we have a public transport system, not a rural transport system and an urban transport system. We have a discrepancy in the provision of services to rural communities.

I am keen to engage with Translink to determine how we can ensure that rural communities have access to rural transport. There is no point in me and others talking about the need to reduce carbon emissions from vehicles and encouraging people to use public transport if they have no access to it.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister, for coming here this morning. I echo your sentiments about thanking DFI staff, especially those on my local ground. I am sure that some of them curse the day that I got their phone number, because I torment them.

You touched on the economic driver role that the Department for Infrastructure plays, but, to do that, planning for renewables needs to be addressed, as that will help the Department be an economic driver, as you say. Are there plans for any investment to be made in network infrastructure? Are there plans to attach strategic importance to that in order to develop renewable connectivity and suchlike?

Mr O'Dowd: Investment in the network will be a matter for the Department for the Economy. You contributed to last Tuesday's debate on planning and renewables. The planning system is positioned to deal with renewables applications. It comes back to the core question about planning: what is the purpose of the Planning Service? To me, its purpose is to ensure that we have sustainable development and a sustainable environment.

Yes, green energy is good, and its development is good. We have to support the development of green energy. In certain circumstances, however, green energy involves the need for significant infrastructure. That significant infrastructure is often placed in rural communities, and those communities have a right to express views about that infrastructure. Indeed, as part of the planning process, applicants have to prove that their infrastructure will not have a harmful impact on the environment. That takes time to determine, so, rightly, applications have to be carefully scrutinised before a decision is made.

As I said to Keith, our planning service — I use those words in the broadest terms to mean my Department as a planner, the 11 council planning authorities and the statutory consultees from whichever branch of government they come — is understaffed and under-resourced. I have already submitted bids to resource and staff it properly. I have submitted bids to have independent examiners made available to assess planning applications where necessary.

All of that has to be dealt with in the meantime, but the core principle of planning — sustainable development — has to be adhered to. It simply has to be, regardless of the type of development, because, when planning goes wrong, it goes terribly wrong, and we have to avoid that.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. You talked about water infrastructure. There are notable capacity problems with it. What are you doing about the water pollution limits that NI Water sets that are having a detrimental effect on the environment?

Mr O'Dowd: The Utility Regulator rightly places a strong emphasis on the environment when developing NI Water's spending profile and work programme. The reason that we have put waste water treatment works in place is to protect the environment and to protect public health. As you pointed out, on a significant number of occasions, those waste water treatment works have come under significant pressure, and, in other places, we need to put in place new infrastructure to protect the environment. There is a strong emphasis on the environment when NI Water carries out its duties, and I, as Minister for Infrastructure, carry out my duties.

As I said, that is now accepted. It was an easy debate to have, because, in fairness, my Executive colleagues were coming forward with the view that NI Water needed additional funding. There is a united voice around the Executive table in that regard, and we are working towards hopefully securing additional funds for NI Water. That funding will not be sufficient, but no Department has sufficient funds at this stage.

As I said, we will work with rather than against nature to deal with storm water and to take the pressure off waste water treatment works. I will also examine the possibility of legislative change, if required, to allow developers to invest in waste water treatment works. There is a plan afoot, but none of what I have said amounts to a quick solution. We are dealing with waste water infrastructure that has been subject to underinvestment for years. We now have record investment going into our waste water treatment works, but, unfortunately, we are playing catch-up. There is a plan in place, however.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Andrew, is that you finished, or do you have one last question?

Mr McMurray: I have three questions.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You have one last question.

Mr O'Dowd: If you are Keith, you have three. [Laughter.]

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Chair. Minister, you will be aware that we are approaching the anniversary of the flooding in Downpatrick and the south-east. Although the report on the flooding in the south-east was generally welcomed, there has been scant development of interim measures, and that makes a lot of the people who were affected by the flooding last time around extremely nervous as we come into the autumn, with the possibility of there again being prolonged rain. Is any update available on those interim measures? What information or relief can be given to the people of Downpatrick and the rest of the south-east?

Mr O'Dowd: The floods last October were devastating, as you have pointed out; indeed, in my constituency, in Portadown, I witnessed at first hand the devastation that was caused. The floods were caused by record rainfall, and we have seen more incidents in which, in a short period, there has been significant rainfall. That overpowers the systems, meaning that the water simply cannot get away in time. We have seen the recent devastating events in England, and there have been absolutely devastating floods throughout central Europe.

To answer your specific question, the review was carried out to examine the response of the emergency services, including Departments such as DFI. It looked at how flooding incidents are responded to and at how immediate aid and support can be brought to affected homes and businesses, which is difficult to do when there is a deluge of water coming at people, and determined what lessons could be learned. The review also examined where and how the flooding occurred. That information is then used to see what infrastructure is required or what measures need to be taken to prevent it happening in the future.

The third step is the lengthiest to undertake, because plans have to be developed. It is not simply a case of building a wall at point a; it has to be determined what impact building a wall at point a will have perhaps 3 or 4 miles downstream. It is a detailed process, and that work cannot be completed in the context of a review. It takes time to do.

We have to understand the reason for the flooding: whether it was river, coastal or surface flooding or a combination of all three. I suspect that, in October of last year, it was probably a combination of all three. It is about how you deal with those types of flooding. There are some instances in which we may have to look at building new reservoirs to hold the water that is coming into the system. That will take significant preparatory work and significant investment, and it will require cooperation from landowners, because we will have to go to them and say, "We need your land for a reservoir". Unfortunately, all those things take time. There is no quick fix.

Something that I welcome from the review is the establishment of community resilience groups. That work is ongoing among my officials through DFI Rivers, local businesses and the community. Those groups equip the local community with sandbags that are stored locally, and the community is supported by my team in their deployment. When those groups work well, they can provide a very effective, immediate response to a flood. That work is ongoing locally.

Dr McMahon: I will add that, at official level, feasibility work is ongoing as part of the review. Some of that work may not be visible yet, but work is ongoing on hydraulic modelling and to see what additional structures are needed around some key sites, such as Downpatrick.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We will have officials at the Committee meeting on 23 October to discuss that.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister and Denis. It is good to see you again.

My first question is on city deals, specifically on Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2). Given the recent rigmarole with the UK Government over the city and growth deals, how confident are you that we will be able to deliver the infrastructure projects contained in them? We had officials at the Committee a number of months ago, and I think that everyone left that meeting thinking that BRT2 had been a pretty aspirational project from the outset. How confident are you that we will be able to deliver BRT2 in the next number of years?

Mr O'Dowd: When the Labour Government were elected, there was hope that things would change. Over the past months, they have, unfortunately, managed to suck that hope out of everyone. I work on the basis that it is best to be prepared and to have plans in place for when funding becomes available rather than to stand with our hands empty when it becomes available.

We are preparing to move ahead with the BRT2 project on the basis that we will achieve the funding required to complete it in its totality. We need around an additional £100 million to complete the entire programme. We will engage with councils. In the case of BRT2, that engagement will be with Belfast City Council.

As an Executive, we will collectively engage with the British Government to determine how we can move forward not only with the stalled growth deals but with the city deals that have been announced and to see how we can bring them to fruition. It is challenging, but we have to aspire to be better. I aspire to be better and to be ready at a moment's notice, with plans in place to spend money when it becomes available.

Dr McMahon: It may be worth saying that the Minister has been encouraging us to prioritise schemes such as BRT2 to see what can credibly be done in advance. A lot of it is about doing the work up front. Under the Minister's direction, we are moving ahead as far as we can with the design work and other elements.

Mr O'Dowd: I may be able to release some funding to BRT2 in order to put some of the infrastructure in place and to start some of the physical work on the ground. I am working with my officials to see how we can move that work forward.

Mr McReynolds: Chair, is this still my first question? Within that —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have a strict three-question —.

Mr Boylan: Your first question has four parts, Peter.

Mr McReynolds: I am doing a Keith. I have learnt well from him.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You have three questions.

Mr McReynolds: Are you confident that the initial timeline that was put in place, pending the funding coming through for the city deal, can still be met?

Mr O'Dowd: No, I am not confident. One cannot be confident in the current financial circumstances. When the Government tell us that they will cut £20 billion, we cannot be confident about anything. I am confident that we are doing everything that we can, however.

Mr McReynolds: Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Mr O'Dowd: Yes.

Mr McReynolds: Have there been any discussions about improving the electric vehicle infrastructure task force's output? It came up in conversation last week in Committee. Charge point operators (CPOs) have told me that they are happy enough with DFI getting things on the ground and ready to go; the challenge that they experience is with Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE). Can you tell me a little about the relationship between DFI and NIE? It sounds as though DFI is doing anything and everything that it can but getting access to the grid is the main barrier for operators.

Mr O'Dowd: Providing EV charging stations is now largely a private commercial enterprise that that sector is driving forward. I do not have any direct engagement with NIE specifically about charge points. I have had a presentation from NIE about its future investment plans and how it hopes to make significant investment in the region to improve access for all industrial and domestic properties in order to meet an ever-growing demand for electricity. That demand will continue to grow as a result of our move away from fossil fuels. That has been my level of engagement with NIE on EV charge points specifically.

Dr McMahon: It is worth adding that there has been huge growth in the number of EVs and the number of charge points. There has been something like 60% growth in the past year or so, and that is really encouraging. To go back to the Minister's opening comments, if we are to tackle climate change, we have to look at cars. We can do a lot on other elements, such as active travel, but EV growth is what will remove most of the emissions.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you. This is my final question, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): May I stick you down on my list of members to come back to? That was three questions, and I want to be fair to everybody.

Mr Baker: Thank you, Chair. You will be glad to know that I only ever ask one question, and I will stick to form.

John, I ask this question on behalf of the Gaels of Ireland, particularly my children. Grand Central station is a major, class investment, but I am severely disappointed by Translink's lack of ambition in recognising the Irish language. All that my children ask for is equality. Is there anything that can be done from your end about that? The situation is not good enough.

Mr O'Dowd: To put it on record, my children are Gaeilgeoirs as well. There is an absolute need for the Irish language to be visible in a city such as Belfast, in which a significant proportion of the population speaks, lives through and engages in the Irish language. It is therefore absolutely crucial that it be visible and used.

I am meeting Translink later today, and one of the topics that I will discuss with it is Grand Central station and the displaying of the Irish language there. As I have said previously, I am confident that the issue can be resolved, and I am working to have it resolved. I have heard from and listened carefully to Irish language activists who, rightly, are annoyed and frustrated, but I am confident that the issue can be resolved.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the Minister and Denis for being here. Apologies that I was a wee bit late. I was already cutting it fine, and then I almost became convinced that you were using your influence to control the traffic lights

—

Mr Boylan: No, Mark, he definitely was not. Definitely not, mate.

Mr Durkan: — to stop me getting to Belfast.

Mr O'Dowd: What apps I have on my mobile phone is confidential. [Laughter.]

Mr Durkan: Again, I record our appreciation of the efforts of staff in what is an extremely challenging time. The times just get more and more challenging. I will say, though, that it is not just the UK Government who were elected on the promise of great change.

The Chair and a couple of other members touched on the Northern Ireland Water issue. Minister, you were in the media today talking about proposals for how we can tackle the issue in part. Allowing developer contributions is one such part. How do you envisage that working?

The case study that was mentioned on the radio today is in my constituency. There is a pumping station that needs £15 million of investment. That need is hindering the development of a site that has been in the planning for my entire political life, which is 20 years. What level of contribution would a developer be expected to make? You do not want to get into the situation that we see with roads, such as the road at Caw roundabout, which, again, is in my constituency, where a developer makes up a percentage of the total cost contribution but DFI or, in this case, NI Water is not in a position to pay its share.

Mr O'Dowd: I am happy to come back to you about Caw roundabout. I do not want the Chair to suggest that you are asking two or three questions in one.

I agree with you in a sense: it is not only the British Government who were elected on the hope that things will change. Our Administration also have a responsibility to make change. Before you came in, I read out a list of initiatives and projects that are moving forward in DFI. When I came into DFI, the first time and this time, I said to my officials clearly, "We can spend all day talking about what we can't do, or we can spend our time talking about what we can do". We talk about what we can do and about how we will deliver. Yours is an important and valid point.

As for developer contributions, we are examining whether we need legislation to allow developers to contribute to waste water treatment works. As you know, they can already contribute towards the separation of foul water from rainwater. We are looking at whether we can take that further.

What exactly that policy and legislation will look like, I am not yet at the point of knowing, Mark. The policy will have to be developed in conjunction with the Committee and in consultation with developers and others to determine how it will work. I see it as one of a suite of solutions to the challenges that NI Water faces, which include developer contributions, working with nature through the SuDS Bill and other initiatives that we can undertake, and working with Executive colleagues to secure additional funding for NI Water.

Mr Durkan: Thanks. Minister, you have the same all-island outlook as I do. Could the Department undertake more North/South collaboration in a range of fields? Road safety is a key issue, as is road infrastructure. We know that the Irish Government are contributing to the A5 project: they may even contribute more, if we ask them nicely. Are you exploring the possibility of more opportunities for cross-border collaboration?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. You used the example of road safety. I have asked for it to be included in the themes for the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) sectoral meetings on transport, because the number of road deaths on both sides of the island is increasing. We face similar challenges. It is therefore important that we discuss road safety on an all-island basis and learn lessons from each other.

Dr McMahon: At an official level, we have regular meetings with our colleagues on a range of issues, including the all-island rail review. We have regular official meetings in support of the NSMC as well in line with normal process.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, Denis.

Finally, I come to planning. Another member raised the issue, Minister, and you put most of the responsibility back on to councils. To be fair, councils are performing better than DFI when it comes to planning. The point has been made previously about the quality of applications being received. By their nature, the applications that DFI receives are major applications. We are talking about applications costing hundreds of thousands of pounds from companies that are developing all over Europe and beyond. It is not as if they are doing a couple of drawings on the back of a fag packet.

A couple of weeks ago, we were delighted to see the progress made on the validation checklist being rolled out to councils to allow them to get on with that work. Apparently, a change to primary legislation is required for DFI to introduce a validation checklist. How is that the case, and will DFI perhaps practise what it preaches to councils and introduce one?

Mr O'Dowd: The way in which the current legislation is set out is why primary legislation will be required in order to introduce a validation checklist for DFI. I am not opposed to legislating, but it is about how much time it would take to do and how much benefit would be gained at the end.

The reason that I concentrate on councils is that 99%, if not more, of planning applications go through councils, and we have to respect their role in that process. It was perhaps during your time at the then Department for Regional Development that the legislation made its way through the Executive and the Assembly and was voted on and passed. Let us respect that.

I challenge my DFI officials about planning. On the agenda of every planning meeting that I hold is how we can improve our processes, how we can ensure that we are effective and efficient in the delivery of planning decisions, and how we intervene and interfere in the planning process, including call-ins. I am firmly of the view that, if the council decides it, the council lives with it. There may be a legislative process whereby my officials will say, "Minister, we have to do this". In some circumstances, we will have to do it. My general rule of thumb, however, is, "You decided it, so you live with it".

On the question of moving the process forward, I will, as I said, look at a validation checklist for DFI, but let us move on it only if it will have a positive outcome and is a good use of my team's resources, the Committee's resources and the Assembly's time.

Mr Durkan: If there were even a way to do it in a pilot capacity without requiring legislation, that would do. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): A few members want to ask a few more questions, if that is OK.

From an infrastructure point of view, will the Programme for Government and the investment strategy that will sit alongside it contain models for how we fund Northern Ireland Water going forward?

You have talked about the developer contributions, but I take it that the measures in the investment strategy will take a few decades to go through. What funding mechanisms will be contained in the strategy?

Mr O'Dowd: The funding of NI Water is a political decision. It is not the role of the investment strategy to do that. The investment strategy is a forward work programme for how we support and plan our infrastructure across all sectors. I am of the view, rightly or wrongly, that the Assembly and the Executive should still support NI Water being subsidised through general taxation. There is no call or support from the Assembly or Executive for the introduction of water charges. There may be from individuals, but they can speak for themselves. The current model has the support of the Executive and the Assembly to move forward as it is. If someone wants to seek a change to that, they are perfectly entitled to do so — that is part of the system in which we operate — but I will leave that to them. I do not see it being in the investment strategy.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): On the regional balance of our public transport system, I did a quick check on Translink's app last night. It quoted me a journey time of four hours and 35 minutes to travel from where I live to Stormont this morning. That is unacceptable. I would love to use public transport to get to work, but, despite the traffic chaos today, it is quicker for me to jump into the car. Do you see a role for community transport in facilitating rural transport connectivity to pick up some of the slack in our public transport? Look at Grand Central station: we have an opportunity to increase capacity there. Rural transport is one way we can increase capacity across our public transport system.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said to Cathal, we have to invest in rural transport because there is no point in me and other Ministers telling people that there needs to be a modal shift if it will take them four and a half hours to get to work. That is undoable. Working with Translink and others, we have to ensure that we have a framework of transport in place that works for as many people as possible.

There is a broader role for community transport. I recently held a meeting with the Health Minister, the AERA Minister and their officials to discuss just that, and there is a working group that is looking at how all our Departments can support community transport to broaden its role, including how we use it to ensure that we have a rural transport system that is fit for purpose. I use the broadest definition of "community transport" to be fair to all, but it has a role.

Mr Stewart: I have one issue to raise, Minister: unadopted developments and streets. Anecdotally, they seem to be becoming more prevalent. That is the case across the country, but, to be parochial for a second, there are several in my home town of Carrickfergus and across East Antrim. One of those developments was finished by the developer 16 years ago. That developer has been allowed to develop elsewhere, the road has still not been adopted, street lights, as you know, cannot be fixed, there are no road repairs and the residents have become very frustrated. It seems to become a litigious and long-drawn-out process. Can the Department do anything to overcome those issues?

Mr O'Dowd: That area requires closer examination. I see too many correspondence cases coming across my desk of residents of developments being left in limbo because the developer has gone bust or whatever the reason might be. The consumer rights of residents are not being fully protected. I have not discussed that with my officials, but, whether it is my Department or another one, we have to examine and strengthen the current legislation to protect buyers. If someone buys a new home, it is probably the biggest investment of their life.

Mr Stewart: Absolutely.

Mr O'Dowd: They will want to live in an area that has the basics: a road, a footpath and street lights.

Mr Stewart: It is not a lot to ask.

Mr O'Dowd: It is something that you are promised when you buy the property, so it is certainly something that we have to take a look at.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark, I know that you wanted in.

Mr Durkan: It is not a question per se. I want to declare an interest as someone who lives on an unadopted site and add the slightest bit about the difficulty that the issue is creating for house sales. The solicitors involved in conveyancing are scrutinising that stuff even more, which is impacting the housing market.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Mark. I also declare an interest as somebody who lives on an unadopted site.

Mr Stewart: A can of worms has been opened.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I know the headache that it causes. I appreciate the correspondence on that. We have corresponded on the issue before.

Keith, I am coming to you; thanks for being patient.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks. My question, Minister, is about schools and the 20 mph signage that was put up at a range of schools, probably about two years ago. I have seen in correspondence that you were assessing how well the signage worked: can we get an update on that?

I met officials two or three years ago and indicated my preference for speed indicator devices (SIDs) over the signage, because they give a better indication of speed. The police will say that some people look at SIDs and use them as an indication to drive as fast as they can. I do not see that: any time a SID flashes red, people, broadly, slow down. Where is the assessment of the 20 mph limit signage? Will it be rolled out at additional schools? What is your opinion on the introduction of SIDs instead?

Mr O'Dowd: There are a couple of points in that. It is bewildering that you have to tell somebody to drive slowly past a school. It is bewildering that, when people are driving past a school and there are children either leaving or going into it, we have to put up a sign to tell them to slow down. That says something about some people in our society, as much as anything.

The 20 mph review is complete. I have had an opportunity to discuss it with my officials. In general, it has been welcomed by teachers, parents and children. It was interesting to read the children's feedback on it, because their voices are also important in this. We need a more targeted approach in the schools outside which we put the system in place. That will be one of the next steps. However, the next step will be for my officials to present to the Committee on the findings of the review etc, so you will be fully informed on that.

How do we achieve that and what signage will be used? What is the most effective signage? People become used to some permanent signage and get complacent about it, while the flashing signage catches people's eyes and alerts them. I am open to persuasion and will use the best data when deciding how we move forward with the use of signage.

That opens up another question on 20 mph zones. As you know, Wales moved in that direction. That was broadly criticised because people believed that the measure went too far and the reasons behind it were not properly communicated. However, there are grounds for examining a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph in residential areas, such as housing developments. That may not be possible in main thoroughfares, but it goes back to the conversation that we had about road safety: we have to drive home the message that speed kills and causes serious injury.

One of the lessons from Wales is that the scheme, which was implemented in a much broader way than I would consider doing, has reduced speeding and serious injury, so it has had a certain positive impact. However, the controversy around it was unfortunate and led to opposition and the wrong conversation. I would not suggest introducing a 20 mph zone across the board, but it is something that we should consider in residential areas.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK, thank you.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, I am conscious that we have had a really good conversation about renewables, the planning system, electric buses and active travel, but I am also conscious that the Department has removed its climate action forecast requirements. How confident are you that we will meet our net zero targets?

Mr O'Dowd: We are working towards them. All of the work that my Department is doing, including on the zero emission vehicle mandate, is proactively focused on working towards meeting our targets. We are working in collaboration with DAERA and, indeed, the entire Executive on that. It is a challenging target, but, when we look at the consequences of climate change — we were talking about flooding in Downpatrick and elsewhere — we have no choice but to meet it.

Mr McReynolds: I received messages yesterday about Grand Central station in Belfast. Do the new platforms meet width and disability standards? It was expressed to me that, potentially, they do not. Can you confirm that they do?

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of rumours going around about Grand Central station. I have received no formal correspondence from Translink to suggest that any of the rumours are correct. I am not suggesting that the issue you raise is a rumour, but I have had no confirmation that that is the case.

The reason for Grand Central station not being open to rail at this time is that we have to meet the required safety standards according to the regulations. I am sure that it is the view of the Committee, as well as my view and that of my officials, that the safety measures have to be of the highest standard. That is the standard that we seek, and we are going through the process. Translink is submitting papers to us, and my officials will review and inspect them. Those will then be forwarded to the Rail Safety Authority for sign-off or further questions.

There are a number of issues floating about, but none of them have been confirmed to me. I engage regularly with my officials on that matter. As I said, I will meet Translink after this meeting, and a number of topics will be discussed, including getting the trains operating in Grand Central station.

Dr McMahon: The only thing that I would add to that, Minister, is that a mass of paperwork and reports are coming through, as you would expect with something like this. It would be a surprise if we had not built in line with the up-to-date disability requirements. Certainly, as the Minister said, that has not been mentioned yet.

One of the issues that we have been looking at is the offset of the platforms, but that is not so much about the platforms. There is a process in which the rails are adjusted, and you are talking about very minor and very fine adjustments. That is one issue that has been looked at, but that is as near as we have got to talking about platforms.

Mr McReynolds: This a comment, not a question. It was expressed to me that the platforms are quite narrow. Perhaps you could double-check that the width guidelines are being met.

Mr O'Dowd: I will raise that with Translink at our meeting later. As the permanent secretary said, we are talking about minor adjustments in some of those areas. Even the settlement of the ballast under the line can be the difference between whether it meets the regulations or not.

Dr McMahon: We are always open to hearing about these things. As someone once said, we like to hear the good news, but we have to hear the bad news. Inevitably, there will be issues, and I have no doubt that they will be fed to us. We will try to respond appropriately.

Mr Boylan: I want to make a couple of points. I appreciate the question about the 20 mph speed limit. I have been out on-site to meet DFI and PSNI. At rural schools in particular, there might be three or four cars across the road at home time and you could not speed past them. I make that point because we are all trying to work together to improve road safety and all of that. It may be that something can be included in the Highway Code or the driving theory test, but it is all about driver behaviour. When you do the speed tests —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am sorry, Cathal: do you have a question?

Mr Boylan: I do, Chair. I am putting it this way because it follows on from what was said earlier.

If we are serious about road safety, the likes of those things should be brought up in the theory test or the practical test. I am not blaming all young people. When you see the PSNI testing taking place on the ground, a lot of people who are questioned about travelling at 50 mph are local people, so they know the roads. My question, Minister, for your consideration, is this: when people take the driving test, be it the theory or the practical test, should there be a conversation about speeding and road safety? We should think about having that conversation. I am not blaming all young people, but I see a serious amount of speeding. We have all been there, so the more conversations we have about road safety, the better.

My other point then is on the —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Cathal, I have people on the list here, so, if you can get to your question, please do.

Mr Boylan: I appreciate that, Chair, but we will quickly go through it. The Minister has travelled two hours to have a quick conversation.

The other point is about area plans, and we are talking about NIW and developing units. Anybody who responds to area plans will know that each area has identified a number of units that they will build: they are called "projections", but they are housing units. Where are we with the local area plans? Do you know where they are at the minute, Minister?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Several councils have completed their area plans. They are known as "local development plans". A number are going through an appeals process, some are with my Department for sign-off and a number of councils have not reached that point yet. Denis may have the note on that to give you a breakdown of the figures.

There are a number of important phases in local development plans and, obviously, councils play a crucial role in them. Until the local development plan comes out of the council, there is nothing I or my Department can do. The quicker it comes out of the council, the better it moves through the various stages.

As for the housing numbers in each plan, there are figures — I am trying to think of the right term — given to each of the councils from my Department, but they are only guidance figures. Councils may come forward with alternative figures and give justification for them, and they have done. In those cases, the figures have gone through the necessary process, and agreement has been found. No one is saying to a council, "Your housing projection is x, and we will not move from that". That is not the case. Councils have a right to come forward and say, "We need this number of houses, and this is the rationale for that". Belfast City Council is an example of that: there was a significant increase in its housing figure, because it came forward with a rationale for that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Sorry, permanent secretary, we have details in our packs of the local development plans and their current status. Thank you.

There was a question about driver testing as well, if you want to come back on that.

Mr O'Dowd: The member is right: it is not just young people who speed. There is speeding across the age range. The danger with young people speeding is that they probably do not have the experience of operating the vehicle, but there is no reason for anybody to speed.

I am looking at the graduated driver licence. It was in the 2016 Act, but the commencement order was never signed off. A significant investment is required to move that forward, and I am looking at whether we can secure it.

I met a road safety partnership from the north-west, and it presented the view that drivers should be tested at intervals throughout their lifetime to ensure that they are familiar with the Highway Code and the impact of speeding. I am not suggesting that we do that, but all drivers need to be conscious that speeding kills and causes serious injury.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. I will touch on the road safety comments. It is important to bring it up that there seemed to be a decrease in spending on road safety awareness and education. That funding has been restored, but will it return to pre-pandemic levels?

Mr O'Dowd: I am looking at options for how we fund our road safety campaigns. We are spending over £200,000 on them. We are using them in a different and innovative way. We spend a lot of time on social media, engaging with drivers through that forum. I commend and welcome the support of the sporting codes in that. We have had recent support from Conor Bradley, Jacob Stockdale and members of the Armagh GAA squad, including Rory Grugan. Their participation has really benefited our raising awareness of the Share the Road to Zero campaign.

There have been justifiable questions about underspends in recent times by the Road Safety Partnership. My officials are actively engaging with the partnership, and work has been done by the Department of Justice, to ensure that we have a broader framework to work within so that allocations are fully spent.

Should we return to TV advertising? I would like to, but I want to be assured that the TV advertising that we do is based on the best evidence available to us and that we target the right audience. The key to advertising is targeting the right people. I am trying to secure funding for that as well.

Mr Durkan: We have spoken throughout about how challenging a time it is for the public sector. It is also still a challenging time for the public in terms of the cost of just about everything. Minister, I wrote to you about penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking and parking enforcement when you were caretaker or interim Minister a couple of years ago. The fine is £90, but you get a £45 or 50% discount, if you pay within two weeks. The case that I tried to present at the time was that the only person who would not pay within the two weeks was someone who could easily afford £90 or someone who could not afford the £45, depending on when the ticket came and how far away that was from payday. Councils have responsibility for off-street parking, so I am looking at that separately with them. Will you look at extending the discount period? I have the FOI responses and stats that show that it would not make a pile of difference to cash flow to the Department.

Mr O'Dowd: I met a number of organisations earlier in my time as Minister, when we were trying to grapple with the Budget and establish exactly what its implications were for our forward work programme. We have now done that, so you can peek above the parapet and try to see into the future a bit more now with officials. I will examine that, if we have the capacity in the Department to do it, against all our other priorities.

It is worth remembering why parking fines are handed out. It is not to annoy motorists; it is to ensure that there is free-flowing traffic through our towns and villages not only for commercial and private usage but for emergency vehicles. Although no one likes getting parking fines, they are there for a reason: to dissuade people from parking illegally. The best way to avoid a penalty is not to park illegally.

Mr Durkan: I am not suggesting that people should not be penalised; I am just asking whether people are penalised doubly for being poor.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not accept that analysis. I am not aware of any other system in any element of our government in which that argument is brought forward. We are not penalising people for being poor; we are penalising people for parking illegally.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Maybe I should declare an interest as somebody who has received parking tickets. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Dowd: We all have.

Mr K Buchanan: I will follow on quickly from Andy's point. We have discussed the Road Safety Partnership in the past: what influence does DFI have on the Road Safety Partnership broadly? You are probably aware that £2·1 million has been returned these past three years. Had you, as a Department, any influence to say, "We can spend on x, y and z in the Road Safety Partnership"? Why was that returned, if we do not have visual campaigns on the television or the audible ones on the radio as much as we should have?

Mr O'Dowd: We are members of the Road Safety Partnership. It is led by the PSNI, and other Departments and agencies sit on it. There have been underspends and returns in that regard that were partly to do with the structure of how the agencies could spend the money. Working with the Department of Justice and then the Treasury, how we can spend the money has been broadened, which will allow for more comprehensive spending of those funds. The partnership board is also going to employ a projects manager who will provide a more structured basis to the work programme of the partnership and, in turn, allow for, I hope, the full spending of those funds. As I said, I have tasked my officials with engaging with the partnership to ensure that we maximise the usage of any funds that are available to it.

Mr K Buchanan: I have worked with several communities to raise funds to buy SIDs, which cost roughly £3,000. People are running coffee mornings to buy them and are then working in conjunction with their local policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) to fit them in villages. That £2·1 million would buy an awful lot of SIDs. I appreciate that they do not make everybody slow down, but they indicate that people should not be speeding. It is disappointing that that money has been returned, considering what it could have done.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, we have to work from the research and data that is available to us on the best practice for road safety and follow that route.

Mr K Buchanan: OK, thanks.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, thank you for your time. I have one more comment to make. Obviously, you will be aware that, this week, Andy Allen, a colleague of ours, had some issues at Birmingham Airport. In your opening statement, you touched on inclusive travel for everyone, so I will put the question to you, as Minister. We had the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) in last week, and I know that you have met its representatives. What are you aiming to do and trying to do to ensure that things like that do not happen again? Last week, we heard powerfully from June Best, who has experienced taxi drivers driving off when they saw that she had a guide dog. Things like that should not happen in 2024. As Minister, what are you doing to improve travel for people with disabilities?

Mr O'Dowd: What happened to Andy was totally unacceptable, as was what happened to June. There should be no discrimination against anyone with a disability. As Minister, I have a responsibility for that. I work closely with IMTAC, as do my officials, to ensure that the policies and procedures that we bring forward are fit for purpose for all our citizens, including those with disabilities. I welcome the fact that, in the design of Grand Central station, considerable work was done with IMTAC to ensure that the highest standards were met. Where lessons have to be learned, I will continue to do so.

As you know, my role with the taxi industry relates to the regulation of licences etc, not the day-to-day operation of taxis. I have met representatives of the taxi industry. I accept that the industry faces challenges, and I will continue to work with it to see how we can provide assistance.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. Lastly, what discussions and progress has your Department had with the Department for Transport on the Union connectivity review?

Mr O'Dowd: We have had some success with securing funding for feasibility studies, particularly on the all-island strategic rail review and the Armagh to Portadown line. We have had success in those areas. I have had a brief conversation with the new Secretary of State for Transport, Louise Haigh. During that conversation, I mentioned to her that, with regard to the Union connectivity review, it is important that we are not forgotten and that, where there is the possibility of funding or work to be done, we should be included in that. In fairness, that was during her early days in office. We are to continue those conversations at ministerial and official level.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, there were 35 questions in an hour and a half or so. We are letting you out two minutes early. I promised you that you would be out by 10.30 am, and we have kept to that. I thank you, the permanent secretary and your staff. We appreciate the responses to our correspondence and the ongoing work on the ground. Thank you. We look forward to seeing you at your next Question Time.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you very much.