Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We welcome Kiera Lloyd to the Committee. I do not think that we have met yet, but you are very welcome to the Committee. Kiera is director of corporate strategy and performance. I seek agreement that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We have all the information. Do you want to briefly outline some details for five minutes, or are you happy to go straight to questions?

Mr Declan McGeown (Department for Infrastructure): Given the time, Chair, we will go straight into it. As you rightly said, Chair, you have the information in your pack. That is correct up until 30 September. Since then, there has been further progress, and we will be able to update colleagues on that and take any questions. If you are happy enough with that, we will not say much more at this point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Perfect. I will go straight in. We want to check how the priorities are being monitored and how that is implemented. Of course, we recognise that, on the back of the budget situation, that may be difficult in some aspects. I want to look at a few things. Members may pick up on a few of the other actions. I will look at the transport actions. Action 5 states that it will:

What specific actions are being taken to address the condition of the road network, given the available budget? As we just talked about, that is very difficult.

Mr Colin Woods (Department for Infrastructure): We have a range of performance measures that sit beneath that corporate target of how our road maintenance colleagues deliver essential maintenance and structural maintenance, including, for example, the speed with which we repair different categories of defect, the completion of our grass-cutting programme, the completion of gully-cleaning programmes and so on. That corporate target is the aggregate of all that information. Within that, there are areas where we are very comfortable and delivering well, and there are other areas where we are maybe more amber in the percentage of defects that are being repaired within the timelines that we set. Sometimes it takes a bit longer to get round them all, unfortunately, so we are seeing some performance issues, although they are not critical, that we are paying close attention to and working closely on.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How is that monitored? What I may view as assessing and addressing the condition of the road network in my area might be different from what is seen elsewhere. The target to address the road network within the application of the available resources by March 2025 seems to be quite broad. What is successful? What will that look like so that you can say, "Right, that is green. That is actioned"?

Mr Woods: I will give you a couple of examples. We have an IT system that records all the data on defects and repairs and so on. That is where I get the performance management information. For example, for the category of road defects that we call an R1, which is one of the more serious categories, we have a target to repair or make safe at least 94% of those by the end of the day following their identification, which is within roughly 24 hours. We have a range of targets like that. Completing a clean of all gullies at least once during the year is another performance measure in that.

I appreciate your point in that it is a broad, aggregated target at corporate level, but we drill right down into that. The director of road asset maintenance, Colin Sykes, and divisional road managers and others are paying close attention to what is going on in different parts of the network, broken down by section office area, as you would appreciate. That is how we form our judgement on that higher-level target.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Action 7 specifies that it will:

However, we are told that that has been:

That is transport and road asset management. What priorities have caused slippage on that action?

Mr Woods: That action involves the same team that manages our city and growth deal projects, and, as you will recall, an awful lot of work was done in the autumn to deal with some of the announcements that were made on city deals. A number of those projects are progressing through the different parts of the statutory process as well. Indeed, the A5 was part of the reason. The Minister has a submission with him at the moment. He is considering what he wants to do about the prioritisation of the different major roads projects. I know that he hopes to make an announcement on that in the coming weeks.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That is the current status. Do you have a specific date for that updated objective?

Mr Woods: It will really be up to the Minister to say when he is minded to make his decision.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Fair enough. Action 11 is an action on water, and we are keen to get the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill to the Committee so that we can get our teeth into it. Action 11 gives a date of 31 March 2025 for that. What is the current position on the timing of the Bill's introduction?

Mr McGeown: We are hoping to bring it forward in the spring of this year. A lot of work is going on behind the scenes at the moment. We are working closely with our colleagues in the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC). A lot of drafting is going on, but we are putting a lot of effort into that to get the Bill moved forward as quickly as possible. When we are ready to bring it to the Committee, we will absolutely do so. We are targeting for that to come before the end of the financial year. Spring 2025 is the term that we are using, but the end of the financial year is what we are hoping at the latest.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Has that maybe slipped a wee bit from that March date?.

Mr McGeown: It has slipped insofar as in the past couple of weeks we have just been working forward and back trying to get the draft and where we needed to be. It has not slipped massively, but there is just a lot of work involved in it. It is slipping by just a few weeks, but we are still hoping to bring it to you sooner rather than later. That is the hope, and we are devoting time and effort to that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. It is to be quite a substantial Bill.

Mr McGeown: Absolutely. It will look to give more powers to Northern Ireland Water for hosepipes, floods, landowners and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). All those matters will be covered. It is a very good Bill and something that we want to make sure is introduced very quickly.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Deputy Chair, do you want to come in?

Mr Stewart: I have a point to make arising out of that. It concerns the opening of Grand Central station and the refurbishment of York Street. Given what we saw over Christmas with the traffic chaos, for want of a better term, what has been learnt for future projects from the impact of road closures and everything else? How will you manage traffic? Colin, hats off to you for the lengthy interview that you did with Mr Nolan. You covered a lot and set out a lot of the issues. I am curious to know what the Department has learnt about traffic management for infrastructure projects and how we try to satisfy the public's urge to continue to use cars in the city centre.

Mr Woods: To answer that, I would probably need a little bit more time than we have available. [Laughter.]

Mr Stewart: We could have a conference on it.

Mr Woods: One lesson that we could learn would be not to build things in Belfast city centre, but that is not an appropriate example. The value of the investment can be seen in some of the public transport figures.

The engineers in the Department have an awful lot of experience of managing traffic. We have decades of experience on the team. Unfortunately, one cannot conjure up solutions when space is finite and the number of vehicles that need to use that space exceeds capacity. It is therefore about trying to be intelligent about the changes that we make, and it is also about trying to engage appropriately with all the people — businesses, commuters and everybody else — who use the streets in Belfast and in other parts of the network in order to ensure that we have a vision for the city centre transport network that supports the economic aspirations of the city and the people who need to use it for retail, business, work and everything else and then ensure that that can be done effectively. Some of the engagement that we have had with businesses and business representatives over the past couple of months has been really helpful, and we hope to build on that.

Mr Stewart: Given the outstanding works, are we on track to complete each of them and see streets start to open up again as the quarter progresses? Do you have any concerns about delays?

Mr Woods: There are no specific concerns about delays, although Durham Street is due to be closed for a year, so the situation there will not be resolved in quarter 1 of 2025. There are no particular concerns, however.

Mr Stewart: The refurbishment of York Street station is, I think, due to be completed in this quarter, for example.

Mr Woods: Yes. It is open already. York Street is —.

Ms Judith Andrews (Department for Infrastructure): Some work is ongoing, but the station itself is up and running. It opened in April last year.

Mr Stewart: Are there concerns about delays from any other works that are going on?

Mr Woods: There is an awful lot of work going on across the network at the minute.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that.

Mr Woods: There is a lot of essential work being done as well. There is a very important reason for every one of the interventions, be it safety, expanding the gas network or relining sewers that are in poor condition. Unfortunately, all those works have to happen, so I cannot sit here and say that there will be no more traffic congestion. We are still doing work on the Sydenham bypass, for example, and that will have an impact on people who need to come into the city from north Down in particular. We will continue to manage that work as best we can and ensure that we give people choices and information about how to plan their journey.

Mr Stewart: Thank you.

Mr McMurray: Your final point was going to be my first point, so I will crack on. Action 14 concerns a flood forecasting system. What is the current timescale for the outline business case for that? That is an important one.

Mr McGeown: There is a slight delay with its development, but we are still on schedule to have the business case done by, we hope, February. We have been very much trying to look at examples of best practice out there. We have engaged with four nations and with our resilience groups to make sure that, whatever way in which we design this, we do it right. Although the development of the business case may have slipped by a couple of weeks, that has been time well spent in order to make sure that we land it as well as possible. The business case is therefore on schedule to be done within probably the next six weeks or so.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. Action 8 is about the active travel delivery plan. The plan was not to be published for public consultation until 13 November. Given that the specified target date of 30 September was not met, why was that action categorised as "Delayed" rather than "Not achieved", if you get my meaning?

Mr Woods: It has now been achieved, so "Not achieved" would not have been appropriate. Typically, when there is a short delay like that — there was a delay of about six weeks from the target that we set ourselves at the start of the year until when it happened — part of it is down to logistics and getting the right date.

Mr McMurray: There was an inbuilt grace period, then.

Mr Woods: That is one way in which to describe it. The action has been achieved, however. The plan is out for consultation now. We are very happy about that.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for coming along today. My question relates to action 10, which is on connection to the waste water network. I appreciate that that action was delayed at the back end of last year. The table shows a resource pressure of £23 million. More broadly, what work are you doing to talk to Northern Ireland Water (NIW) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)? Are you with me? When a developer goes to build one house or 20 houses, he or she gets caught in the NI Water and NIEA trap, so what are you doing to communicate with both organisations? I appreciate that the NIEA polices NI Water to a degree, but what are you doing with them to bring about a solution? We have had this conversation before, and saying that no more houses are to be built is not an answer. What are you doing to bridge the gap between NI Water and the NIEA and to come up with innovative solutions across Northern Ireland so that the answer is not just a no?

Mr McGeown: NI Water has established what is called a development constraints project team. Through that, it is trying to engage with all the players to make sure that everyone is alive to what is possible and what the challenges are and then tries to work through them. Rightly and understandably, NI Water will say, "Engage with us as early as you can, and let us see where we can get to". An active, live discussion is therefore taking place.

On the wider strategic point, we in the Department are looking at what we can bring to the table to assist the situation. As recently as before Christmas, the Minister asked me to meet colleagues in the Department for Communities, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the NIEA and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) to have an exploratory chat about how we can help the process and look at where the barriers and opportunities lie. That piece of work is starting to kick off. The conversation has been good and engaging. That is certainly my experience, and I am sure that Kiera would say the same. There is a real can-do attitude around that table to see how we can make it work.

The other layer that I will add is that, because it did not get the full amount of money that it needed for this financial year, NI Water has been asked to develop a reasoned submission that looks at the art of the possible and to work with us, the Utility Regulator and the NIEA. On a number of levels, Keith, there are therefore discussions taking place. There is the forum to discuss development constraints, the discussions that we are having with Departments and the ongoing work that we, Northern Ireland Water, the Environment Agency and the Utility Regulator are doing on the art of the possible. Hopefully, all of that will start to help.

Mr K Buchanan: I have one follow-up question. I appreciate that money will not be available tomorrow to solve all the problems. NI Water does not accept article 161 of the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Have you looked at getting any insurance cover? When a developer builds 10 or 20 houses, there is a nervousness about who is to maintain or service the local treatment plant if that developer goes bust. NI Water will not accept doing so. Is there any method of getting some degree of insurance so that, should a developer go bust, there is still an insurance policy in place to cover and maintain that treatment plant? NI Water is saying no, so what have you looked at doing to solve that problem? We will not get money tomorrow to solve all the development issues. That will not happen, so what other options are there?

Mr McGeown: You will have heard our Minister talk about his three-pronged approach. He is going to work continually with the Executive to try to get more money. I appreciate that that will take time, if it happens at all, but he will try. Alongside that, he is looking at natural water solutions and at how we can work with developers. Kiera will be involved with me in doing work over the coming weeks to look at how developers can contribute. We have not looked specifically at the idea of having some kind of insurance. I know that you are hearing that article 161 is an issue, and you are right to say that, Keith, but in our conversations with Northern Ireland Water, it was not a blanket no that we heard. NI Water will work with developers —.

Mr K Buchanan: It is not accepting new treatment plants.

Mr McGeown: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: It is not taking them on.

Mr McGeown: Not at the moment. That is a symptom of its not having enough funding, but we are trying to unlock that funding.

Mr K Buchanan: I am not disagreeing with you, but I do not think that it is a symptom of a lack of funding but rather a case of NI Water saying no. It does not need funding to accept article 161. Rather, it needs reassurance that its doing so will not cause a problem for it in the future. I can understand that. Having no money is not the reason, however.

Mr McGeown: There is a thought process that all of us — Northern Ireland Water, the Department and developers — have to go through. There is a nervousness about liabilities down the line, so we are trying to take away that fear. If somebody does not reach out and start the process, however, nobody will start it, so we have to look at finding some way in which everybody can pull together and be reassured that it is a process. To answer your question about insurance, we are not looking at doing that specifically. We are trying to achieve the goodwill to enable us to work together to identify how we can solve the problem rather than put in anything specific at this point. That does not preclude us from doing that down the line, however.

Mr K Buchanan: That is fine. I appreciate that action 10 will not be achieved overnight. That action is going to go on for a long time.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I declare an interest because of my unadopted housing developments private Member's Bill.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much for your answers so far. I want to go back to that issue. The Utility Regulator signed off on a £2·5 billion investment as part of price control 21 (PC21). It is mostly focused on waste water treatment. I know that article 161 refers to "waste water treatment", which is fine. To follow on from Keith's point, I want the conversation to move to the next phase, which is when you are having the conversation about waste water facilities and connections. That is what the focus should be on. I was going to ask about stakeholders, but you named them. They have a part to play, but this is about the responsibility to deliver waste water treatment infrastructure and to develop and build homes. The next time that you have the conversation in the room, I would like it to stick to the agreed PC21. We have had the Utility Regulator here, and we are hearing all the arguments about article 161.

Keith mentioned insurance, but, for me, it is about waste water treatment infrastructure, which is what PC21 was about. There are other elements involved, but I appreciate —.

Mr McGeown: Drinking water would be the primary one.

Mr Boylan: It is, in a way, but drinking water has been part of the PC programme from the very start. The programme has been going on for 17 years or more. Do you understand from where I am coming?

Mr McGeown: Yes. I do not want to delay your colleagues, but the price control contains a range of commitments, including —

Mr Boylan: One hundred per cent.

Mr McGeown: — maintenance, capital works and the works that the Utility Regulator identified. There is therefore a range of things for which Northern Ireland Water has to cut its cloth accordingly to deliver, but I take your point.

Mr Boylan: I just wanted to raise that point, even though Keith previously covered it.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): An awful lot of external stakeholders need to be involved in the process of planning actions, and that can ultimately lead to delays. What is the overall impact on, for example, the planning improvement programme as a result of having external stakeholders?

Ms Andrews: I can update you on that. There were 40 actions in the planning improvement programme. You will see from the feedback on the business plan that 13 have been achieved and that five are on target, but, because they are involved, there is a dependency on the councils and the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). Over the past number of months, fully supported by the Minister, we have taken a reset-and-refocus approach to the planning improvement programme. What is really important in all of that is our relationship with the councils. At the moment, we are undertaking a series of visits to councils to have the conversation about what is working well and what is not and about how we can work better together on achieving the objectives to improve the planning process.

Other things are under way as well. We have the legislation through for the validation checklists, which will be really important. That is due to come into force from 1 April 2025. The legislation is all about quality of applications. If a good application is received, that will help get it through the system. We have also done a lot of work with our statutory consultees. There is a statutory consultee forum, at which there is a lot of engagement. We are also doing a lot of data analysis of times to try to understand where blockages are in the system. There is therefore a whole reset-and-refocus piece in place.

The other issue that we acknowledge is resources and staff. Part of that is about giving our staff resilience. Being a planner is a tough job. There is a lot of bad press, and planners are in a no-win situation, in that there is always one happy party and one unhappy party or many unhappy parties. Not just in the Department but across the councils, we want to encourage people into the profession in order to bulk it up. There is quite a bit of succession planning being done, what with people moving on. When we talk about resources, we are looking at employing people and getting them into the profession. We have created apprenticeships with our engineering colleagues. Those have worked well. We also want to provide training support. There is a whole stakeholder piece beyond that, be those stakeholders agents, different firms or developers. We are therefore looking at the big picture. We are looking as far as possible at having collaborative dialogue. We are also focusing on people. Out of that work, we plan to do a whole reset of the planning improvement programme over the next couple of months. I know that Rosemary Daly will be at the Committee at the end of the month. She will be able to provide the Committee with a lot more information and detail.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That is perfect. Thank you. I will now return to some of the traffic issues. Colin, we have information in our pack about the round-table discussion that was held on Monday 16 December. The traffic issue has been talked about in the news, but the available information talks of a comparison between journey times in November 2023 and December 2024. Why is it November 2023 and not the same period that covers, say, 5 December? I think that 12 December was the other date mentioned.

Mr Woods: We have the ability to produce those different comparisons. When we started to do some of our work, we decided that we needed to take a fixed point of reference in order to give us the ability to compare other dates with it. We went with November 2023, because we were in November at that point. It was also just before we put in place some of the mitigations for the city centre road network to accommodate the construction works for the Belfast Grand Central station. We picked a point before that time, which we deemed to be a more normal traffic environment. We tried to compare the situation before some of the interventions were made in order to give us a baseline.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Fair enough. We have asked to get more information about some of the round-table and stakeholder events that happened just before Christmas.

There is an emerging story today about the Boyne Bridge and associated planning issues. There are some media organisations that I do not listen to in the morning

, but one show's reports are important on that particular issue. You said that you do not think that you have any traffic concerns coming up, but according to someone who has seen the letter:

To me, it seems as though there will be a delay. Can you talk about that issue today?

Mr Woods: The Department is the planning authority for it, and we have our statutory DFI Roads responsibilities as well. What I can say is that we continue to work hard on discharging the planning conditions in order for Translink to be able to proceed with its works. There is a programme of work to be done, including for Durham Street, which is due to be closed for a year. There is therefore no immediate change to any traffic position. The traffic position is largely as a result of Durham Street's being closed, and that is a slightly separate issue. It is obviously related, but it is not quite the same issue as the works being done on the road itself. Once the road closure is in place, we put in place mitigations to cope as best we can with the traffic on the road network around it. That remains the case.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Do you believe that there is a viable traffic plan in place and that the work can now resume? When will it resume?

Mr Woods: I am afraid that I do not have any answers about Translink's programme.

Ms Andrews: Ultimately, it is kind of a planning decision. Evidence is sought from DFI Roads as a statutory consultee on the matter. The decision is in transit at the moment. To date, no decisions have been made on that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): When do you expect them to be made? It will be a concern for the city centre. We heard before Christmas about the Sandy Row residents and businesses there. We do not want to see any delay to the project. If there are concerns, however, and if a refocus is needed, that needs to happen as soon as possible. People who have heard that news today will be very concerned about what it might mean for them and for the project.

Mr Woods: It will be for Translink to give you the detail of the project programme, I am afraid. We are working, as Judith said, on the planning conditions that fall under our statutory responsibilities. We will then put our road network hat back on and engage with Translink on the opportunities that there are to accelerate the programme and all the rest of it in order to relieve some of the traffic issues as quickly as we can.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Will you be meeting Translink on that issue ASAP?

Mr Woods: We regularly meet Translink to discuss it. From a programme management perspective, some of our teams are in almost daily contact with Translink. We have to try to keep that separate from the discharging of our statutory responsibilities for planning and street works, licences and so on, for which we are the statutory authority as well as a delivery partner.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Do members have any other questions to ask or points to raise?

Mr Dunne: I have a couple of points to make on that issue. I appreciate the challenges, but it is important to say that traffic congestion is not just for Christmas. In Belfast this Christmas, there were an exceptionally high number of vehicles. There were several factors behind that. Has any consideration been given to tidal flow lanes? The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and others mentioned that idea in recent months. They are in operation in a number of other places in the UK, particularly to address bottlenecks. Is that on the agenda or on the radar?

Mr Woods: It is certainly on the radar. We are aware that tidal flow lanes are used in other places, and we briefly considered — I do not mean that we did so in any serious way — whether we had the opportunity before Christmas to look at introducing something like that. Unfortunately, the density of the network in Belfast city centre makes doing so difficult, given that many people use the city centre as a transit route to somewhere else. Identifying a stretch of road that could be used, based on enough people wanting to use it to go in the same direction, is challenging, and, in the time that was available, we did not think that we could take that idea any further. There are opportunities in the medium to long term to look at the transport network in Belfast and in its city centre and then think about how we want to operate. That is where consideration of new measures such as tidal flow lanes would be done, along with consideration of how to use the fixed width of road that we have.

Mr Dunne: Yes. It is not just a seasonal issue, because it happens all year round, but, with the darker nights, traffic seems to build up from September onwards. In late 2024, it really seemed to be magnified.

I have just one other question, which is on an issue that you mentioned briefly. The Sydenham bypass has obviously been a contributory factor. What has been done so far is excellent. For the tens of thousands of north Down residents who use the bypass daily, the work represents a great improvement. I am keen to know where we are with it. To the naked eye — I have seen for myself — it looks as though the work is quite far on, but are we on target to meet the completion date? I would like to hear a wee bit more about that. I know that the works being done last week were suspended because of the frost. Is it the plan to continue with weekend closures?

Mr Woods: Yes. Four further weekend closures are needed in order to complete the work, in addition to the continuous overnight closures. We are doing as much of the work as we can overnight, but we need full closure of the bypass, particularly to do the resurfacing components of the work. There was to be a closure last weekend, but you are right that, because of the weather, it was not practical to do the work. There is a weather-dependent" caveat to be applied to when it will all happen, but we will make it clear to people through the TrafficWatchNI website and all our other communication channels what they should expect. People had some experience of that before the embargo came in before Christmas, and we will certainly do what we can to highlight the alternative routes that are available.

Mr Dunne: Yes. That is important. Overnight work on weeknights is a good option, because after 10.00 pm is very much off-peak.

Mr Woods: We do as much of that as we can. We are mindful that there are residential communities along the Sydenham bypass, and there is a trade-off —

Mr Dunne: It is a balance.

Mr Woods: — with noise and other disruption.

Mr Dunne: What is to be the completion date?

Mr Woods: Sorry, but I will have to go away and check. Given last week, I am not sure that I have that.

Mr Dunne: It is soon, however.

Mr Woods: After four further weekend closures, the work will essentially be complete.

Mr Dunne: That is great. Thank you.

Mr McReynolds: You triggered something in me, Stephen, by mentioning the overnight work. I remember overnight work being done a number of years ago at Parkway in east Belfast. A number of residents said that that work kept them up all night. Was not doing overnight work therefore explored as an option?

Mr Woods: The Sydenham bypass is closed every night at the minute because we are doing night-time work. The contractor tries to balance the work that is done against the impact that it will have on the people who live nearby. There is a continual balance to be struck. There are always competing needs, preferences and priorities. We try to work out a programme that provides the best balance.

Mr McReynolds: The Minister spoke about taxis being able to access some of the bus lanes over the Christmas period. I assume that that has ended now, but do we have any data on the impact that it had, either positive or negative?

Mr Woods: It is still the case that taxis are permitted to use the bus lanes. This week, we are advertising an experimental traffic scheme in order to gather the data that we will need to make an informed decision on the future of that particular initiative. It is a statutory process, so we are now at the stage of consulting the public and inviting comments from them on what is being proposed. The intention is then to use the experimental scheme to develop a robust evidence base that can inform future decisions.

Mr McReynolds: Is that the pilot scheme that you mentioned?

Mr Woods: The Minister asked us to bring in the scheme before Christmas, given the potential that it had to make some contribution to tackling traffic congestion by relocating vehicles from one lane to another to try to ease the overall pressure. That was done under temporary legislation. The experimental scheme is a more medium-term scheme. I cannot recall off the top of my head the exact length of time that we intend for it to be in operation. A previous scheme ran for about 12 weeks. I think that we intend to run this scheme for longer in order to try to develop more of a robust evidence base. The issue with traffic, as you will appreciate, is that traffic today, at this time of the day or around the corner here or there can be very different, so it can be challenging to develop an evidence base that can be used for informing future decisions. Something like an experimental traffic scheme, as designed by the legislation, allows us to do something on an experimental and temporary basis. The point of the scheme is to gather evidence.

Mr McReynolds: What roads does that medium-term scheme include? Have more roads been included?

Mr Woods: From memory, we are consulting on a broader range of bus lanes in the city centre, but it is still only in Belfast city centre. When I say "broader", I mean around the corner and down Wellington Place and around the back of City Hall. It is not the full network, by any stretch of the imagination. That is one issue for which, if I had known that I would be asked about it, I would have had the consultation in front of me, but I am afraid that I do not.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I recognise that we are putting you on the spot today, Colin.

Mr Woods: That is OK. The consultation is out. It is on our website. I do not want to be sitting looking at my screen, however, when I am trying to answer your questions.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Colin, for taking those questions, because you were not here today to deal with them.

Mr Woods: I am just trying to help.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am sorry that we have taken advantage of the fact that you are here today, but I do appreciate that you have tried to answer some of those questions from us. The issues are not easy and are not easily resolved. It takes all of us to play our part to make sure that they are resolved. I appreciate the fact that all of you have given of your time today to appear before the Committee. We may have follow-up questions, and there are some questions that were asked on which you are to come back to the Committee with answers. Thank you for your time today. We really appreciate it.