Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You are very welcome to the Committee, Minister. This is your first time in front of the Committee, so we are pleased to have you here. We also welcome the permanent secretary, Denis McMahon.

At the start, Minister, it would be remiss of me not to say that we were disappointed by the back and forth that went on around the date and timing of your appearance at the Committee. The Committee asked for 90 minutes with the Minister, which was not unreasonable, given that we do not ask for the Minister very regularly. I will put that in context: in the past eight weeks, the chief executive of Northern Ireland Water (NIW) has spent four hours giving evidence to the Committee. As you know, there are burning issues in the Department, and the Committee wants to work with you to scope out where we can work constructively with you and the Department on those issues.

Yesterday, when we were looking at rescheduling the meeting, we were told that 18 June would be the earliest opportunity to have the Minister at the Committee. I find that unacceptable. It is important that we have the earliest opportunity to engage. The way that I see it is that the Committee is second only to Executive business. We are a scrutiny body, and, therefore, it is important that we have that opportunity to engage as much as possible and in an appropriate time frame.

Over the past number of weeks, I have been giving off about how officials have interacted with the Committee. From a ministerial point of view, it is important that it come from the top down that the Committee has precedence, that we are taken seriously and that it is acknowledged that our work is important. I just want to say that from the outset, and I hope that that scenario does not arise again. There was a lot of back and forth around the timescales and that type of thing. I appreciate that you said that you were willing to come to the Committee. However, today's timescale is very short, given all the issues that we need to go into. I hope that you appreciate that in the answers that you give me. I have indicated to members that it is important that we come to our questions as quickly as possible. Given the short time that we have today, are you willing to come back to the Committee at the earliest opportunity for another oral evidence session?

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I will address your comments first, Chair. Thank you for inviting me to attend this morning. You will be aware that this morning's briefing was scheduled by my predecessor. When I came into post three weeks ago, I wanted to ensure that I was able to honour that. There was already other stuff in the diary, and things have been added in the meantime in order to get me up to speed. We probably have about an hour and 15 minutes, because things have moved around slightly, given the changing business over the past 24 to 48 hours.

I am happy to consider your invitation. You mentioned the next available date being 18 June, but that reflects just how busy the diary has been since I came into post. A huge volume of requests has come through, but I spoke to officials, and, had today not gone ahead, we would have been willing to move things around. I will continue to work with the Committee to the best of my capacity. I recognise the importance of the Committee. I came to this post directly from being Chair of the Health Committee, and I had a very good working relationship with both Health Ministers during that tenure, so I am keen to ensure that we have that same relationship. From the outset, I want to say that the time frame was not intended to undermine the importance of the Committee; it was to try to strike a balance between ensuring that I was able to attend today and meeting other predetermined commitments. I just want to make that point at the outset. I am happy to consider coming back before June, if possible, but we can work that out outside of today's meeting.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I think that a meeting before June is needed. As you know, I had indicated to the Clerks that, because you are new to the post, it might be worthwhile rescheduling the date to maximise the time to allow you to get settled. At the end of the day, you will not find a more congenial Committee to come to than the Infrastructure Committee. We work quite well together and are constructive in how we do our business, and that is how we want to continue.

Without further ado, because time is short, I seek agreement from members that today's evidence session be recorded by Hansard.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, I invite you to make a very brief opening statement, as I am keen to come to members' questions.

Ms Kimmins: No problem. Thank you, Chair. Good morning to you all. I am delighted to be here as the new Infrastructure Minister. I will start by paying tribute to my immediate predecessor, John O'Dowd, who delivered positive change in this portfolio in the time that he was in post.

I will give examples of some of the key infrastructure projects that have been delivered in the past year. They include the opening of Grand Central station in Belfast; the moving forward of the A5 western transport corridor; the launch of the all-island strategic rail review and active travel delivery plan; the completion of the Belfast tidal flood alleviation scheme; the introduction of the temporary exemption certificate (TEC) to reduce MOT waiting times; continued implementation of the planning improvement programme; and securing additional funding to unlock water and sewerage connections for thousands of new homes across the North. Those are just a small number of the achievements, and, at the start of the meeting, I stress that I want to continue working constructively with you in the same way as John did in his time. I am keen to work with you as a scrutiny Committee to discuss and debate some of the important and challenging issues that we face with our infrastructure, of which there are many, and I appreciate that. That will include the Committee bringing forward solutions and ideas on how we can make things better here for the good of all our people.

As I take up the role, I want to build on the firm foundations that were put in place by John O'Dowd. I believe that infrastructure holds the key to unlocking economic potential, addressing rural imbalance and delivering positive changes that can benefit society as a whole. As part of that, I will outline the seven objectives that will underpin the work of the Department going forward. Those are foundations for a better future and are in recognition of their importance to people, the economy and the environment. They underpin the work that my Department is doing today to shape a better tomorrow.

Foundation 1 is to tackle climate change. We face a climate crisis and need to take action by increasing the number of zero-emission vehicles here. Foundation 2 is cleaner and greener transport, which involves providing attractive, sustainable transport alternatives, such as public transport, walking, wheeling and cycling. Foundation 3 is adapting to the climate. While we cannot prevent all flooding, we can reduce the impacts with appropriate infrastructure improvements and development. Foundation 4 is better roads. We are developing a new road maintenance approach, which will focus on the quality of road improvement rather than just the quantity. Foundation 5 is water and waste water. I am taking a three-pronged approach to the issue, as my predecessor did, by working with Executive colleagues to increase waste water investment, exploring options for developer contributions and introducing a new water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. Foundation 6 is planning to improve. We need to continue to deliver improvements in the planning system through implementing the planning improvement programme. Foundation 7 is including people. Our plans for the future ensure that people will continue to be at the heart of everything that we do. There will be challenges ahead, and I am ready to face those challenges. There is no quick fix, but getting infrastructure right and investing in it accordingly will deliver a better future for all.

The Chair mentioned that time is short so I do not want to delay the meeting any further — I know that you will all have questions for me — but it is important to publicly put on record my thanks to my staff for the work that they undertook a few weeks ago with storm Éowyn. The services that the Department and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) deliver are undertaken around the clock by hard-working and dedicated people, whose work is often unseen until something out of the ordinary, such as the recent storm, occurs. Staff worked tirelessly during that time to ensure that public services could restart as quickly as possible. For example, staff cleared over 2,000 reported obstructions on the roads, with 70 trees cleared on the M2 alone. Now, in the aftermath of the storm, we all realise just how crucial infrastructure is to our everyday lives. That is why I am determined to make sure that we can continue to invest in our infrastructure so that it can deliver for people and businesses here.

Thank you for listening. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. At the outset and on behalf of the Committee, I put on record our thanks to DFI staff at a local level and across the Department for the work that they do and for their engagement with us. If you could pass that on to them, we would be appreciative.

The water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill was to be introduced before the summer recess. What are the reasons for the delay?

Ms Kimmins: I assume that John had, potentially, made some progress on it. I think that officials last briefed the Committee on the Bill on 24 April last year. There will be an opportunity to consider the draft Bill in more detail once it is introduced in the Assembly. We are waiting for the legislative programme, and the new draft will become available at the earliest possible stage. I am not aware of any reasons for its delay. Denis, is there anything from your perspective?

Dr Denis McMahon (Department for Infrastructure): It is almost complete, and we expect it to come forward very soon to you, Minister, in that form.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): What is "soon"?

Dr McMahon: In the coming weeks.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Will it be before the summer recess or before the Easter recess?

Dr McMahon: That is the intention.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Court cases involving DFI are ongoing, not least the A5 and the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) cases. When are those court cases due to conclude? Also, what is your assessment of whether the Department will be successful in those cases so as to allow the A5 to go ahead and, in relation to the DVA contract issues, to allow MOT test centres to open?

Ms Kimmins: The A5 is a crucial project, and we need to see it delivered. It will save lives, and any further delays in allowing the commencement of that work will cost lives. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that that moves at pace. I have had a number of briefings from officials to bring me up to speed, because I want to keep a close eye on the progress of that project. The hearing is scheduled to begin on 18 March. There is no definitive time frame at this stage for when the substantive hearing will reach a decision. The court has indicated that it, too, is keen to see that moving quickly. As for our assessment, our legal team is working extremely hard to ensure that we present the strongest case possible. We want to ensure that we can get on site and working as soon as possible.

On the MOT centres, as members will be aware, the termination of the contract was announced earlier this year. At present, because it is a matter of legal proceedings, I am unable to comment. However, it is listed for review on 7 March, which is next Friday. Hopefully, we will be able to see progress on that fairly quickly, but, at this point, that is the level of detail that I have.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I noted the seven priorities of you and the Department, and coming up top is climate change. It is no secret that climate change considerations are part of the A5 court case. Going forward, will climate change and net zero targets result in an inability to do big road infrastructure projects? This could be a scenario where, time and time again, when we try to do a road project, it goes to court through a judicial review (JR) relating to net zero and climate change.

Ms Kimmins: That is a good question, and I raised that with officials following the briefing on the A5 case. Officials are acutely aware of that and are actively working on it as it relates to any projects that are yet to commence, because we are conscious that it could be an issue. I do not think that that will cause us an inability to deliver. We may, in some cases, have to change things, or, if there are challenges, they will have to be addressed. There are no two ways about that. My Department is working very hard to ensure that the challenges are addressed and that we can continue to move at pace on any projects that have been confirmed.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Lastly from me, it would be remiss of me, given that I am from a rural community, as are you, not to talk about the rural community. I know from information contained in documents that have come to the Committee that the Department is keen to ensure that regional imbalance is sorted out. As Minister, are you willing to look at ring-fencing budgets for rural communities for the expansion of rural transport or, indeed, rural roads to ensure that we right the regional imbalance?

Ms Kimmins: Across the Executive, we are very keen to address regional imbalance. I recognise how crucial the issue of rural communities is. Part of the seventh foundation that I mentioned is inclusivity, and that is a key aspect of how we drive that forward. I am absolutely open to considering all options to see how we can tackle that imbalance and, on the back of that, see regional equality. That is a good point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): When we had our session on the draft Budget and asked whether departmental budgets could be ring-fenced or looked at, it was said that no ministerial decision had been taken. Going forward, will it be a consideration of yours to ring-fence pots of money for rural areas?

Ms Kimmins: At this stage, we have not taken any decisions. We are looking at the draft Budget and working out how those allocations will be delivered in line with the priorities. I am happy to take that on board and, potentially, come back to the Committee.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Minister, and welcome to your post. I wish you all the very best, and I echo your comments about the staff during storm Éowyn. I can speak for most or everyone on the Committee in saying that they went above and beyond in very difficult circumstances. I also want to echo the Chair's comments about today's session. I think that 90 minutes would have been much better. It is a massive brief, as you will know from the handover that you have had in the past three or four weeks. It would have been a lot more beneficial to the Committee if we had had that 90-minute session. We look forward to welcoming you back soon to get into more detail.

Northern Ireland Water was in last week, and we discussed the developer contribution aspect of the legislation that is coming forward. I found it quite startling that the chief executive told us that, apart from a couple of high-level discussions, there had not been major engagement between Northern Ireland Water and your departmental officials on that legislation. Minister, can you give us an update on where that is at, given that we are going to public consultation within weeks?

Ms Kimmins: I have had two meetings with NI Water since coming into post, and, at this point, the document is being finalised. Everyone will have an opportunity to express their views as part of that consultation. At this stage, there has been no decision on whether they will be introduced or how they will be introduced. That is a key part of it. From the first meeting with NI Water, I have said that I am keen to continue to work closely in partnership with it, because we want the same objectives to be met. We are keen to deliver on waste water infrastructure, so I will continue to work with NI Water, and officials will be in contact with it on that.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that. Developer charges and consumer-paid charges, which are, ultimately, what the developer charges will lead to, are a key cornerstone of the three-pronged approach that you and the former Minister have outlined. You said that it has not been decided on yet, but it sounds as though it is part of the plan. What assessment has been made of how much developer charges will bring in to put into waste water infrastructure? Secondly, what is your assessment of the impact on social homes, given that that might impact on their viability?

Ms Kimmins: At this point, it is difficult to make those definitive assumptions. As I said, the document is being finalised, and no decision has been taken to implement charges or not to implement charges. At this stage, it is a scoping exercise to see whether that could support the investment that is needed. I said in the Chamber, when it came up in an Adjournment debate, that this cannot be seen in isolation. It is not a silver bullet that will tackle all our issues in delivering waste water infrastructure. However, it is important that we look at all the available options in order to make progress on that very important issue. It is a cross-cutting issue. Waste water infrastructure affects not just my Department but areas across other Departments.

You mentioned social homes. It would be unfair of me to make any assumptions about the impact on those at this stage. I want to analyse the outcome of the consultation report to see how we take that forward. The document will put forward a number of options for people to consider. It is important to look at that very impartially to identify which, if any, is the best option and to consider how we move that forward while having the minimal impact on consumers that you mentioned. It is about making a positive impact and delivering on the issue.

Mr Stewart: I agree: it will not be a silver bullet. Waste water infrastructure is in crisis — we have tens of thousands of houses on hold because of the capacity issue — but, with respect, that is the only current proposal, or even suggested idea, on the table from the Department for how we even get close to sorting the funding gap. In the absence of that, I do not see any other creative solutions as to how we plug the gap and start to create the infrastructure investment that we need.

I will move on, because —.

Ms Kimmins: Just before you move on, I will address the point about it being the only option on the table. I do not think that it is. The three-pronged approach is about working with Executive colleagues. It has already delivered. My predecessor, John, allocated £19·5 million of the £32 million that he received in October monitoring, which has unlocked the capacity for 2,300 homes. Working with Executive colleagues enabled that to happen in quite a short space of time. In addition, the legislation on natural drainage solutions is another piece of work that will have a significant impact. That will be brought through the Assembly.

It is not the only option, but, as I have said to NI Water and other stakeholders, I am keen to hear about alternatives that they may be able to bring to the table so that we consider everything. I am prepared to take a holistic approach to tackling that really critical issue.

Dr McMahon: One of the important points — Sara Venning told me this — about our sewerage system is that 80% or more of the water that goes through it is rainwater — fresh water. The issue needs to be seen in that context. We use power, energy and major infrastructure to process that along with waste, although you need to have a certain amount of fresh water for the sewerage works to work.

The former Minister stated previously that we were putting in a bid for a natural water solution, although we are not yet at the final stages of that. The idea behind that is to see whether other techniques can be used to keep rainwater back. We are processing rainwater and spending billions to do so. We have to strike the right balance. That is why, reinforcing what the Minister said, that is such an important part of the programme, even if it will not automatically lead to meeting the large-scale infrastructure need.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, permanent secretary. With respect, the issue predates both of you in your roles; it is a decades-old problem that still has not been solved, which is one of the things that is most frustrating.

I need to move on. Compensation worth £43 million has been paid out by the Department and DVA for damage to vehicles as a result of potholes in our road infrastructure. Our roads are a disgrace, quite frankly. Keith talked before about moon buggies. Although we can jest about it, the public are absolutely furious: they spend good money on vehicle tax, and they pay their rates and taxes, but, invariably, they hit potholes every day. You talked, Minister, about a new road maintenance approach. How will that differ from the patchwork and sticking-plaster solutions that we have seen to date? I appreciate that money is tight, but what strategic direction will you give so that we can begin to solve the crisis on our roads?

Ms Kimmins: That issue has not arisen since I came into post three weeks ago. That is important. I come from a rural community as well, and —

Mr Stewart: You are in the hot seat.

Ms Kimmins: — south Armagh is particularly bad. However, that is not to take away from the point that is being made. It is an important issue. I referred to the new road maintenance strategy in my opening remarks. There has been a recognition that we cannot keep doing the same thing. We have to do something different, because our roads continue to break down. We are not seeing the sustainability and durability of road surfaces, and that is further compounded by inclement weather and all those things. Keith made a comment about a moon buggy. That is a fair point to make. Officials are looking at how we can achieve better-quality ways of repairing our roads, and that means focusing on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly. Hopefully, that will ensure a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene. I can speak from my experience as a constituency MLA and, prior to that, as a councillor. One of the key issues that comes up is patching: within a couple of months or a year, the patches break down again. That has been identified by officials as something that we need to look at, and I am keen that that be done. It means looking at the materials that we use and whether we could be using something better that is more durable. There is a lot of work going on there.

We also want to use more modern technology to direct our investments to where they are needed most. That is about ensuring that we are making smarter maintenance decisions. We talk about durability, but it is also about future-proofing for the changing needs of society and ensuring that we are reducing our carbon footprint and encouraging active travel. A number of things can come into that. It is about looking at how we can take cars off the roads by providing active travel options and better public transport. That is a small piece of our bigger overall strategy. I want to see a concerted effort through the new road maintenance strategy so that people see a lasting effect, rather than having scenarios in which staff are being called out to the same roads — time in, time out — to continue repairing them, which is a huge investment overall.

Mr Stewart: I have about 100 questions, but I do not have not have enough time. Thank you, Minister.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks, Minister and Denis, for coming along. I appreciate that. I want to pick up on water infrastructure. We talk about investment under your objective on investment, developer contributions and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). In the past, some utility companies in Northern Ireland — I am talking about telecoms and power — had a monopoly. NI Water is the only show in town. I appreciate Denis's point about sending too much storm water into the storm drains, but are you content that, when NI Water says that there is no capacity, there is no capacity? I do not believe it. Who is marking its homework? I appreciate that we are trying to build more homes. You referred to the £19 million to give us 2,300 homes. That is £8,260 a home. Look at the basic analysis of that. If we say to a developer that we are looking for a contribution of £8,000 per house, who will pay for that? It will not solve the problem, and NI Water said that last week. My question is this: who is marking NI Water's homework on capacity? All we hear is, "Capacity" and "Capacity". That has ramped up since the green lough issue — and I do not say that to take away from the green lough issue. Who is marking NI Water's homework? Have you done any independent analysis to show whether it is right or wrong ?

Ms Kimmins: In conversations that I have had to date with NI Water, one of the key things that I have talked about is the importance of it living within its budget. The member will be aware of the estimated shortfall at the start of the financial year. That has reduced significantly. We asked NI Water to go back and review where it had the potential to make savings. The gap has narrowed quite significantly to £7 million. We are exploring all options, making sure that all the information that we have is accurate and that we are getting an accurate reflection of the reality of our waste water capacity, and looking at how we can move forward on that. The member has his views on that — I am not saying that I agree or disagree — but I am very aware that a huge investment is required to deliver on this. We are working very closely to ensure that everything that we are being presented with stacks up.

We have to ensure that the allocations deliver what we need to deliver, so we are looking at all options.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, can you, should you or will you have an independent review of NI Water to see whether what it says about capacity is correct? All that I hear is that it has no capacity; that is it. It is that simple one line. Several planning committees have said, "No, your figures are wrong" and have overturned them. I am not saying that the figures are always wrong, but I have seen them overturned. It is very easy to say, "No, no, no", but we cannot keep saying no to development in Northern Ireland. I appreciate that there are issues, but, to go back to my point, are you content that what NI Water says is correct? I do not think that it is.

Ms Kimmins: In John's time, he discussed how NI Water determines capacity. I expect to get a report on that that will, hopefully, answer those questions.

Mr K Buchanan: Will that be independent of NI Water, or will it come from NI Water?

Dr McMahon: If I can come in here, there are a few points to make to add to what the Minister said. One is that the Utility Regulator and NI Water go through a detailed process to make the price control (PC) arrangements and to prioritise. That means that there is an independent element. The truth is, however, that —.

Mr K Buchanan: Denis, the Utility Regulator's office does not have capacity to confirm that what NI Water says about its capacity is correct. The regulator is marking NI Water's homework financially, rather than on capacity issues. It is not analysing each plant to say, "No, you are wrong, it has capacity".

Dr McMahon: It focuses on capacity; sorry. By the way, I am not defending that or otherwise; I am just saying that the process is there.

On the one hand, we need to have a good relationship with NI Water, which we try to have with all our arm's-length bodies, but, on the other hand, we have a challenge role. We try to challenge. In fairness, NI Water is also looking for other mechanisms. It mentioned that at the meeting that we had, Minister. It is good to see it happening, but we need to keep the focus on that.

Ms Kimmins: You will have heard me talk in the Chamber about that blanket response. It is not good enough. As with everything and like every Department, we have to do what we can with the money that we have. The whole Executive Budget probably would not deliver what is needed here, because we are talking about billions. Whilst not underplaying the budgetary pressures that are on NI Water, I am very keen to ensure that we get an accurate reflection, as you said, of what is really needed and that we can give confidence to the public that, where we can do work, it is being done to move things forward. We cannot sit on our hands and wait for all the money to appear. There are things that we can do, and that is the message that I have made very clear to NI Water.

You talked about marking homework. Some of the figures that we have heard are estimates. For example, the figure of 19,000 homes that cannot be connected is an estimate that is based on expressions of interest from developers. Those become fluid as time goes on. When you drill down into some of the figures, you find that they may not present a full picture of what is happening on the ground. However, to give NI Water its place, I take on board everything that it says, and we are keen to work to deliver. That is a good point, though, so thank you.

Mr K Buchanan: I will quickly follow up on John's point. I will not go back to the moon buggy line. How do you get the balance between active travel and what we should call, in simple language, Minister, road maintenance? I am concerned that the active travel pendulum has swung too far one way. I have no issue with active travel, but the balance is now to the detriment of road maintenance. If you ask the staff in any section office, they will tell you that unofficially. How do you get that balance correct? What is your priority for getting the balance right?

Ms Kimmins: It should not be one or the other. Once a lot of the schemes for active travel infrastructure have been rolled out, they will be done. After that, it will be about maintenance. We are probably at a juncture where we will find that, yes, there will always be competing priorities, but we have to deal with that. We have set out our commitments, and we have targets to meet on climate change and the Climate Change Act 2022. I am committed to doing that.

Road maintenance is one of the biggest issues that any elected representative will deal with across the board, and it is probably the public's biggest gripe. That is why we are looking at it differently to see what we can do. We are dealing with over a decade of underfunding by the previous Tory Government. The situation is a consequence of that. It is important to reflect the fact that, if you were to speak to anyone in England, Scotland and Wales, you would hear that they are in a very similar situation. We are not in isolation, but that is not to take away from the bigger picture. We can continue to prioritise both areas, because they are critical, and we have to do it. I am keen to do it. I do not think that one should have a negative impact on the other. I hope that that is not the case, but we will continue to monitor the situation. Road maintenance is key, and we have to ensure that we deliver on it.

Mr Boylan: You are very welcome, Minister. Once again, I wish you well in your new post. Thank you for honouring the previous Minister's invite to the Committee. I have three questions to ask, Minister, and I will ask them one at a time.

The first is on the Taxis Act 2008. We have seen a lot of lobbying on it, and representatives have come before the Committee. People have been calling out for a review, but will you give us an idea or indication about measures that your Department is looking at that might address some of the problems that the taxi industry faces?

Ms Kimmins: Thank you for that, Cathal. Given my time as a member of the previous Infrastructure Committee, I am very aware of the issues. I know that a commitment was made to a review some time ago. At the minute, I am considering the options for that, but I am keen to progress it. I am due to meet taxi operators, because they have been in contact with me. At this point, I have not made a definitive decision on what a review will look like, but I can give the commitment that I am keen to move ahead on it.

Mr Boylan: I know that, as an MLA, you are keen on road safety and the 20 mph speed limit, especially outside schools. Will you give an overview of your assessment of the 20mph speed limit review and the road safety programme in general?

Ms Kimmins: As the member said, I am very keen to see the roll-out of the 20 mph speed limit outside schools. That is a very important issue, particularly in rural areas, where some roads may have national speed limits. Certainly, in my constituency, that has been an ongoing issue.

The review was very positive. It recognised very clearly the benefits of the part-time 20 mph zones. I had a briefing from officials this week on that, and I have asked them to do a wee bit more work on where we will go next. I am keen to consider 20 mph zones not just outside schools but potentially in residential areas and town centres. I have asked officials to come back with options for that, but, again, I am keen to see further progress, because it is a very worthwhile scheme. However, we have to get it right. In other jurisdictions, blanket roll-outs and changes that were made have not worked well, so I am very cognisant of that.

Road safety is a huge priority. Our road deaths continue to rise. Last year, the number was significant. In the past years, my council area had the highest number of road deaths across the whole of the North. We really need to tackle that. Part of it involves driver behaviour. John allocated additional funding to improve and increase road safety advertising campaigns. We have been doing some work on that. It is an ongoing and significant priority for me, because we do not want to see the loss of anyone's life on our roads. We have to look at everything that is available to us to tackle that and reduce the number to zero.

Mr Boylan: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence. My final point is about the planning improvement programme. Based on the majority of things that we hear in Committee and, probably, that councils hear, we know that there is a two-tier planning system. There are the likes of the introduction of the validation checklist and other improvements that you intend to make, but what is your overall assessment of how to improve the planning programme?

Ms Kimmins: A significant amount of work has been done as part of the planning improvement programme. Our planning system has not been working as well as we would like it to. We all hear about the issues and delays, going from individuals' planning applications to the more major ones. I have had a number of briefings from officials, and we have been looking at the next steps. Some really good work has already happened with the validation checklist. It is about taking all the admin and resource-heavy work out of the system and front-loading the process so that, when an application is submitted, it is more streamlined for applicants and staff.

I am very conscious of the fact that there are significant staff shortages in planning across council areas, so we are looking at implementing planning apprenticeships, which we hope will work really well not just for tackling those staffing gaps but in ensuring that we have a really attractive pathway for people who want to go into that line of work and train as they go along. Some really good work is happening. I hope to get a final look at the outcome of that to see what we are doing next. We are hoping to have a conference on planning in the next couple of months, because that is one of the foundations. We will have more information at that stage, but a significant amount of work has shown what is needed. We have seen positive change already, and we just need to keep driving that forward, because planning is something that we need to get right so that we can tackle the issues that we are seeing.

Mr Boylan: Thank you very much, Minister.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister and Denis, for attending the Committee this morning. I welcome you to your role, Minister, and wish you all the very best. You will know that the A5 road upgrade is a massive issue for me and my constituents in West Tyrone. Hopefully, when it is upgraded, we will see the benefits of economic growth. It will also address regional imbalance and, hopefully, reduce traffic and travel time on the road. For me and many across West Tyrone, the biggest issue is road safety. Over 50 people have been killed on the A5 in the past number of years, simply because it is not fit for purpose. Road users and car users are expected to share the road with the likes of tractors, massive lorries and even pedestrians, and that brings huge danger. I know that that was a priority for the former Minister, John O'Dowd, and that he progressed the upgrade of the road. We also know that there is a legal hearing on it at the beginning of March. What reassurances can you give about ensuring that the road upgrade will go ahead?

Ms Kimmins: I echo your comments, Nicola, because it cannot be stated enough just how important the project is for road safety, first and foremost, but there are also broader benefits for the local economy and community. One of the earliest commitments that I made when I came into the post was on the A5. I am fully committed to seeing its delivery. We are ensuring that, should the court case move quickly, we are ready to commence work at the earliest possible stage. I am keeping a very close watching brief on that, because it is very important. It is not about taking away from those people who have objections. It is very important that we work to try to address those objections, and I recognise the challenges and difficulties that some people may feel that the project will cause. I reiterate the point that it is about saving lives and protecting people when they are using our roads. I am very committed to moving ahead with it at pace.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister. The people of West Tyrone will be glad to hear that.

I will move on to rural roads and the fact that, as we discussed, they are in a very poor state of repair. Whilst I understand that your Department and all Departments are in a very challenging financial position because of years of underfunding from the British Government, can you give details of any additional funding that you may be able to provide to put a focus on the issues with rural roads?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. Previously, John had allocated £10 million to the roads recovery fund. Approximately £8 million of that has been spent. At the end of the financial year, I will look at what slippage there is to see whether we could maybe continue to invest in tackling some of the most critical points where it is needed. I will also consider that in the budget for the incoming financial year. As I said, some of our rural roads are in the worst state that they could be in, so that is very much at the forefront of my mind, and I hope that we can see further progress on it.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister. Again, rural constituents will be glad to hear that.

Finally, I want to ask about MOT times. I know that the former Minister brought in interventions such as the exemption certificates, which have successfully reduced waiting times. Can you give any updates on MOTs and whether any further work has been done to ensure that waiting times continue to decrease?

Ms Kimmins: I am glad that you raised that. Again, I put on record my thanks to our staff in our MOT centres, who have done Trojan work to tackle the huge waiting times. At one point — on 1 June last year — the waiting time was around 99 days. As of 8 February this year, that has reduced to 33 days. That is, without doubt, due to the significant amount of work that staff have done. The introduction of TECs for five- and seven-year-old cars has definitely had a positive impact.

I am at the point now of looking at the next steps. I hope to make a further announcement very soon, because we are at a point where we want to see how we can continue that good progress. As mentioned, we are investing in new test centres. Aside from the legal process that is under way, we hope that we can have our test centres fully operational as soon as possible, potentially this year. That will also help to meet future demand.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister. That is useful information.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. I want to come back to the seven pillars, waste water and the three-pronged approach. I listened to what has been said. You said that the whole Executive Budget might not suffice for that, so that seems unlikely to solve the problem. The sustainable drainage Bill has not come forward yet, so it is hard to gauge how that will do it. Again, the developer levy, by all accounts and from industry reports, will not be sufficient. Minister, you inferred that you are open to all solutions, so will you now consider a review of the whole NI Water funding model, given the environmental, economic and social impacts that we face?

Ms Kimmins: I think that there have been six reviews of the funding model to date, and we still feel that the current model is the most appropriate. I know that the member's party has referenced mutalisation. For the record, I am very clear that I will not introduce water charges. I do not think that putting further costs on residents across the North through domestic water charges is the right thing to do. Mutualisation means water charges by the back door, essentially, because it requires further borrowing, which, for me, is problematic. We have seen how it has not worked well, most recently with Thames Water, which members may be aware of. It has just gone or is due to go bust and has had to seek support from the Government. I am content, therefore, that the current model is still appropriate in the absence of the funding that we need. If we had the overall funding that is required to deliver the service, we would not be talking about the funding model. We would be saying, "It is being delivered". The problem is that the funding is not there, so it is about trying to look at the other tools that we have available to us in order to, again, go back to that holistic approach of having all avenues covered and building on any progress.

I am very conscious of the fact that there is always a very negative perception that we cannot do anything. Work is being done. I know that, because of funding constraints, some projects have had to slow down or be deferred, but work is continuing, and that is the trajectory that I want to see. I absolutely want to see it moving faster, but that will require a cross-Executive approach, and that is what we are continuing to do.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. One of the pillars is adapting to climate change. We have the flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. I know that the Minister was in my constituency not so long ago. I cannot imagine that, in the next 10, 20 or x number of years, my constituency will be the only one that suffers as a result of such events. What will the Bill look like, and how will it help my constituents and other members' constituents who will potentially be affected by flooding? To extrapolate that slightly, we still have not seen any tangible works in South Down and Downpatrick to alleviate and prevent flooding. I want to know about the Bill, what works will be forthcoming and when we will see them.

Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the issues, and, as flooding happened in my constituency too, I know how challenging it is.

The legislation proposes to enable the Department to issue future regulations on the design, maintenance and adoption of the sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS — that is the acronym, if members are happy for me to use it. That will help to slow the flow of the water entering sewers and reduce out-of-sewer flooding. It goes back to the point that Denis made about our treating the huge volume of rainwater that comes through our waste water treatment systems. It is about giving NI Water an additional power to implement more widespread hosepipe restrictions and putting the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing, because that scheme is very important for protecting homes. That is just some of it. It is also about looking at the natural drainage solutions that are available to us to try to deal with the rainwater and other things that we should not have to spend a huge amount of money and resource on treating. Our waste water treatment works should be for treating the sewage that comes through. That is a very short summary of that proposal. A lot more detail will, hopefully, come through as we take it forward.

You asked about the flood alleviation plans, and yes, I was in Newcastle two weeks ago, and I met the community resilience group there. That group has done a huge amount of work, and fair play to it. It has been very important in ensuring that flood alleviation is kept on the table and as a high priority. As recently as yesterday, I met officials to discuss a permanent solution. We are looking at the options, and NI Water has since met that group as well. We are trying to determine responsibility for the solution. That work is ongoing, and I hope that we can find a positive resolution at the earliest possible stage.

You also asked about the Downpatrick flood alleviation scheme. The flooding event in November 2023 was hugely significant, and it decimated Downpatrick town centre. Following that, the Department reprioritised its capital works programme and commissioned a civil engineering consultant to undertake a feasibility study for Downpatrick. That feasibility study is ongoing, but, as part of it, we will process a shortlist of possible flood alleviation options. The consultant is examining those in detail. We hope that that will be completed by the spring, so, in the coming weeks, we will, hopefully, be able to give more information on that, Andrew.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Minister and Denis, for your presentation. I have a couple of points. At the outset, you mentioned the seven foundations. I am keen to know whether they are ranked in order of importance to you, given, it is fair to say that there is a roads crisis and a waste water crisis and that many will say that there is a planning crisis.

Ms Kimmins: No, absolutely not. Those foundations were set out just before my time. I think that they are all of equal importance, because they are all interlinked and key to how the Department functions in its infrastructure responsibilities. They are not ranked in any order. The presentation just set them out as key priorities.

Mr Dunne: OK. I will go back to the waste water issue. Obviously, that is a huge issue, and it is important to say that it has a commercial, not just a domestic, impact. We are all aware of the housing pressures. Are you confident that you and NI Water are making every effort to look at all options, including best practice across the world in engineering and innovative solutions? Are you looking in places such as Asia and beyond? There should be no barriers to seeking best practice, given that, as we all know, every Department is seeking so much more money and the cake is only so big, unfortunately.

Ms Kimmins: At this stage, everything that I am aware of is being looked at. Officials have been very forthcoming with suggestions, ideas and research, and that has been very much evidence-based. As I mentioned, we have also seen what has not worked in other areas, whether that is across the water or further afield. Given the very challenging financial situation, we have to look at everything that is available out there as options. That is why, as I said, I recently met the NI Chamber of Commerce and representatives from the Construction Employers Federation and the housing federation in an introductory meeting.

They are considering suggestions that they might put on the table, and I look forward to hearing from them. It is important that all stakeholders give consideration to what they feel could help. I am therefore always open to hearing further options and suggestions.

Mr Dunne: There is engineering expertise out there. We are renowned for our innovation in this country, so we should tap into that.

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely.

Dr McMahon: I will add to that. In preparing our policy work, one of my colleagues was looking at Singapore, I think, where there are places that make rainwater an asset, which is what it is, rather than viewing it as something that causes floods and that requires processing through large-scale grey infrastructure.

Mr Dunne: I encourage you to keep a focus on that.

On the same theme, the pollution in Belfast lough has been fairly significant. That issue was brought to light recently. Including from NI Water, we have heard that the living with water programme has been paused. How can we best tackle the pollution in Belfast lough? It has an impact on recreation and on the environment in my constituency.

Ms Kimmins: Your colleague mentioned that during the Adjournment debate a couple of weeks ago. As you will know, the living with water programme works have been not stalled but slowed down. That work will continue, because we need to complete it. I continue to engage with NI Water on that in order to ensure that, as far as possible, there are no further delays. Being cognisant of the available financial envelope, we have to look to work at a scale and pace that is achievable, and not at that which had previously been hoped for. Should more funding become available, however, we could do it more quickly.

Mr Dunne: There is no doubt that it is a significant issue.

My final point relates to some of the stuff that has been covered about roads maintenance, which, as you know, is fundamental for so many of us. As I said earlier, we have a roads crisis. The Department has been providing a limited maintenance service for 10 years. That has a huge impact on our roads and is reflected in the significant increase in compensation paid out for personal injury and vehicle damage. Will you be the Minister who changes that by getting the Department back to providing a fit-for-purpose service that will get our roads into better shape?

Ms Kimmins: I certainly hope so. I talked earlier about the new roads maintenance strategy, which recognises that, since 2015, given the budgetary constraints, we have been able to deliver only a limited service. I reiterate the point that we are looking to do things more efficiently and effectively so that we see longer-term benefits for road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, because the state of our roads affects not just motorists but all road users. I therefore want to see the new strategy delivered. The issue is as important to me as it is to anyone else, and, as you said, it is probably one that is raised the most with us all. I hope to see good progress be made on the strategy in the time ahead. There are two years left of the mandate, and, by its end, we will hopefully see a marked difference.

Mr Dunne: Road safety has an impact. The fact that 139 lives have been lost in the past two years highlights the importance of having safe roads for the user groups that you mentioned, as well as for motorcyclists, who sometimes feel overlooked. Measures could be as basic as installing warning signage, given the limited maintenance service on so many of our roads. That is important.

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Committee. I was not going to, but I will return to what you said to my colleague. We already pay for water. Thames Water has a fully privatised model. That is not mutualisation. Mutualisation is recognised as not being privatisation. I argue that the current funding model is not working, and you have already said that. We have waste in Belfast lough. The Construction Employers Federation has told us that 19,000 homes are being held back, and Stephen mentioned that the living with water programme has been paused. In your opening remarks, you referred to securing additional funding to unlock connections for thousands of homes. That sticking-plaster approach is why Northern Ireland Water is in the position in which it is. Who else funds water in the way in which we do? Will you publish the five or six internal reports?

Ms Kimmins: Internal reports?

Mr McReynolds: Yes. The Department's reports on Northern Ireland Water's funding model.

Ms Kimmins: Those are public reports, I think.

Dr McMahon: The earlier reports are public. It is not a report, but there has been other work in development since last year, on which officials will be providing advice to the Minister. That work is ongoing.

Mr McReynolds: Officials acknowledged those previous reports when they came to the Committee recently. I am not aware of what is in them. If they have been published, we will take a look at them.

Ms Kimmins: I have the list of the reports here, but I am happy to write to you with the detail. They are all from before my time, so they should be —.

Mr McReynolds: They will be historical documents.

Dr McMahon: We will get them to you. I will make an admission. To be honest, I thought that a lot of the previous documents were public.

Ms Kimmins: That was my understanding.

Dr McMahon: If I have got that wrong, I apologise. We will certainly look into that, and I imagine that the Minister will want to consider them.

Ms Kimmins: I will return to the point about the 19,000 homes, because I clarified that earlier. There are 19,000 expressions of interest, not 19,000 planning applications sitting ready to go to build. That is important to state, because, although not taking away from the issue, I take your point that you view the building of 2,300 homes as being a sticking-plaster solution. The issue has arisen as a result of years of chronic underfunding. Like every Department, we have to deliver what we can from within the Budget that is made available to us. That is a Westminster Government decision. I re-emphasise the importance of having the Executive, and all Members, work together, because the issue is a priority for each and every one of us. No one is sitting on money and saying, "We are not giving it to NI Water". If the money were available, we would be doing so, because we need to. It is important that I make that point.

Mutualisation would require us to relinquish any governance of NI Water. That concerns me, because water is an entitlement that we all need, whether for drinking or for treating waste water. I mentioned Thames Water, because, by any stretch of the imagination, it is an example of how things can go wrong when a body is privatised. We do not want to be in that situation. We all recognise that, yes, the current model is underfunded, but there are things that we can do, and we continue to work to do them. Trying to deliver a completely different model would cause only further delays. The issue is not going to be solved overnight anyway. We are making progress, albeit it is slow, but things are being done. As I said, other work is happening to allow us to make quicker progress.

Having a mutualisation model would require significant borrowing. The only other way in which to finance such a model is to implement domestic water charges. I do not see any alternatives. That is my perspective. I am happy to hear further from you if you feel that that is not right, but, from what I have looked at, that is my view.

Mr McReynolds: We published a paper on that recently, which I am happy to share with you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): To be clear, the Alliance Party has published a document, not the Committee. [Laughter.]

Mr McReynolds: Semantics.

It is a minor point, but who funds water like we do? Globally, I am not aware of anywhere that funds it like we do. That annual approach has to do with how Northern Ireland receives money from the block grant. Mutualisation has worked well in Wales, however, and there is a loosely similar model in Scotland. I re-emphasise the point about things going wrong. There is human waste in Belfast lough. Toilet water regularly leaks into the lough 200 metres from my mum's house. Things are going wrong here as a result of the current approach.

Connected to that is the potential for an independent infrastructure commission. I am aware that the Department asked the Executive Office to look into that. Will you speak to your Executive Office colleagues to find out where that is at? Having these conversations is fine, but not having expert-led conversations, with engineers feeding into them, is contributing to the delays that we are seeing.

Ms Kimmins: I will ask Denis to come in on that specific point, Peter.

Dr McMahon: I was going to come in on that only because officials have been engaging with TEO about an infrastructure commission. The Northern Ireland Civil Service board has a number of independent members. It is chaired by Jayne Brady, as head of the Civil Service, and I am on it, along with the other permanent secretaries. One of the board's subgroups covers infrastructure, and it is looking at alternative funding mechanisms for things such as housing. We are engaging with it, and should anything helpful come out of the process, we will want to look at it, as will the Minister.

Ms Kimmins: Certainly.

Dr McMahon: I will be keeping the Minister closely informed.

Mr McReynolds: You are kind of implying that the independent, expert-led commission is already in place, so —.

Dr McMahon: I am not saying anything. You asked about what is already happening in TEO, and I just wanted to explain what work is being done. The subgroup is not an independent commission. It is looking at wider infrastructure delivery in the broadest sense, with one strand of work being to look at alternative funding mechanisms as part of the delivery of the new investment strategy for Northern Ireland that is under consideration.

Mr McReynolds: Will an independent, expert-led commission still be launched?

Dr McMahon: Sorry. I was not talking about an independent, expert-led commission. I have not heard of that being on the books yet. Unless I have not been made aware of them, there are no proposals for one.

Mr McReynolds: Perhaps go back through answers to Assembly questions, because it would be helpful for us to have something on it.

Dr McMahon: Sure. We will have a look at them. No problem.

Mr Durkan: Welcome, Minister. I wish you well. I am at home with a sick toddler. If you hear nursery rhymes in the background, do your best to ignore them.

You referred to there being two years of the mandate left. How will you measure success at the end of those two years?

Ms Kimmins: The key thing is that we see a difference in the issues that we are talking about today, such as further progress on addressing our waste water challenges; an impact on our roads and the number of road deaths coming down; more people using active travel; and more people using our public transport in a more streamlined way. Doing all that will be a measure of success, and we will continue to monitor progress.

Another example is from my recent meeting with Translink. Since the introduction of the hourly Enterprise service at the end of the summer, there has been a 49% increase in passenger numbers. That is a measure of success. We can therefore look at lots of things. Through our planning improvement programme, we are seeing applications moving through the system at a much quicker pace and better outcomes for applicants. There are different ways of looking at progress, particularly through the seven foundations for a better future that I outlined, but, for me, it is about seeing delivery and tangible change happen.

Mr Durkan: I hope that you are in post for the remaining two years. It is important that we have that element of stability at the helm of the Department in order to move forward on many of the important issues. I know that you will do your best to answer questions, but, on occasion, it would be remiss of us not to question those answers. You will find that that is often done to help rather than hinder you.

Most of the issues have been touched on, but I will return to that of the Northern Ireland Water funding model. If I were to have a Rolls-Royce out the front, it would be an example of a fantastic model, but if I could not afford to run it from here to Stormont — that is not why I am not there today — it would not be much use to me. The previous Minister was reluctant to follow the recommendation for an independent review of the funding and structures of Northern Ireland Water. I really did not get that head-in-the-sand mentality, but it seems to have been passed on to you a wee bit. If you have reservations about mutualisation, some of which we share, an independent report might scotch them. We cannot afford to say that everything is grand when it is not. You said that mutualisation would lead to more borrowing. I do not expect you to be across that — I am not entirely across it yet — but we did get evidence last week, or perhaps the week, before on the budget, and there was £72 million, if I recall correctly, coming into the Department through the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) that was then to go to Northern Ireland Water. If I am not mistaken , and I could be, that is borrowing. How is that money coming in and how will it be repaid?

Ms Kimmins: There is a ring-fenced allocation for NI Water through RRI borrowing. The amount of additional funding above that ring-fenced element will also need to be met out of general draft allocations. You asked how it will be repaid. Sorry, will you repeat the question, Mark? I was focusing on some of the other stuff first.

Mr Durkan: You have slammed the door shut on mutualisation because it would require borrowing. Are we not, however, going down the borrowing route now with that RRI money? It will need to be repaid, if I am not mistaken. I could be, because I am not fully across the detail either.

Ms Kimmins: I will ask Denis to come in on the specifics, Mark.

Dr McMahon: I will add two points, if that is helpful. The RRI borrowing is paid back centrally by government. RRI borrowing has been around for years. The likes of the South West Acute Hospital development have used elements of RRI money. Although that is borrowing, it is borrowing by the Executive. The concern would be about any organisation taking on the sort of borrowing levels that we are talking about to build the infrastructure that is required. That takes us into different territory. At the minute, for example, there is, in effect, £1 billion's worth of borrowing in NI Water. Again, I am not saying that that is a bad thing. It is part of how the model has operated to date. There therefore is borrowing. The question about —.

Mr Durkan: You —.

Dr McMahon: Sorry. Go ahead.

Mr Durkan: Sorry, Denis. Yes, RRI money has been used. You referred to a hospital there, which is a major capital development. Is Northern Ireland Water ring-fencing the RRI borrowing for a particular capital development or is it just to fill a hole that the Executive are unable to fill otherwise?

Dr McMahon: I cannot comment on the rationale behind why it was done that way. The money was earmarked. When the Department of Finance and the Executive look at the overall capital funding programme, they look to optimise sources of funding for the best purpose as they see it. That funding has therefore been earmarked and allocated through RRI, but, from the Department's point of view, that is just capital funding that we then allocate. It is important to distinguish between that central capital funding, which the Executive decide to take on as a strategic approach, and the £1 billion worth of funding that we have already. We already have loans with Northern Ireland Water, and the total debt adds up to £1 billion. The point to make is that it is the latter bit that we are responsible for managing. If we got into a situation in which, whatever model was used, we were borrowing additional money, the Department would need to look carefully at that, because we would then be working within the same budget envelope but taking on more debt — Northern Ireland Water would be taking on more debt — and we would have to be able to be clear that we were not going to bust our budget as a result of that. That is not arguing against or for any model. Rather, it is just my saying that that is the nature of the challenge that, from a financial point of view, we would need to meet and be able to address.

Ms Kimmins: I will go back to the point about mutualisation, Mark. As Denis has said, NI Water has already borrowed in excess of £1 billion. The governance of that is done through the Executive and the Department, whereas, if we were to move to a model of mutualisation, that governance would not be there. To finance that debt, NI Water would have to look at bringing in other income. I have said that my concern is that that would result in domestic water charges. I cannot see any alternative way in which NI Water would finance that debt, particularly given the significant amount of money that would be required.

Mr Durkan: As I said, that is why a review might help you in this instance, rather than your appearing not to budge or not being willing to explore — outside of the SuDS stuff and developer contributions — other ways in which to improve our water infrastructure.

Ms Kimmins: Very quickly —.

Mr Durkan: Peter made the point that people are already paying for water. They are paying for it through their rates, and rates are going up. There is therefore more money going in. Do you know what? The potential may be there for the Department of Finance to go back to ring-fencing rates money and telling people what it is that they are paying for.

Ms Kimmins: To go back to the point about —. I have forgotten what you said just before the rates piece.

Mr Durkan: So have I.

Ms Kimmins: I lost my train of thought there. You were referring to my saying no to a review. I am not saying no to anything. As I said earlier, I am open to exploring all options. At the minute, that is the approach that we have in place to securing funding and looking at how we tackle the issue. I am not ruling anything in or out at this point. The only thing that I have ruled out absolutely is the introduction of domestic water charges. That is very clear. We can, however, consider anything that will have the least negative impact on residential properties, consumers or otherwise. If having an independent review is a method by which to do that, we can consider it, but the point that I was making is that there have been a significant number of reviews done to date, all of which have essentially said the same thing. The Audit Office has done a broader review and acknowledged the number of reviews that have been done to date, but —.

Mr Durkan: Yes, but it has also asked for another one. It was an Audit Office report that called for an independent, expert-led commission. Sorry for interrupting you, Minister.

Ms Kimmins: Yes, I know. The point that I am making is that I have not ruled anything out. As I said, we are looking at all options. For me, however, the key is to see action and to continue to move forward by dealing with all the issues, where we can do so. If we get to a point at which we have exhausted all options available to us, we will have to review and rethink. At present, however, there are proactive approaches being taken, and we will continue on that trajectory.

Mr Durkan: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Sorry, Mark, but we are out of time now.

There are so many other issues to raise. We have not even touched on community transport, accessible taxis, disabled accessible travel and other issues. There is still more to scope out about the A5 and about the DVA changing to biennial MOT testing. There are therefore still an awful lot of questions to be asked. If it is possible, will you please come back before the Committee.

Briefly and in layman's terms, for clarity, may I check something about the RRI borrowing of £105·7 million. Is that money on top of Northern Ireland Water's allocation or is it subsumed into it? There seems to be a wee bit of confusion around that.

Dr McMahon: It is not additional. The allocation that we are giving NI Water will be the same allocation, which is —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Are we topping up the allocation with RRI borrowing?

Dr McMahon: If I have got this wrong, I will be absolutely delighted. That money comes to us. We get money from a range of sources, one of which is reinvestment and reform initiative loans. That money is typically earmarked, coming to us for various purposes. We get a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for resource and for capital, however. That is what we get. It may come to us in the form of RRI borrowing or straightforward capital, but, in effect, it is the same money. That is my understanding of how it works.

Miss Brogan: To clarify, RRI money is government-controlled borrowing not private borrowing?

Dr McMahon: RRI money is basically a loan, but it is a loan that all happens through central government. It comes through the Treasury.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Thank you. We thank you for coming to the Committee today and for your time. We look forward to seeing you again.

We wish you well in your post, Minister, and look forward to working with you. Mark, very politely and very nicely, said that he hopes that you will be in post for the rest of the mandate. We certainly hope that as well so that we can continue to work with you on infrastructure projects, because they are so vital. Infrastructure is a key economic driver and means a lot to everybody outside of these doors, so thank you for the work that the Department is doing.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you very much. All the best.

Dr McMahon: Thank you, Chair.