Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I welcome, from the Department for Infrastructure, Ms Susan Anderson, director of finance; Mr Declan McGeown, deputy secretary of the water and departmental delivery group; Mr Colin Woods, deputy secretary of the transport and roads asset management (TRAM) group; and Ms Judith Andrews, acting deputy secretary for climate, planning and public transport. Thank you for coming to the Committee. We appreciate your time. We have your written evidence and your presentation, so, as usual, please open up the session with a five-minute run-through. I am keen to get to members' questions. I will let you take it away.

Mr Declan McGeown (Department for Infrastructure): Thanks, Chair. We will do a short presentation with a couple of slides; it will be very short.

Ms Susan Anderson (Department for Infrastructure): I will provide an update on June monitoring from where we were the last time we were at the Committee. As you will remember, we bid for £45·5 million, of which £4·3 million was inescapable. We received a resource allocation of £6 million, which has been used to address inescapable pressures: our public liability claims, the roads drainage charge and our public-private partnership (PPP) contracts. That addressed £4·3 million of the £6 million that we received, so we have a small balance of about £1·7 million left, and we are considering that in the context of the in-year exercise and October monitoring.

Following June monitoring, DOF commissioned an urgent in-year exercise during the summer, and we submitted the bids set out in the table in the slide: £19·6 million for NI Water, £10 million for Translink and £3·1 million for winter service. As time moved on, we looked towards our October monitoring round. We commissioned a further exercise in-year to update those figures to see where we were with our pressures and whether anything had moved. Some changes followed that exercise, with NI Water's pressure increasing to £23 million, largely due to increases in regulatory energy charges. Translink had a small decrease in its pressure, and the winter service pressure remained the same. A further pressure is our essential road maintenance to make sure that we can deliver the limited service that we set out to deliver this year.

There is no outcome from the in-year exercise. DOF has formally commissioned October monitoring, and we are looking to work with the Minister on the bids that we submit as part of that exercise.

Turning to further finance updates, DOF has commissioned a future years exercise. The Committee has been provided with our bids for future years, which primarily focus on next year but also look at the subsequent two years. For next year, we are looking at a requirement of £716 million, which goes down to £709 million in the third year. We are trying to set that against our rolled forward baseline, which is £559·5 million. That would require us to make the reductions set out on the slides that have been provided.

You will see from how we have presented it on the slide the movement between each of the areas. The requirements for NI Water, for example, represent the midterm review figures that the regulator has provided, and the TRAM requirements reflect what we would need to deliver a standard service and slightly above standard service.

I will not run through everything that we would need to bid for if we had to live within a rolled forward budget, as it is all set out in the table. That is what we would need to bid for to deliver the level of service that we would like to be able to provide in the year. The Committee will be familiar with many of the items from previous updates.

Moving on to capital, I will provide a bit of a recap on June monitoring. We submitted capital bids totalling £170·4 million at that stage. Included in that total was the £26·2 million overplanning commitment that we had already factored into our opening budget. We received an allocation of £12·5 million, which has been used to reduce our overplanning commitment to £13·7 million. That is where we stand at the moment.

As with resource, we had the urgent in-year exercise. Whilst the focus in that exercise was on resource, we took the opportunity to highlight the fact that we could spend further funding on capital, should it be available. As set out on the slides, we submitted bids totalling £159 million. Again, similar to resource, we have done another exercise to update those bids in advance of October monitoring being commissioned. You will see that some of them have moved slightly. That is primarily due to the passage of time. As time moves on, we cannot spend the same amount as we expected to spend during the summer.

On future years requirements, the slide that you can see sets out the various movements across the three years for capital. The big changes are in TRAM, which are primarily related to the A5 and the increased requirements that we expect over the three-year period. For next year, we have a requirement of £1·27 billion, which rises to £1·7 billion in the third year. The NI Water figures on the slide reflect the midterm review figures that the regulator set, with other inescapable and health and safety requirements also being identified.

That is a quick run through of the slides to give an overview of the budget situation and the financial position. I am happy to take questions, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. We have just had quite a stark presentation from the Mineral Products Association (MPA). We heard its concern that, post November, it will be laying off staff and, as a result of the budget conditions, will not be able to carry out any road infrastructure resurfacing schemes. Can you give any confidence to that organisation today about the impact that that will have on the economy or about what the situation is likely to be post November?

Mr Colin Woods (Department for Infrastructure): No is the short answer, unfortunately. I am familiar with what Mr Best said, and I do not take any issue with the accuracy of it in that sense. The Department will be relying on the outcome of October monitoring to have additional money to invest in structural maintenance. We know that we are investing less than the network requires from an engineering perspective to keep it in the right condition. That is the essence of the budget challenges that the Department and the Minister have been grappling with for a number of years.

We have a bid for £25 million for structural maintenance, which reflects what, we think, we could realistically spend over the remaining period in the year. Equally, £25 million could be spent on public transport or on water to do things that we would like to do and feel we should do . That goes to the heart of many of the budget challenges.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We know about the vacancy issues as well. Is that a key consideration too in relation to your ability to deliver? The representatives from the MPA also talked about duplication in the work of DFI staff and its own staff in the system. Will you talk to that?

Mr Woods: We are happy to work with the MPA and with our contractors on ways that we can work efficiently together. There is a point at which we cannot have contractors marking their own homework, as you will appreciate, so there are limits to that. It is true that our delivery capacity is another constraint on our work. That is less the case for the rest of this year because there is no meaningful way to grow a workforce in that time frame even if money is made available for extra people. We can spend about £1 million of structural maintenance funding for each member of staff in our teams, and, obviously, the number of people whom you have influences how many schemes you can introduce. We are happy to work with Gordon and with the contractors on how that can work better. I am not sure that that alone would be the answer.

We have a number of independent reports, including from the Audit Office, that talk about numbers in and around £190 million a year being required for structural maintenance. The average final out-turn figures over the past couple of years have been somewhere between £100 million and £120 million, so there is no way to get efficiency gains that make up for that shortfall. We will do the schemes that, we think, are the highest priority with the budget that is available.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am aware of yesterday's announcement from the Minister that the Department will provide £3 million for Londonderry airport. Where is that money going to come from?

Mr Woods: It is being transferred from the Department for the Economy.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): In terms of our funding, does that —?

Mr Woods: Three million pounds is coming in as a receipt in October monitoring, and then we will use that money. That is to do with the legislative powers to make the funding available, and there is some work to be done there. I think that the Minister for the Economy announced that his Department will take on responsibility for that, but there is work to be done before that can happen. As an interim measure, the money is coming to us, and we will distribute it on the Department for the Economy's behalf.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. Lastly from me for now, how confident is the Department that all of its statutory functions and responsibilities will be delivered?

Mr McGeown: The short answer to that is that, as a Department, we are asking those to whom we distribute funding to prioritise the need to meet their statutory functions. First and foremost, that is the requirement for the recipients, be that Northern Ireland Water, Translink or our roads colleagues, to make sure that we target the statutory requirements first and make sure that the funding goes there at the initial stage.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You are asking them to prioritise. The Department is not putting forward what it wants to be prioritised.

Mr McGeown: The Department will have its own priorities but the actual outworkings of that will be done by those bodies. For example, in my case, we will provide Northern Ireland Water with a global budget. It is then for NI Water to prioritise that budget; it is not for us to tell it how to spend that budget. NI Water knows its business best, so it is for it to prioritise where that money goes.

Ms Judith Andrews (Department for Infrastructure): It is the same for Translink: we allocate the budget to Translink, and it makes the decisions about where that money goes.

Mr Woods: That is absolutely what we do from a roads perspective. We are continuously looking at the budget and the resources that we have available and trying to make sure that we address our statutory responsibilities. Within those, health and safety responsibilities are, obviously, a significant issue for us. We are subject to health and safety law as much as we are to moral duties.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The issue is how much of that matches up with departmental policies. Translink might have a lesser priority, but, if we are trying to get decarbonisation to be a higher priority, how will they match up?

Ms Andrews: There is the public service obligation and there is a public service agreement (PSA) in place. Translink has given us assurances that the PSA will still be delivered within its budget envelope. That is how we monitor all of that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I will open the meeting to other members.

Mr Stewart: Thank you so much for coming along today. Given the stark picture that we got on road maintenance, has there been any financial assessment of the impact of essential and urgent works not taking place to the degree that is required, both on the roads and on the level of claims? How does that factor into any decision-making?

Mr Woods: We look at each claim on its merits and consider whether we have fulfilled our statutory duty under article 8 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 to maintain all roads to a reasonable extent. We defend claims where, we think, we have a defence, and we seek to settle claims where our legal advice indicates that that is what we should do.

We look at a range of things when deciding on the schemes to deliver, and one of those is the claims history on a particular stretch of road or at a particular location. We look at the structural condition of the road, using the detailed assessments that we carry out each year and the outcomes of our visual, walked inspections by carriageway inspectors, who note defects and so on. We bring that together on our system, and it produces maps similar to Google traffic maps with red, amber or green for each stretch of road. Our teams use that and their knowledge of the network to prioritise schemes.

The figure to maintain the road network in reasonable structural condition is £192 million a year at today's prices. A report was done in 2019 by Jim Barton that, I am sure, members are familiar with. It is available on our website, and it sets out the detailed case for how to maintain a road network and what it costs. It makes a number of points that, I know, the MPA have made already. For example, multi-year budgets get you better value for money and the ability to plan longer-term. I have used the analogy before, but it is like your own car or house. You know that, if you do not spend enough to maintain it in good condition, at some point down the road it either will not work or you will have to spend a heck of a lot more on it. The road network is no different.

Mr Stewart: I totally agree, and our colleagues in the Public Gallery would echo that.

Part of that maintenance obviously involves partnership and the viability of the private-sector companies that deliver the works so that they can continue to do so. In the absence of the required funding, we will hit a cliff edge where it is unsustainable and unviable for those companies to continue to operate. That will have an immediate impact on the ability to deliver roads maintenance. I am interested to hear your thoughts on that and the impact that that could have.

Mr Woods: I have no reason to doubt, as I said, what you have been told from that perspective. A vibrant and competitive supplier base is obviously one of the ways that the Department gets good value for taxpayers' money. We have competitive procurements, and we have worked well with the industry to reform how we deliver procurement exercises and create the contractual relationships. It is obviously of concern to us that contractors are concerned about their viability.

Having said that, we have an amount of money to spend, and we are content that it is all going out. We are not holding on to any of it. We have bids in that, subject to the outcome of the monitoring rounds, will increase the investment that we can make. We will certainly do that, if we have the money.

Mr Stewart: My final question is about vacancy rates. We have heard about the extensive vacancy rates in the Department. I know that you are trying desperately to recruit as many people as possible to fill those vacancies. What would be the economic impact on the budget of those all being filled? Is hitting the numbers that we wish to hit factored into the budget?

Mr Woods: From my perspective, we carefully plan how much money it will take to pay the people whom we are trying to recruit. The constraint on our staff wages budget is that it all comes out of the same resource funding. We keep a careful eye on that. If we run a competition and expect to hire x number of people, we need to be sure that we have the funding. We cannot afford to take a risk. We have to be sure that we have the money to pay the wages for the rest of the year, and that is part of how we judge what activity to deliver.

Mr McGeown: More generally, our budget planning over the next few years includes a budget line on our staffing budget to make sure that the money is there, should we have the people.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along. My question relates to the budget for road maintenance, Colin. Let us say that you get additional money in October monitoring, whatever the figure, and need to feed that down to the sections. Will you explain how you will distribute that?

Mr Woods: At the start of the year, we over-plan the number of schemes that we have available, because we know that there is a chance that we could pick up money in monitoring rounds and make good use of it. We do not start the year and design only £89 million of activity; we have other schemes that are ready to go. We look at the condition of and relative traffic volumes on a road and try to find the best schemes that will make the most difference and get the best value —.

Mr K Buchanan: Sorry to cut across you. Who does that? Is it the section engineer? Who in the section has that responsibility? I assume that an overall list is produced.

Mr Woods: It is done by the four DFI Roads divisions. The divisional road managers, the director of maintenance and the section engineers work together to produce an agreed programme of spend. You will be aware that we share that programme with the councils at about this time of year, just to set out what is happening in each area. However, producing it is the responsibility of a combination of those people.

Mr K Buchanan: How do you, for want of a better word, police that to make sure that no division is provided with more or less money? Is it based on kilometres of road, or how is it decided? One area could be more proactive than others. How do you police that?

Mr Woods: We manage it with a network maintenance committee, and the staff structure includes a director of maintenance. It is his job to be on top of the details of how that is working. We also keep an eye out for feedback. That is one of the ways in which local knowledge of the network comes in. The ability of section engineers to understand the topography of a particular stretch of road and the value that could come from different engineering solutions is of great use to us. We make sure that we factor that into the thinking.

Mr K Buchanan: I have one other question, if I may. We have recently seen the roll-out in west Belfast of additional Irish signage: there are 93 upright signs and 35 road markings. What was the budget to do that?

Mr Woods: I need to check the precise number. I do not have that in front of me. As with everything that we do, it has to come out of the Department's budget.

Mr K Buchanan: It would be interesting to get a figure for that pilot to understand whether it has been successful. Was an equality impact assessment carried out?

Mr Woods: The answer to your last question is yes.

Mr K Buchanan: There was.

Mr Woods: There was an equality screening. I do not believe that it has gone to a full equality impact assessment at this stage.

Mr K Buchanan: If you could provide the budget or figures, Colin, that would be great.

Mr Woods: Sure.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you for coming in again. It is good to see you all again. It is especially good to see you again, Colin.

I have a question on the climate action plan (CAP), which is mentioned in the pack. Do we have any assessment of the impact that not funding it has had this year?

Mr Woods: I will start and talk about the emissions model. This year, we have funded the development of the transport emissions model, which tells us in great detail the composition of the vehicle fleet and its emissions profile. It allows us to better understand the types of things that we might need to do. The Committee will be aware of the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which has been through the Assembly. It is the biggest intervention that will help with decarbonisation in the short term.

There are lots of other things that we might do, and the production of a transport sectoral plan will allow us to set out other investment opportunities in public transport, active travel and so on to take that forward. This year, the impact of not having additional funds will be more limited. However, as you can see, over the next couple of years, we have lines in our forward plans for decarbonisation and other climate interventions, because, as a Department, we have a lot of climate adaptation responsibilities, particularly around flood risk, that also require capital funding.

Mr McReynolds: I feel as though I am raising the issue of developer contributions all the time. Do you have any initial assessment of the positive impact that that measure could have on Northern Ireland Water? I have one or two concerns about it that we do not need to get into today; that is fine. Departmentally, what impact will it have on the financial resources of Northern Ireland Water?

Mr McGeown: Peter, the short answer is that it is too early to say. We have to look at the legislative and regulatory frameworks to see what it will entail. At the moment, for example, the legislation prohibits a developer from making payments to Northern Ireland Water, so we have to look at that in the first instance. We are at the very initial scoping stage where we have to work out what will be the benefit of it. My personal view is that you have to look at it in the round. When Denis McMahon was here a few weeks ago, you heard about other initiatives that we are looking at, such as the natural water solutions. It is part of a package or suite of measures. In and of themselves, developer contributions may not make a huge impact on budget pressures, but they will make a contribution. Developer contributions, together with all the other pieces of work, will make an impact as a collective. We are looking at that measure, but it is too early to say how successful or otherwise it will be.

Mr McReynolds: I want to touch on that a bit more. Is it fair to say that, at present, developers make contributions anyway? One or two people recently told me that it already happens to some extent, but this measure will go above and beyond that. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr McGeown: I am not aware of how that could happen, insofar as there is no provision in the legislation. There may be some route by which it is happening that we are not familiar with. We will check that and come back to you.

Mr Durkan: I was going to answer another question. Sorry, Chair. I think that developers can currently contribute to water infrastructure but not waste water infrastructure. I think that that is the issue.

Thanks for coming in and for the work that you have done on this. You have fewer beans to count this weather, or not as many as you would like, evidently. What sort of holistic approach is taken to these exercises across Departments — or are you all just beavering away in your own sections in Departments? — so that everyone across government has a full understanding of the implications of these pressures on wider society and the cross-cutting, catastrophic impact of some of the issues, particularly the Northern Ireland Water one, on the wider economy and society and on the achievement of Programme for Government aspirations?

Mr McGeown: Cross-government discussion happens at a number of layers. It happens around the Executive table, as you probably recall from your days at it.

Mr Durkan: That is what worries me.

Mr McGeown: It happens around the permanent secretary table. It also happens where the Department of Finance acts as the conduit between each Department and meets each one to go through what its needs are and then pulls all that information together. We are all alive to the issues. The Department for Communities, for example, will know about the pressing need for NI Water to contribute to the housing picture. Those conversations are happening, and they happen at a number of layers. It is for others to comment on how successful they are.

Mr Durkan: There is the effect on housing, the impact on the delivery of university expansion, which affects my constituency, and so much more.

Peter mentioned the climate change action plan. I know that there are future bids. For the next of couple of years, there are significant bids, and then, in 2027-28, there is none. Is it anticipated that all the work will be done by then, or what happened there?

Mr Woods: No, we certainly do not anticipate that we will have decarbonised everything by then. That is more a reflection of the fact that we do not yet have the detailed transport sectoral plan that will profile some of the spend. We have a marker there to indicate that additional funding will likely be required. Some of the work that we do over the next six to 12 months to write that plan, in compliance with our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022, will allow us to set that out and have better-informed bids and proposals.

Mr Durkan: While I have you here, Colin, I will ask about the reduction in the requirement for the A5 this year. That funding is ring-fenced: is that because of all the money that came from the Shared Island unit?

The Climate Change Act specifies a 10% spend on active travel. Have we worked out yet what that is 10% of? Should there be a separate budget line for that?

Mr Woods: Will you repeat your first question? I had started thinking about your second question.

Mr Durkan: My first question was on the reduced requirement for the A5. The only money that was allocated to it this year was the money that came from Dublin.

Mr Woods: The money was allocated to us by the Department of Finance, so I would need to check exactly what arrangements it has made. That is a consequence of the decision coming slightly later than we had hoped it would at the start of the year. That delay means that some of the activity gets pushed into the following financial year.

Mr Durkan: The money just gets pushed back to next year.

Mr Woods: Yes. The Executive have taken their decision on the partial authorisation. As far as we are concerned, that money is locked in and it is just a matter of putting it through the budget process.

On your question about active travel, the Minister has considered the definition of some words. Over the last year and a half, we have wrestled with the fact that the Climate Change Act does not define the terms, so we are trying to come up with reasonable and sensible definitions. We are using the definition, "physically active means". The Minister is considering an active travel delivery plan that will set out proposals and options for how we can invest in sufficient activity to not only spend the 10% target but make sure that it adds value to communities and creates opportunities for people to travel by active means.

Mr Durkan: Do we know what that is 10% of yet? Will that include the public transport budget? Will it, for example, include the money from the Department of Finance for the A5? Does 10% of that money have to be put in as well?

Mr Woods: Yes is the short answer. "Everything that DFI spends on transport" is the working definition. There are lots of budget lines, and we are looking at them all individually. We have a working assumption that the 10% figure could be in the region of £70 million to £80 million a year, which would be a combination of resource and capital.

Mr Durkan: Should that have its own budget line?

Mr Woods: It is in there. You can see budget lines for things such as the Belfast cycling network and other things that obviously fall under active travel. There is also an element of structural maintenance that goes on footways and cycle lane infrastructure maintenance. That spend is throughout the budget.

Ms Andrews: Likewise, Translink has things such as bike stores. We also want to count investment in things like that — things that enable people to get to public transport — as part of the active travel budget.

Mr Durkan: Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, folks, for your presentation. I will go back to the vacancy issue, which I have spoken about a number of times, including as far back as February, when the Committee first met. There was talk about a vacancy level of 28% in your Department at that stage. Has there been any progress on that in the eight months since then? What plans are there to keep up progress on that issue?

Mr McGeown: The vacancy level in the Department is a key issue that we have grappled with over the years. We have established a people subcommittee, which is a subcommittee of the board that is tasked with looking at where the priority vacancies are and making sure that enough progress is made on filling those posts in a timely fashion. That work is ongoing.

It is a well-documented challenge that a lot of our workforce — around 40% of our staff — are aged 50-plus, so people are retiring almost as quickly as we are backfilling. The net figure, month by month, is a bit of a challenge. We are bringing people in, which has been seen to great effect in the last 12 months in particular, but, at the same time, people are retiring. That has been a challenge for us, and, because of the level of expertise that is required, particularly in the front-line work of the Department, it is an even greater challenge. Even if the money is available, the people are not always there, or they may not be willing to work for the wages that we can offer. That is a challenge for us, but establishing the people subcommittee has certainly helped. I think that, in the next week or two, Patricia's team will provide the Committee with a paper on staffing that will set that out in more detail.
Yes, we are tackling that and working as quickly as we can through it, but the age demographic is a challenge.

Mr Dunne: Thank you. I suppose that it is about getting a balance between your staff and contractors who are keen to get long-term or medium-term work commitments. In the previous evidence session, a tap analogy was used: the staff resource cannot simply be turned off and on. It is about getting that balance.

Mr McGeown: As Colin alluded to, annual budgets are the challenge there, insofar as it is harder to plan, but it is a fair point.

Mr Dunne: I have another question about the A5. Your colleagues came to the Committee a number of weeks ago. I am keen to hear a bit from you about the budget for the A5 project. We have heard a number of figures, such as £1 billion or over £2 billion. I am trying to see how that will impact on other streams of work in your Department at this stage. Obviously, it is a very welcome announcement, and it is long overdue, but I am keen to hear from you on that issue.

Mr Woods: Agreeing that that part of the scheme should proceed is a big financial commitment from the Executive. An investment strategy is in development. It will include the A5 and everything else that the Executive want to achieve from a capital perspective. There will be difficult choices for all Departments, as there will be as an Executive, about how that money is to be spent and allocated.

For us, it goes back into the budgetary process. There is now an Executive commitment to deliver the A5 scheme, so it will be deemed an inescapable commitment. We expect it to be funded. It means, however, that that money cannot be spent on something else and that there will be a choice somewhere in the list of schemes about what will not happen in order to afford things like the A5, investment in housing and all the other Executive priorities.

Mr McMurray: Thank you for presenting to the Committee. My eye was drawn to a table in annex B. One row refers to DFI Rivers maintaining "a limited service". I appreciate that you guys are not from DFI Rivers, but what will be the impact of maintaining only a limited service?

The second part of that row mentions the bid for a "flood forecasting" service. It always seems to be only a bid. There is never an indication that things have progressed on it, if you get my meaning. Will you elaborate on that and on how you can progress that?

The "Brief summary of Equality Impact" column mentions the impact of a limited maintenance service on those who are "less mobile, elderly or dependants", but, if you were to walk down the main street in Downpatrick, you would see a lot of businesses that are not yet open, and you might get a greater appreciation of that equality impact on the business and commerce of the town. Will you elaborate on that, please?

Mr McGeown: I will pick those up. I am conscious that the flooding team will attend the Committee next week, but I will pick up on those points. The limited service is very much a targeted service. We look at the priority areas, which are those that are prone to flood risk, and we make sure that we clear out culverts and drains etc to make sure that that is in hand. We would like to provide a more standard service whereby, instead of prioritising, we would take a blanket approach to make sure that we could address culverts and drains etc across the region. At the moment, we are looking at a limited service that is based on experience of areas that are more prone to flooding, and we are making sure that those are prioritised. That is the approach that we take.

We can assure you that work is ongoing on the flood forecasting. We have made a bid, but we are also developing a business case and doing a lot of work. Gary and Jonathan will tell you next week about our work on looking at best practice, because we want to get it right and make sure that what we put in place will be highly effective in Northern Ireland, given the trajectory of climate change for the years to come. The business case is in development. A lot of work is going on, and we are sourcing a lot of best practice.

More generally, you will have seen the flood review report that was published a few months ago. It set out 22 recommendations, and we are taking those forward. We are learning and working to make sure that we work with the residents etc in areas such as Downpatrick and others, so that, if we have another flood, we and the residents in particular are well prepared for it. You will hear more about that next week, no doubt.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I want to come on to the winter gritting service. Obviously, gritting services protect our roads in the broadest sense. You have put in a bid of £3·1 million for the winter service. Are you confident that that is enough and that you can resource that? Even locally, I am beginning to hear some worrying news about trying to ensure that the staffing level is sufficient to provide the winter gritting service.

Mr Woods: We are comfortable that that is the requirement, and that is based on a lot of experience and what we think that it will take. A very cold winter means that we grit more and costs go up slightly, but a milder winter can mean that we grit less and do not need as much. However, that is the right planning figure for now. At the minute, we expect to be able to deliver a full gritting service, but that is increasingly challenging. We may have to look at our delivery model for next winter, 2025-26. It depends on our ability to get volunteers for the rotas that we need to deliver that effectively. Winter service is delivered on a voluntary basis; it is not a standard part of people's conditions to work overnight and all that kind of thing. When the part of our business from where we typically draw most of our gritter drivers, duty supervisors and duty controllers is under pressure and has lower levels of staff than it used to, getting enough volunteers to deliver the winter service is a challenge. It has been a challenge this year, but, as I said, at the minute, we expect to deliver a normal winter service this year.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That is the concerning part for me: you are relying on the goodwill of staff to be able to provide that service. When it comes to recruitment, are you looking at changing the terms — I do not want to say conscripts — so that it is written down that staff contribute to that service? It is about public safety.

Mr Woods: At the minute, we have not taken that step, but, if we were looking at a delivery model, that would be one of the things that we would have to consider. There could be reasons to do it and reasons not to do it, but, if we were concerned about the viability of a volunteer-based service, we would need to consider that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Could you do that on an emergency basis?

Mr Woods: I would be surprised if we had an emergency and needed to do that, because, as I said, our staff are very keen to be part of the high-quality service that we deliver. We take our safety responsibilities and our responsibilities to society very seriously. I would be surprised if that were needed. We also have access to contractors. In an emergency, we would seek to draw on our contractor base. We could put in place arrangements to get work done in an emergency.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Do members have any other quick questions?

Mr Durkan: Yes, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Very quickly, Mark.

Mr Durkan: It is an old chestnut of mine. You are here from DFI Roads. We see money coming from the Irish Government for the A5. I asked about how you talk to counterparts in other Departments —

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark, quickly, please.

Mr Durkan: — but how do you talk to counterparts in other jurisdictions? Is work ongoing to identify other projects, particularly in border areas, that might be of strategic importance or interest to the Dublin Government?

Mr Woods: From a DFI Roads perspective, we feed in through the North/South Ministerial Council. There are officials' groups that meet under that, and we have regular contact at official level. One of the topics that is often discussed is the Shared Island Fund and opportunities for projects that could bring that kind of benefit.

Ms Andrews: We have ongoing discussions with the Department of Transport down South about the progress of the all-Ireland strategic rail review.

Mr McGeown: The same is true for water. We work with Uisce Éireann and others to look at bids under the EU PEACE PLUS money.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You talked about the active travel definitions and what is included in the 10%spend. We received correspondence on 2 July that stated that work was ongoing. We had requested an update to see what the definitions were and what was included in the 10%. Will you provide us with an update on the response that we received on 2 July — on active travel, the 10% and the definitions? That would be useful. If you could also provide a written update on the submission to the October monitoring round, that would be great.

Mr Woods: May I elaborate on a response that I gave to Mr Buchanan about equality screening? An equality screening is under way for that scheme. It will be completed as part of the detailed —.

Mr K Buchanan: It is under way.

Mr Woods: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you very much. We appreciate your time today.