Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome to the Committee this morning Ms Alison Clydesdale, director of water and drainage policy; Ms Rosemary Daly, director of regional planning, governance and legislation; and Liam McEvoy, director of road asset development.

We appreciate your time this morning. Are members content that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): As usual, if you provide a brief opening statement of about five minutes, we will then move to members' questions.

Mr Liam McEvoy (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you for the opportunity to come here today to brief the Committee on the draft Programme for Government (PFG) and, in particular, the elements that fall within the remit of the Department for Infrastructure. Thank you for your introductions.

In my opening remarks, I will briefly outline how the Department for Infrastructure has contributed to the development of the draft PFG, its relevance to DFI and how the PFG, when it is finalised, will shape the work of the Department going forward. As you are aware, as a cross-cutting document, the draft PFG extends beyond the remit of individual Departments. It sets out the Executive priorities to tackle the key challenges facing the public and to build a better future for everyone.

The Department for Infrastructure has been involved in the collaborative process of compiling the draft PFG through engagement with the Executive Office. We have worked collectively across our senior teams in the Department to identify the relevant DFI policies and actions that will contribute to the PFG priority areas, with a particular focus on ensuring that the draft PFG appropriately recognises the essential role of infrastructure as an enabler.

As you will be aware, the draft PFG proposes nine top priorities, and four of those directly relate to the work of DFI:

and the

On reform and transformation, the draft PFG commits the Executive to investing in public infrastructure and shaping how our services are delivered. When the Minister was at the Committee a couple of weeks ago, he echoed that when he talked about how infrastructure is key to unlocking a more productive and prosperous economy, addressing regional imbalance and supporting the delivery of housing growth over the longer term. He also spoke about the Department finding new ways to make the best use of what we have and focusing on how we can do as much as we can with the resources and budget that we have.

In the written briefing, we have listed the DFI-led actions, so I will not repeat them now, but I am happy to discuss them when we get to questions. Those actions are not all of the actions that the Department will take forward over the coming years. The draft PFG does not include everything that the Departments intend to do; rather, it sets a strategic direction for Departments and helps us to plan ahead and get ready to deliver on those Executive priorities.

Looking ahead, the PFG will be finalised following the ongoing consultation exercise, which extends to 4 November. When that final PFG is in place, the budgeting process thereafter will prioritise the commitments made in the PFG, and that budget prioritisation will help Departments, including ours, to shape our future programmes and business planning for the rest of the mandate. We look forward to working with the Committee as we shape those programmes in the coming months.

We are happy to take questions. Given the broad scope of our responsibilities, we will do our best to answer whatever questions you have today.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you very much. I will go straight into questions. What specific legislative change does the Department anticipate will be required to enable the delivery of Programme for Government priorities?

Ms Alison Clydesdale (Department for Infrastructure): On water, a couple of the draft Programme for Government priorities cut across the provision of sustainable housing and the economy. On water and the connection of housing, the Minister has asked us to look at options for how we might bring forward developer contributions. Those may or may not require legislative change. If they do, the Minister will bring that legislation forward in due course. That is the main aspect on my side, as well as the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill, which you are aware of, which will help the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Those are the two main pieces of legislation that are coming forward on the water side. I do not know whether there are any others in planning or roads.

Ms Rosemary Daly (Department for Infrastructure): In the planning remit, we are working through the planning improvement programme. That will bring through a number of legislative changes: for example, the validation checklist was presented last week, and we are working on the development management regulations. Consultation took place last year, and we are undergoing a process to summarise the responses in order to identify the best way to change the legislation.

There will be a number of things to consider. Legislative change is always an option to improve processes and deliver transformation. We are going through the planning improvement programme. In our section, we have a legislative team that looks at the best ways to tweak legislation and make it better. At this point, specifically, it is looking at the secondary legislation — the guidance and regulations — to see where we can do that as efficiently and effectively as possible to ensure that we can deliver.

Mr McEvoy: There are slightly fewer specific actions on transport infrastructure in the document, but, in general, lots of our existing programmes will work towards its key priorities by ensuring that we have a well-maintained, safe and reliable transport network. On your question about what legislation is needed, as Rosemary said, there is ongoing review of the legislation that we require to deliver those established programmes. If anything specific comes out of that, it will shape the legislation that we might need to adapt going forward.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How confident are you that the timescales for the legislative changes that you laid out will match the timescale of the final Programme for Government?

Ms Clydesdale: On the water side, we briefed you previously on the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. We hope to introduce that at the end of this year or early next year, which, hopefully, will leave us enough time in the rest of the mandate to get it through. That is on track and being drafted as we speak. For the developer contributions, we need, first, to establish whether legislation is required and, then, to decide the best option for bringing it forward. We do not have a timescale for you at the moment.

Ms Daly: Legislation is one mechanism for delivering transformation, but there are other things, such as policy and guidance, that we can look at. Obviously, legislation is the highest part of it. It is probably the most extensive and time-consuming part, so, if there are different ways to deliver transformation, we will look at those options as well.

Mr McEvoy: From the transport point of view, as I said, our established programmes will make significant contributions to delivering the priorities. We are generally content that the legislation required to deliver those programmes is well established and in place.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have questions on legislative change, funding issues and workforce. From correspondence that the Committee has received, I noted that there are 566 vacancies in the Department for Infrastructure. That is the third highest rate of vacancies across 10 Departments and the highest rate as a percentage of workforce, at 19%. Are you aware of which areas will be most affected and how that will affect the delivery of the Programme for Government?

Mr McEvoy: In the first instance, I will look at the transport and road asset management (TRAM) side of things. When Colin Woods was here, he articulated to you the level of vacancies that the Department is carrying, particularly in our group. That has an impact on what we can deliver. We recognise the scale of the vacancies that we are carrying and the Department's age profile going forward. There is work in place, and we are actively considering how we deal with those issues. An ongoing, established people programme is looking to bring the necessary resources in.

There are a few ongoing recruitment programmes. A recent senior professional and technical officer (SPTO) programme yielded, I think, 60 new SPTO posts. There are a couple of other programmes ongoing at a more detailed level, and they will be progressed over the next six months or so. My part of the Department is looking specifically at that, as is the wider Department. There are challenges in getting the necessary professional and technical staff in. It is a competitive marketplace for some of those posts. We are, however, looking hard to explore opportunities to make sure that we have those posts in place.

Ms Daly: I concur with that. There is a concerted effort to fill existing vacancies where possible. I joined recently, so one of those vacancies has been filled. There are efforts to get people into position at administrative and professional grades, and competitions are about to be released for the planning side.

Ms Clydesdale: The Department has a dedicated director of people development. If it would be helpful, we could ask her to send you a written briefing on what she is outlining as part of a wider plan.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes, a written briefing would be great and really useful.

I am conscious of time, so, if you do not mind, we will try to keep questions and answers as short as possible.

Mr Stewart: Thank you very much for coming along today. I want to follow up on the Chair's points about pressures. As you will know, many of the Department's priorities, including Translink and Northern Ireland Water (NIW), require significant investment. How realistic are those priorities, and what funding opportunities is the Department exploring to plug the noticeable gaps?

Ms Clydesdale: This year, the Minister has allocated about half a billion pounds to Northern Ireland Water in its entirety, with a capital programme of £328 million. The investment need for Northern Ireland is well known and documented through the price control process. The Minister is on record as saying that he has been discussing the matter with Executive colleagues and is trying to get additional funds. In a situation where we have a slightly reduced budget, while projects will not stop, they will take longer to be completed. They will be completed over a longer period in a constrained budget situation. Things will continue but at a slightly slower pace.

Mr Stewart: OK, thank you. Are you able to outline which specific areas or sectors of the Department are, because of vacancies, most hamstrung in their ability to deliver?

Ms Clydesdale: We will need to come back to you on that. Our director of people development would be best placed to answer that question in writing. She has been looking at that specific area.

Mr Stewart: OK. Finally, of the well-being indicators in the draft Programme for Government, mental health, life satisfaction and suitable housing, new and old, are key target indicators. How does the Department square that with the fact that tens of thousands of people live in developments with unadopted roads across Northern Ireland? What is the Department doing to alleviate those problems, given that some people have been sitting in developments for over 20 years without any movement between the developer and the Department for Infrastructure?

Ms Clydesdale: Unadopted water infrastructure has to do with drainage infrastructure, for which Northern Ireland Water has no responsibility. The developer should have entered into a bond. In some cases, developers have gone out of business, meaning that problems cannot be fixed. Before Northern Ireland Water can adopt that infrastructure, it needs to be brought up to an adoptable standard. That falls to the developer or, if the developer is no longer there or no longer trading, to the residents.

Mr Stewart: Yes. You can understand why that is an absolute disaster for residents who have bought a house in good faith. The bond is never enough to cover the works that need to be carried out. Ultimately, it is the Department for Infrastructure that has adoption officers. The Department needs to do something more, surely, to ensure that unscrupulous developers or developers who go bust for whatever reason do not just leave residents in limbo for decades. Given the well-being indicators in the draft Programme for Government, should you not look at that?

Mr McEvoy: I recognise the stresses of that situation.

Mr Stewart: Huge.

Mr McEvoy: We are well aware of the number of housing developments that have ended up in that situation, but it is also important to recognise that many developments make their way through the process successfully and are adopted. Our workload is significant: in the past six months, 200 individual bonds have been adopted. We are working hard in that sphere. We recognise the difficulty, but, as you said, there are, unfortunately, certain circumstances in which that situation has arisen.

Generally, the responsibility for providing that infrastructure to a certain level is the developer's. The Department has powers of enforcement that we would engage as appropriate, but, in general, direct engagement to identify the defects and working with contractors and developers to resolve them has been successful in a lot of adoptions, although I absolutely take the point that there is much more that —.

Mr Stewart: As a final point, I appreciate that many go ahead without any problem, and that is great for those who live there, but over 3,000 roads and developments across the country remain unadopted, in some cases for over 20 years. It will not be done by the developer. Often, people cannot sell their houses or even get them valued, and they are sitting without sewerage, lighting facilities or road repairs. It is incumbent on the Department to do more to ensure that that does not happen. We will follow up on that.

Mr Boylan: Thank you for your presentation. I have three questions. The draft Programme for Government is out for consultation, and some good ideas may come out of that before the document is finalised, but my main point is this: you outlined what you would like to achieve, but what are the major challenges now? Secondly, outside the financial issue, how will you work with partners to deliver on those? My third question is about the well-being framework: what will DFI take the lead on, and how will you work with partners to deliver that?

Ms Clydesdale: The major challenge on the water side is the scale of the investment that is needed — I think that everybody recognises that — and matching that to the funding available, which means that the completion of projects will take longer. We work with a lot of partners, such as Northern Ireland Water, obviously, and councils. The Department has always been keen, with councils, to promote the use of sustainable drainage systems to relieve pressure on systems. We are working with devolved Administrations to look at how they look after the maintenance of SuDS development. We work with partners across the board on that.

On the well-being framework, the four areas of the draft PFG that most directly relate to DFI cut across quite a few of the well-being indicators. The provision of sustainable housing, for example, will have a bearing on the well-being and mental health indicators. The process under the well-being framework will probably be led by TEO, so the Department will be guided by TEO on how we engage on that.

Mr McEvoy: The major challenge in roads will be the funding that is required. A key priority in the draft PFG document is for us to keep our infrastructure well maintained, safe, reliable and resilient. A major challenge will be to secure the funding to allow that to happen. You have been well briefed on that. The current funding that we get for maintaining our road network falls well below previous guidance on what is required, and we continue to operate a limited maintenance service, so that will be a key challenge.

There will be other improvements. Some of our major road improvement schemes will make a significant contribution. We work extensively and engage with other partners on those. Recently, there were announcements about city deal projects. Some of those city deals present key avenues and opportunities that will allow us to secure some funding. For example, as part of the Belfast region city deal, the Lagan bridge will go ahead. Through the mechanisms in those city deals, we will seek to maximise the opportunities to deliver important infrastructure improvements.

Ms Daly: You all know that there are many challenges in planning. One of those is the significant delays in processing applications. The Department takes that issue seriously and is looking at statutory consultations and different mechanisms that can be introduced to fast-track or speed up the process.

The other challenge is that the complexity of planning has significantly increased. We have more policies to adhere to and more guidance and legislation that are applicable to certain types of development. We now have key players: political and local engagement comes into the process much more. It is about getting that balance and realising that, in order to deliver decisions, you have to take account of absolutely everything. That leads to a lot of complexity and adds to the resources issue in planning. We already engage with a lot of key partners in the process through the planning improvement programme. In a two-tier system, the Department has a role to play, as do councils. It is about working together. Instead of having a two-tier list, let us combine the tiers so that we can work together to deliver what is best for the region.

Going forward, the improvements will be to build on what has been delivered by the planning improvement programme and possibly by refocusing. My plan is to start to engage with each council individually. Although we are a small region, there are a lot of issues in each council area. It is about identifying what the issues are and the best way to make meaningful improvements that will help the process along.

That, in summary, is it.

Mr Dunne: Thanks for the presentation, folks. I have a couple of questions. First, I will pick up where you left off on planning. We have 11 councils, which often results in agents and applicants having 11 different experiences, and that can lead to frustration. What more can be done to better coordinate the experience for agents and applicants?

There is also the issue of timing and delay in relation to statutory consultees. Often, one of the biggest frustrations is with government consultee responses. What action do you propose to take on that?

Ms Daly: Part of our engagement with individual councils will involve seeking to understand what works well and what does not work well and to take best practice from councils where something is working well. There are some aspects on which each council delivers well. Some councils may not deliver so well on a particular aspect, but there might be something else on which they deliver well. It is about understanding each council and trying, in our oversight role, to apply good practice across the board and to assist councils by asking, "If you were to put this action in place, would it help?". It is about looking at the systems of each council and getting those systems to align more closely so that they can achieve what we need them to achieve.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that. The variation can be frustrating. Regional variation can be beneficial, but there can be 11 different experiences for applicants and agents.

What actions does the Department propose to take to push for better time frames for responses from statutory consultees?

Ms Daly: You will be aware that the Minister has talked about the transformation bid. Part of that is to lever funding to support statutory consultees so that they can be properly resourced to respond effectively and efficiently on planning.

Mr Dunne: OK. On the wider issue, two key themes in the PFG are growing the economy and providing more homes. Those themes sound good but will be hugely impacted by the ongoing waste water capacity issue. The construction sector has been raising it more and more. It is fair to say that that issue is having a catastrophic impact and will continue to do so in the short to medium term. Does the Department recognise the scale of the challenge that lies ahead? How confident are you that real progress can be made on that major issue?

Ms Clydesdale: The Department and the Minister recognise that. That is why the Minister has asked us to look at how we might facilitate developer contributions. An ongoing work stream is looking at the existing legislative framework and the regulatory framework, and options will be brought to the Minister shortly.

Mr Dunne: What about the engagement between the Department and the sector? How regular is it?

Ms Clydesdale: The Minister has met the Construction Employers Federation (CEF) and a lot of similar organisations on this and heard and listened to their concerns, which, again, is why we have started the work stream on developer contributions.

Mr Dunne: OK.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you for coming in, everybody, and for your presentation. I have a couple of questions, so I will rattle through them.

Developer contributions have been mentioned: do we have any figures on what impact they would have? A lot of money needs to be invested in introducing sites and improving sites. Do we expect developer contributions to have an impact? What financial impact would they have? Do you have any estimates? What has the reaction been from developers?

Ms Clydesdale: There is not yet an estimate of what the impact would be. We are at the beginning of the process, assessing if there is a requirement for legislation. Once we have established that, we will look at the impacts. There are two categories of developer contributions. That is why Northern Ireland Water urged developers to contact it in the first place. There is a category of developments that could have some capacity relieved, if the developer invested in storm water offsetting. That would involve either a natural solution or putting in additional sewers to offset storm water. There is another set of constraints around Northern Ireland Water's infrastructure — its pumping stations and waste water treatment works. They would need increased capacity, and the developer could contribute to that. We are looking at the legislation and regulatory framework around that, but we have not yet looked at the impact in detail.

Mr McReynolds: Therefore, in my assessment, we are looking at a solution that could come in the next couple of years but we do not know whether it would have a significant impact or whether the impact would be minor.

Ms Clydesdale: It would have an impact for the developers who were able to make that contribution. It would allow the capacity to be relieved in an area of their housing development. That would be the immediate impact.

Mr McReynolds: What size of developers would that be? Would it be the big developers, or would it be a lot more localised? Is it the big players in the system?

Ms Clydesdale: That is what we are looking at across the board. It is important that we look at the impacts across all sizes of developers and all sizes and tenures of housing and business. The work is in the early stages. Those are the types of things that we are looking at.

Mr McReynolds: Rosemary, you mentioned checklists. Those were announced by the Minister recently. Do we have any idea of what impact they could have or what percentage of applications could be more streamlined and dealt with faster? What role will the checklists have?

Ms Daly: The checklists will have a positive role, because they will improve the applications. Often, in the planning process, planning officers have to massage applications through the process. They are constantly going back and saying, "You need to provide this and this". However, when the validation checklist is introduced, an applicant will know from day 1 exactly what they will need to provide. A transport assessment or a biodiversity impact assessment, for example, would be provided at the outset, as opposed to midway through the application when a statutory consultee identifies that it is needed.

Statistics-wise, we do not know, but we know that the quality of applications is an issue. This is a process. It is legislation that will assist the councils to improve the quality of applications. I would like to be in a position to report in 12 months' time that it is making a difference: we hope that it will. It works across the water, and it is an effective way of getting the applications to a good standard before the planning officers start to process them.

Mr McReynolds: When you talk about the quality of applications, do you mean local, major or regionally significant ones?

Ms Daly: It will apply to all of them. It will be at the councils' discretion. We will provide guidance to the councils as to how they should do it, but they will have a wee bit of latitude. It goes back to the point that it is not a one-size-fits-all approach; it is for each council. You have to give them that flexibility. Obviously, if you are in an urban area, you will have different concerns than you would have if you were in a rural area. The councils will have that wee bit of flexibility.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Lastly, Peter.

Mr McReynolds: I have two more points.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will come back if we —

Mr McReynolds: I will keep it brief, with no preambles.

Mr McReynolds: The PFG document mentions additional funding, and then, a few sentences down, it states:

Have we looked at enabling Northern Ireland Water to access more borrowing powers, including being able to borrow above the resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL) and capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL)? We have said that we need additional funding for Northern Ireland Water in one breath, and, in the next, we have said that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be remodelled. Have we looked at that approach for Northern Ireland Water, given that we have praised it for the Housing Executive?

Ms Clydesdale: Yes, we have. Northern Ireland Water and the Housing Executive are very different models. Obviously, we work within the Minister's policy parameters. He has been clear that there will be no water charges. We are looking at all the options. We looked at that quite a few years ago, and we are revisiting all of that work to see whether there is anything in the existing model that can be tweaked to help. Of course, Northern Ireland Water has access to government borrowing from DFI.

Mr McReynolds: It cannot go beyond its RDEL and CDEL though: that is the point. I get that it has access to borrowing, but it is not able to go beyond the limits that are set.

Ms Clydesdale: That is right: it cannot.

Mr McReynolds: I asked the Minister this recently: have we looked at it being able to borrow beyond those? That would, hopefully, unlock things.

Ms Clydesdale: We looked at options a number of years ago. We are looking again at all those options in collaboration with Northern Ireland Water to see whether we can do something around the existing model. That work is ongoing.

Mr McReynolds: Is that publicly available? Could I google that and find it?

Ms Clydesdale: No, it is not publicly available at the moment. The work is not complete.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Peter. I gave you a bit of latitude there.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr McMurray: I will keep my preamble brief. Raw effluent in our rivers is an issue. How is the Department engaging with DAERA in reviewing the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI)?

Ms Clydesdale: SORPI is a matter for DAERA and the AERA Minister. Northern Ireland Water is involved in a group — I cannot remember the name of it — that is reviewing SORPI. We are hopeful that, when the AERA Minister makes a decision, he will bring that to the Infrastructure Minister for agreement.

Mr McMurray: Sticking with the cross-cutting issue of waste water, what discussions are taking place across other Departments to adequately fund waste water treatment?

Ms Clydesdale: We work closely with the Department for Communities, which is responsible for the housing supply strategy. The Department is represented on that group and feeds into that strategy. We work closely with DOF in relation to funding through the normal monitoring round process. Those are the two Departments most affected.

Mr McMurray: Finally, touching on planning, what changes, be they legislative or otherwise, are you looking at to deal with climate change?

Ms Daly: There is a review of the strategic planning policy statement (SPPS) to take account of that. That was released last year. It will come through in policy. We, as a collective across the Department, are very aware of it. It has to be built into any assessment of applications. It will be delivered through the policy and updated with our frameworks. We will encourage it to be mentioned and delivered in local development policies that come forward.

Mr McMurray: Will it look to remove barriers to developing ways to ameliorate climate change? Is that the way it is going?

Ms Daly: It must be ensured that the planning system is fit to decide on any application that has climate change implications. Nearly every application will have to consider its impact on climate change. It is a legislative requirement. We are all trying to work through that. The Department for Infrastructure sets the regional policy. The regional policy should filter down to local policies. That is how we plan to address it. Consultations are ongoing to look at reducing carbon budgets and those implications. There are two consultations on the SPPS that are dealing with that. Once that becomes regional policy, local policies have to fit into that hierarchy.

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the team for coming along today. I think that every member who has spoken has touched on the developer contributions conundrum. Alison, we have heard for a few weeks or maybe a month that whether legislation is required is being explored. You have rightly touched on how lengthy the legislative process is. Therefore, if we have to go on that journey, we would need to set off soon. There is an impediment to us getting developer charges here, and that is what you are considering. The same issue does not exist over the border; does it? Is there an existing option whereby, if infrastructural improvements are required in close proximity to the border, Northern Ireland Water could get the developer to contribute to Irish Water, which could do the work and Northern Ireland Water could pay it?

Ms Clydesdale: That is really an operational matter for Northern Ireland Water, but my understanding is that Northern Ireland Water would not have explored that because, obviously, its duties and responsibilities are governed by the legislation that is in place here. There are mechanisms in place to facilitate cross-border funding through the PEACE PLUS programme. There are two PEACE PLUS investment areas, 5.4 and 5.2, that Northern Ireland Water could bid to, but they are for particular projects and not, if you like, general upgrades. They are generally for one-off projects. That is how Northern Ireland Water manages the cross-border element.

Mr Durkan: OK. Thank you.

You are welcome, Rosemary. You are a recent recruit. I do not know what you did to deserve it.

Ms Daly: A past life. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: You do not have to answer that question.

Mr Durkan: Planning has got so bad it is not just the system that is in "tiers".

Ms Daly: I still enjoy it.

Mr Durkan: Reference was made to the introduction of checklists, and that will indeed go a long way in improving applications and reducing the time that it takes to process them. However — I raised this issue with the Minister as well — while you said that it will apply to all applications, it will not apply to the regionally significant applications that the Department deals with. Those are the applications that generally take longest to process. They are major, regionally significant applications, and they are the most expensive applications. Is there a risk of that appearing to councils like a case of, "Do what we say and not what we do"?

Ms Daly: With regionally significant applications, there is always an opportunity for pre-application discussions. If you are doing the thing right, you will engage with the Department from a very early stage. It would be unusual for any developer that has come with a regionally significant application not to have had discussions, so they should be ahead of the game in providing quality information. Normally, the people who provide advice on regionally significant applications are very responsible and aware of the processes. They usually do a good job in providing that information. There will always be information provided and problems identified during the process. That is recognised.

Yes, at the minute, it does not apply to the Department, but that is because of the nature of the applications that the Department deals with. Interestingly, on the delays, there are many reasons why those applications take longer, including their complexity and the issues that they raise, such as climate change, impacts on communities, the need for development and economic impacts. Those all have to be carefully assessed, and some of them are referred to public inquiry, which is another source of scrutiny that they have to go through. As you are probably aware, there are delays in that as well. The Minister is looking at that and at the transformation bid to try to circumvent the delays at that end of it. The Department would like to think that applications that are not well supported with information would not be accepted. When you get to regionally significant applications, you will not come to the Department without your environmental impact statement, your noise impact statement or your transport statement. Those should indicatively be there.

Mr Durkan: They still take a long time to process.

Ms Daly: They do. Some of them are caught up in different aspects of the system. We have to look at that and see how we will reduce those delays.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark, very briefly, thanks.

Mr Durkan: I like that idea of engaging with councils, although best practice is in the eye of the beholder, so that might be difficult to determine.

Finally, my party has been critical of the lack of detailed timelines and targets in the PFG. How will we as a Committee and as an Assembly and, equally importantly, you as officials track progress and performance?

Ms Daly: I will speak for planning on that. Part of this engagement is about providing a framework whereby we can understand how we are all performing. We will look at the Department's performance in planning as well. We are the twelfth planning authority. All those measures, such as improving the information going into the system, should help things to move along quicker. There should be fewer consultations. There should be sufficient resourcing. We should look at what legislative powers we have at the minute that we can carry out. There are things that can be done. Ultimately, you will be looking at how we measure. The Department already measures performance. Performance of councils is already measured, and there are targets. Whilst they are not always met, we have to look at how we can assist.

Mr Durkan: That is the planning part: I meant more widely across the Department.

Mr McEvoy: The well-being framework that the Executive Office is establishing was mentioned. The data that will be gathered through that process will reflect how it measures against its priorities. As Rosemary said, across the Department, we have our own business plan. When the PFG is finalised, we will ensure that the work programmes in our business plan reflect that. Our business plan will have its own mechanism for measuring and monitoring performance associated with that. Inevitably, there will be a hierarchy of monitoring. The one at the highest level is reflected in the Executive Office's well-being framework, which seems to be a key aspect.

Ms Clydesdale: It is important to reinforce that, as Liam said, the actions in the PFG are not all the actions that the Department for Infrastructure will take forward. The detail of the Department for Infrastructure's actions is set out in the business plan. The PFG does not include everything that the Department intends to do, but everything that is in the business plan contributes to a PFG priority. The PFG sets the strategic direction for all Departments and will then help us as a Department to plan and get ready to deliver those Executive priorities.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along. My question relates to this priority in the PFG:

Are you content that NI Water takes the part that it has to play seriously and understands fully that it is part of the problem?

Ms Clydesdale: Yes, I am content. Northern Ireland Water was on the group, along with us, for the DAERA Lough Neagh action plan. Northern Ireland Water's discharges account for 24% of the discharges into Lough Neagh. That has been looked at. The investment required around Lough Neagh has already been identified as part of the price control process. The investment required to upgrade the various pieces of waste water infrastructure around Lough Neagh is known and needs to be funded. Northern Ireland Water's impact is 24% of the overall run-off into Lough Neagh.

Mr K Buchanan: You mentioned 24%. Where does that 24% come from? You have 62%, 24% and 12%.

Ms Clydesdale: That is right.

Mr K Buchanan: Where does that come from?

Ms Clydesdale: That is a source-apportionment figure that the DAERA scientists worked out. I may need to go back for further detail, but my understanding is that DAERA and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), working together, looked at the sources that feed into Lough Neagh and that those percentages are based on source apportionment. I think that that was set out in the Lough Neagh action plan that was published.

Mr K Buchanan: Finally, 40% of drinking water comes from Lough Neagh. There are issues in mid-Ulster and other parts of Northern Ireland with respect to that. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) and environmental health have been mentioned. Are you 100% sure and content that you as DFI are doing enough checks to see that NI Water does enough to make sure that water is safe to drink?

Ms Clydesdale: The safety of the water is overseen by various pieces of legislation and by the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Public Health Agency (PHA). All those bodies work closely with Northern Ireland Water on the testing and the parameters within which it tests to ensure that the water is safe to drink. The water can be tested every day. It can be tested at reservoirs and at taps. It can be tested at any point in the system. Both DWI and PHA are content that the water is safe to drink.

Mr K Buchanan: You are content that there is enough communication between those three organisations that it is safe to drink.

Ms Clydesdale: There absolutely is, and, should there be an incident, Northern Ireland Water has a very efficient emergency incident process whereby it raises that incident and all the bodies work together to look at all that. In the recent incident, water was tested every day. It never breached any of the parameters and was safe to drink.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. We are in the last few minutes of the evidence session. You might be glad to hear that. I will take one quick question from members who indicate.

Obviously, funding pressures are highlighted quite a bit in the Committee. In the Programme for Government, there is not necessarily a headline directly for Infrastructure, but there are a lot of references to Infrastructure. I am aware of the investment strategy. Ministers have mentioned it in the Chamber. How closely matched is the investment strategy, which mainly seems to sit with Infrastructure, to the Programme for Government?

Ms Clydesdale: I have been involved in some of the investment strategy work, working closely with the Strategic Investment Board (SIB), which is looking at a number of issues. I am not aware of the interaction between the investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI) and TEO. I would need to check that for you. DFI, across all areas of the Department, is working closely with the folks who are looking after the investment strategy.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Ms Daly: Some of the enablers relate to planning, so, likewise, we are working with ISNI on devising those enablers for delivery.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Is there flexibility in that investment strategy? It seems to have a longer time frame than the Programme for Government.

Ms Clydesdale: Yes, I understand that the investment strategy looks to a 10-year time frame for planning and understanding what is required.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. I will come to other members quickly.

Mr McReynolds: Liam, you mentioned city deals. Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2) between south and north Belfast has come up recently in the Committee. When I left that meeting, I certainly did not feel confident that we would see it delivered. What is DFI doing with Translink to make sure that the funding gap — it is about £100 million, I think — is filled and BRT2 can be delivered?

Mr McEvoy: Like you said, there is a considerable funding shortfall for BRT2. The projected cost of that is £140 million to £148 million. In the city deal, about £35 million is allocated to it. As we reflected earlier, the Minister is keen that we do as much as we can with what we have. Work is ongoing to see how best the £35 million identified in the city deal can be used. There are certain elements of that where we can work to plan some of the priority measures on the road network. There is an ongoing piece of work that, I understand, will soon result in an outline business case on what we can do with that £35 million. That will ensure that we start to deliver some of the benefits as soon as possible.

Mr McReynolds: When I asked who was ever going to provide that £100 million to £140 million, the official whom we talked to that day did not seem to know. Do we know who might be able to fund that significant gap?

Mr McEvoy: The Minister is keen on and committed to the scheme. He has committed to work with the Executive to explore whatever funding opportunities there might be to plug that shortfall.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If you could just get the Mid South West and Causeway Coast and Glens deals moving, that would be great. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: It is in the bag.

Mr McMurray: One of the things in the Programme for Government is flood risk management. We already see more intense weather systems. Obviously, Florida is bracing itself. What further information is there on plans and timescales? My area of South Down was badly hit, so there is always a desire for information on that. What timescales are there on the development of measures to ameliorate some of the issues?

Ms Clydesdale: The flooding in South Down is a matter for our DFI Rivers colleagues, who, I think, will be coming up in a few weeks to brief the Committee. They will be able to give you more detail. I know that the flooding review group was established and met regularly. It has published a report with 22 recommendations, but Rivers colleagues will be here in a few weeks and can give more detail on that.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the engagement with councils. The validation checklist will be a game changer in moving the process on, but it is important, respecting the autonomy of each council and giving them opportunity — nobody would argue with that — to have a consistency of approach right across. I hope that that is part of those early engagement conversations.

Ms Daly: Absolutely. It is a new process and something that we are working on. We have already engaged with the heads of planning about providing guidance, and that guidance will be worked up. That is something that we will always be open to discuss with councils. I think that everybody will want to be consistent. Things have to be fair and transparent for everybody engaging in the process. We are mindful of that and the need to establish good practice but not to interfere with the local issues. To give councils their own autonomy on that is important, too.

Mr Boylan: There is no doubt that those checklists will assist councils in moving forward.

Ms Daly: They are one of many things, hopefully. There will not be one big fix, but they will help to improve the process.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Is there any risk that other services will be impacted or reduced in order to deliver the Programme for Government priorities? Do you envisage anything like that?

Ms Clydesdale: On the water side, no, not at the moment. The delivery on Northern Ireland Water falls within the Minister for Infrastructure's responsibility, so it would be for him to decide on his budget allocations for that. Decisions on funding and delivery of those services would fall to individual Ministers.

Ms Daly: From a housing perspective, whilst we are not the lead on the housing strategy, the planning system is a key enabler for delivering housing. The strategic planning policy statement provides the regional framework for any councils that to date have not presented their local development plans. I am happy to report that we are nearly 50% of the way through the development plan process in planning strategies for each council. However, the planning system really wants to be an enabler to ensure the delivery of housing and not a barrier. Many different policy mechanisms are set out in the strategic planning policy statement that assist that, so I see nothing that would prevent that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How long did it take to get to that 50%?

Ms Daly: The Department issued the direction on the Antrim and Newtownabbey plan in the past fortnight. It has obviously taken the period since the legislation changed, but bear in mind that, in the past four years, those plans have gone through public examination. The Department has considered the report from the Planning Appeals Commission on those and given directions. Another one in the offing is the Derry City and Strabane District Council plan.

It has taken time, but they are important documents. They set the framework for the future for those areas. It takes time to gather the evidence, and that evidence is fundamental because it should align local policies with regional overarching policies, and that is an important part of the process. The strategy is probably a key document. The next stage is local plans policy, and that will come. It is important to recognise that a lot of work has been put in by councils to date and the organisations involved in that. Rather than being negative, it is good to say that we are making progress.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am glad that you have that positive attitude —

Mr Durkan: She is still new. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): — because I have concerns about how delivery will match the Programme for Government, considering how long it has taken for some of those things to get through.

Liam, do you want to add anything with regard to what services, you believe, may be reduced or impacted?

Mr McEvoy: As a general point, we go back to the main risk being the funding challenge. Within that, the key aspect for us is focusing and prioritising resources where they will be most beneficial. The Minister has his decision-making role in that, but officials in the Department will gather the various bits of evidence to allow him to make those decisions and to identify how he can spend money to best maximise the delivery against the priorities set out in the PFG.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): This is my last question. When you are tracking performance, will the Committee see that and have access to those achievements and measurements of the Programme for Government?

Ms Clydesdale: Obviously, the Programme for Government is led by TEO, and it will lead the monitoring programme, if you want to call it that. I do not know how it plans to interact with all the Committees, but we will obviously be inputting to that. I do not think that we have just enough detail on that at the moment.

Mr McEvoy: I understand that the Committee has seen the Department's business plan, so you will know how the Department tracks its own performance against the programmes, initiatives and actions that are in its business plan and that contribute to the PFG. They will be reported to you through that process.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time, and thank you for coming to the Committee. No doubt we will see you again.