Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Hello, Minister and permanent secretary.

Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Hello.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You are welcome to the Infrastructure Committee today. There is a lot to discuss.

Members, I seek agreement that Hansard records the evidence.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you.

Minister, first of all, I want to express disappointment. After our session with you, we have a session on the forensic accountant. We still do not have that report. As you will be aware, measures are in place to provide Committees with embargoed reports; even in our packs today, we have restricted papers. It is a disappointment, because it curtails our work as a scrutiny Committee in looking into a very important document that looks at the funding of Northern Ireland Water (NIW). Do you know why the Committee has not received that report, even as an embargoed report?

Ms Kimmins: I am not sure, Chair. I will hand that over to Denis.

Dr Denis McMahon (Department for Infrastructure): I am happy to speak on that one, Minister. The report is still being finalised. A final version has to come back to us, so there is not a final report at this stage. We thought it would be important to brief the Committee as soon as possible to give you whatever information we could. Declan McGeown and the team, who are coming up afterwards, will be happy to give as full a briefing as possible and will immediately send it to the Committee. As officials, we would have been happy to send it to the Committee if it had been ready to go, and I am sure that the Minister would have been happy to send it to the Committee on that basis, but it was just not ready. We thought it would be important, following the Minister's statement to the Assembly, to give you as much as we could as early as possible.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Obviously, the announcement was made this week in the Chamber around the key themes. I am not saying that I distrust officials — I am sure that they will be open and transparent when they come to the Committee, of course — but, from a Committee point of view, there may be elements in the report that the Committee may wish to question and that may not come out in the evidence session today. It is extremely disappointing, because the Committee has seen papers come late in very recent weeks, not least the budget, which is also a key part of our scrutiny work. I would like to think that that will not be the case going forward.

Ms Kimmins: If I could just say that, obviously, it is out of our control. We are waiting for that to come back. As soon as we have it, the Committee will have it. That is why it has not been provided. I am sure that, if there are further questions once it is received, there will be an opportunity to look at a further briefing, if required.

I cannot see much changing from what we have seen so far. I have seen a draft, and that is what my statement this week was based on — exactly what PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) have been reporting on.Obviously, factual accuracy checks had to be made between us and NI Water. That is why we await the finalised version. As soon as that is available, we will ensure that it is sent to the Committee.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. Without further ado, we will carry on, Minister. We have an hour and a half with you, and there are a lot of issues. We could spend all day talking about matters that relate to infrastructure. Minister, if you do not mind, I will be strict about a five-minute briefing from you, and then I will go to members' questions.

Ms Kimmins: Thank you, Chair, and thanks, again, to the Committee for inviting me back. I am delighted to be here. There have been numerous opportunities for questions, particularly this week. We have had Question Time and the statements that have been made in the Chamber this week. Today, I am here to provide an update on the progress that we have made since my previous appearance before the Committee in February and to reaffirm my commitment to working constructively with you. I deeply value the role that the Committee plays in scrutinising the Department's work. I have seen the work that the Committee has done so far, and I welcome the scrutiny that there has been and the ideas, the challenges and the support as we strive to deliver better infrastructure for everyone collaboratively.

As you will know, Infrastructure is not just about roads, bridges, buildings and physical infrastructure: it is about people and connecting communities; enabling economic growth; protecting our environment; and improving quality of life. I have been in post for just over four months. In that time, we have made meaningful progress across several areas, but, of course, as with everything, there is much more to do. We have an agreed Programme for Government (PFG) and a Budget, and I hope to confirm my Department's allocation shortly. As you may recall, I previously outlined seven foundation areas that I intend to prioritise during my time in office. They include adapting to climate change; better roads; cleaner and greener; water and waste water; and including people. Given the limited time, I will highlight some progress in those five areas.

I begin with adapting to climate change. Storm Éowyn, in January, reminded us all of the critical role that the Department plays during severe weather events and the urgent need to adapt our infrastructure to a changing climate. I am pleased to report the completion of the £33 million Belfast tidal flood alleviation scheme, which will protect over 3,000 homes and businesses now and for future generations. We also remember the devastating floods in Newry and Downpatrick, in autumn 2023. In response, my Department has recently published the Downpatrick flood study and is actively engaging with local stakeholders to identify the best long-term solutions for that area. We continue to work across the board on other flood alleviation initiatives.

I move now to the cleaner and greener foundation area. In February, I announced the next steps of the Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2), which will eventually connect all corners of Belfast city — north, south, east and west — with high-quality public transport. That includes extending the G2 route to Queen's University and the City Hospital.

I remain committed to encouraging more people to walk, cycle, wheel and use public transport. We have continued to invest in greenways and sustainable travel. Last year, my Department wrote to councils inviting them to submit proposals for greenway and active travel-related projects to be considered for capital funding support. Seven projects have been identified. I am delighted to allocate £1·9 million to help those councils deliver on their priorities for active travel.

A significant step this year was relocating the Department's headquarters from Clarence Court to James House. Clarence Court was built in an era of car dependency and had over 250 staff parking spaces. By contrast, James House reflects our modern transport policy, with virtually no car parking available. That move has prompted a major shift in commuting habits and encourages my staff to embrace public transport and active travel.

Members will also be aware that, this week, I launched the new transport strategy. Climate considerations, technological advances and changing lifestyles mean that we need to think differently about what transport will look like in the next 10 years and beyond. The draft strategy 2035 sets out a comprehensive vision that is actionable and adaptable; addresses urban and rural connectivity; creates a cleaner and greener foundation for growth; and recognises my commitment to improving regional balance. The strategic priorities for the next 10 years closely align with my Department's foundations for a better future in that they address the need for cleaner, greener modes of travel while putting people and inclusivity at the heart of everything that we do. I encourage as many people as possible to engage with the consultation. It will help shape a transport system that works for all and safeguards the environment for future generations.

Staying with transport, it is also right to acknowledge the Driver and Vehicle Agency's (DVA) tremendous work over the past year. Between April 2024 and March 2025, the DVA delivered a record 1·16 million MOT vehicle tests, reducing average waiting times from 100 days to around 30 days. That is a remarkable achievement and a testament to the DVA's dedication, particularly given the challenges over recent years.

Water and waste water are massive issues, as the Committee will be aware. Modernising our ageing waste water system remains one of my top priorities, and I am tackling that through the three-pronged approach with which members will be familiar. My Department is about to complete the public consultation on developer contributions, which will close at the end of this week, and I am pleased that the Executive have agreed to allow me to take forward the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which was introduced in the Assembly on Monday this week. I know that the Committee will work with my officials on that area, and I look forward to working with you all to deliver that crucial Bill. I will also continue to work with Executive colleagues and seek every opportunity to increase waste water investment where possible. You will also be aware that, this week, I published the outcome of the work undertaken by the forensic accountant for NI Water, which we have talked about. You are about to be briefed on the issue by my finance director, Susan Anderson, following this session. I am determined that the learning from the investigation will be useful for both parties, but it is essential that NI Water takes every opportunity, where it can, to live within its budget. The board needs to factor in affordability to all its decisions, just as the Department has to do.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, I am sorry, but the five minutes are up. If you do not mind, I am sure that some of your topics will be discussed during the session.

Ms Kimmins: No problem. I was near the end, anyway.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I just want to make sure that members can make use of the time that we have, because there are a number of issues to cover.

First, on behalf of the Committee, I thank the staff who work in DFI and all the local teams, who do a tremendous amount of work in challenging circumstances, it has to be said, given the budget constraints that are placed on the Department. Secondly, it will come as no surprise that we will discuss the A5. From the outset, the Committee wants to express its sympathies and thoughts to the loved ones of all the people who have lost their lives and, indeed, to those who have been seriously injured as a result of incidents along the road, who will be disappointed by this week's decision. I want to state that clearly.

Minister, I will kick off with the A5 decision. It is now a mess. Whose fault is it?

Ms Kimmins: In the aftermath of the judgement, as you said, Chair, my priority is the families, who are at the forefront of my mind. It is hugely disappointing. It is heartbreaking, because they have worked so hard and campaigned diligently on the basis of their personal heartbreak and the tragedy that has struck many of them to ensure that the road is built. I pay tribute to them, because that work has kept the project at the forefront of everybody's mind. That is why it is an Executive flagship project.

From my perspective, it is hugely disappointing. Officials provided hundreds and hundreds of pages of scientific evidence. That was the third legal challenge to be taken against this major infrastructure project, which will save lives, among the other benefits that, we are all aware, it will deliver.

At this point, it would be irresponsible to lay the blame on anybody. We need to carefully consider the ruling. It is detailed and complex, and I have been working immediately to look at what it means. As I said in the Chamber this week, officials and my legal team are analysing it and will brief me later this week. I have also met the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. We had an initial discussion about the Climate Change Act 2022, the judge's comments on it and how we can remedy the issues. As I said, these are still the early stages. There is so much to consider, and it is extremely important that we do that as thoroughly as possible so that we have a clear analysis of what the ruling means and where we need to go next.

It is also important to note that, while there were seven grounds for the challenge, only three were upheld. As I said earlier in the week, this is not insurmountable. We can overcome this, and that is what I am determined to do. I hope that the Committee can continue to work with me, my officials and all who are keen to see the road scheme delivered, because we need to move ahead with it. This is a setback, but I want to ensure that it takes up minimal time and that we can get to work as soon as possible.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Vesting happened on the route in November 2024. Court proceedings were lodged just before the end of 2024. In the intervening period, work was able to be progressed along the A5 route while the High Court case was running. Who took the decision to do that? I can see that, in my constituency, land has been changed to unrecognisable levels. There is a clear difference since the previous High Court ruling. Who took the decision to proceed at risk?

Ms Kimmins: The land was vested and was therefore owned by the Department. The works that were commenced were within the law. As I have outlined in the Chamber previously and prior to this week's judgement, the purpose of that was to ensure that we were ready to hit the ground running on the other side of the judgement, should it have been a positive outcome. Had we not done that and had there been a positive outcome, we would also have been operating at risk, because that would have further delayed the ability to commence construction. That could have had an impact on contractors and resulted in higher costs as well.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): With all due respect, Minister, as far as I am aware, the last time the High Court judgement case took place — the second time — the works along that route were paused while you awaited the judgement. This time, works proceeded at risk. There are tons of stone sitting on the land, and farmers are uncertain about the next steps. Who took that decision going forward?

Dr McMahon: May I add to that? We work under the direction and control of the Minister. While the plans were always there and we were discussing the process, I have a particular role as the accounting officer. I have to be satisfied that any action that we take represents value for money in the round. I was content not to seek a ministerial direction on any of that, because I felt that the project needed to move forward. Obviously, I was looking at the advice of the officials who were working with me. I was part of that decision-making process and am happy to say so.

As you say, Minister, there was always a danger that costs would be incurred up front. The greater risk at that stage, however, looking at it from that point of view, was that, if we did not proceed with some of the preparatory works, we would put the whole project at risk. Given the value of the project — the biggest project in Northern Ireland's history — it was important that we proceeded as best we could. They are always difficult decisions, but we have to look at the value for money arguments in the round.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): There is now an issue for landowners. I am sure that the cost of reinstating the land will be covered as part of this discussion. Farmers are now counting the cost of their land being unrecognisable. They are not sure where to go from here. Do you accept now that that decision was potentially wrong and that the Department will incur a cost to the public purse for the reinstatement of that land?

Dr McMahon: I accept that there will be costs associated with that decision. I also accept that, where we are, knowing what we now know, I am not sure whether I would take that decision today. In fact, I would not, because I would know about the judgement. At the stage that we were at, however, I am content that, as the officials taking the decisions, we took the best decision that we could at that time, given what we were trying to achieve.

Ms Kimmins: I will add to that. As I have outlined, there is a significant cost to doing nothing. It has to be balanced. At every stage, I had regular briefings from officials and the legal team on the progress of the case and what the plan was in all eventualities. That was closely monitored.

Yes, there will be costs incurred — that goes without saying — but it is important to put it into perspective. Doing nothing, particularly in the event of a positive judgement, would have cost far more not just in pounds and pence but in lives. My priority and that of my predecessor and the Department was to ensure that, had we got the green light to go ahead, we and the contractors were ready to go and that we could get started on the work to ensure that no more lives were lost. That was the priority throughout.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): How much money has been incurred to date?

Ms Kimmins: We will need to get finalised figures on that, because we are in a different space now.

Dr McMahon: We will also need to engage with the landowners to make sure that we understand exactly what the costs are. Of course, we will do that, as we have done throughout the process.

Ms Kimmins: As I said yesterday in the Chamber in response to some of your colleagues, the next steps are that, as the judge has ruled to quash the decision and the associated orders and the land will return to the landowners, letters will go out from the Department to quite a number of people who will need to be contacted. Those letters will outline the next steps. There will be further engagement on that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Will you challenge the High Court's decision?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we are working our way through the ruling. We will look at a number of options. I also said yesterday in the Chamber that nothing is off the table at this point until we get a clear understanding of what the ruling means, what the key issues are and what the options are to address them. My focus is clear: it is about how we resolve this, how we move forward and how we get the road built. Whatever we do, I want to be assured that we will get a successful outcome. As I said, we are ruling nothing in or out at this point.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, in the Chamber yesterday, you seemed quite defiant and — dare I say it? — buoyant about getting the A5 delivered. I am interested to know how you intend to do that, given the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the net zero targets that were fundamental to the High Court judgement, and what your timescale is for the project, because that will be key for construction companies, landowners and your staff in turning around the ship.

Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. I make no apologies for being defiant. The scheme is far too important, and it is critical that it be delivered. Again, it is an Executive flagship project, and all parties agree that it needs to happen. I am determined that we will get it done, but we have to look at the key issues. There are lots of assumptions about what those are at this point. I will look at the ruling very closely and take advice from the legal team and officials on how we can resolve the issues. It is important to say that that will require collaboration with other Departments, given the complexity of the issues that have been raised. I have already initiated some engagement, as I said, with Minister Muir, given his role. I also met the A5/N2 cross-border committee yesterday, as some members may be aware, that represents five councils North and South that are impacted by the A5. We reaffirmed our collective commitment to working together and finding a solution.

As for a time frame, it is my objective to get the scheme done in the quickest time possible, but we have to ensure that it is done in a way in which we can be assured of getting the most successful outcome.

It would be unrealistic to provide a time frame here, but I reassure the Committee that I will work night and day to ensure that we get the project over the line at the earliest possible stage.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You said that you met the AERA Minister: was that your first meeting with him about the A5? You said that you had an initial discussion about the Climate Change Act: what was contained in that initial discussion with the Minister?

Ms Kimmins: It was my first meeting with the Minister about the issue, but John met him towards the end of last year, before I came into office. As I said, hundreds of pages of scientific evidence about the Climate Change Act and the issues that the applicant raised were provided to the court.

We received a copy of the ruling only yesterday. It was not provided to us until then. It was provided to the legal team in hard copy in court on Monday. It will take time to go through it. The AERA Minister was also provided with a copy yesterday. We had early discussions about what was mentioned in the judgement and about what the Climate Change Act and the climate action plan actually mean, and we have considered what the judge's comments referred to and what that would look like in reality.

As I said, it is still very early. We need to get further advice on that, including from a legal point of view. That is ongoing. Minister Muir and I have committed to doing that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK. I have two more questions on a different issue.

Your Department has bid for inescapable resource of £50·1 million and £109·9 million for capital. Your party's Stormont leader said that Irish language signs must be part of our future. You signed off on hundreds of thousands of pounds for signs in Grand Central station. I think that your priorities are misguided, given that your Department is bidding for about £12 million in inescapable June monitoring pressures just to keep street lights on in Northern Ireland. Why are you prioritising the likes of Irish language signs when the funding pressures in your Department are so great?

Ms Kimmins: We have had the conversation many times. The Irish language is for everyone. Inclusivity is at the heart of everything that my Department intends to do. The decision on bilingual signage at Grand Central station was a positive step forward. It is unfortunate that we now have a legal challenge. It is important to recognise the culture of everybody across the island, not least in the North. There is no doubt that we will have different opinions on that.

All Ministers have autonomy to look at how they use their budget in a way that reflects the society in which we live. It is something that is important not only to people who live here but in order to enhance tourism. Grand Central station, as I said, is the largest transport hub on the island. It should be welcoming and inviting to everybody who will use it in the coming years and for many generations. In the grand scheme of things, it is a relatively small amount of money. Other Ministers can also make allocations to reflect people's culture. We have seen some of that even this week. It is important that we all do that to reflect the diversity across our society and celebrate the culture that all of the citizens whom we represent share.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The decision was cross-cutting in nature, but you did not take it to the Executive; you made it yourself. Do you recognise that it should have been taken to the Executive for a decision? Have you engaged with other Ministers on the issue? I understand that the Communities Minister has joined the legal challenge relating to Irish language signs in Grand Central station.

Ms Kimmins: If I had felt that it was cross-cutting, I would have taken it to the Executive. It was not recommended that I go to the Executive for that reason. If that had —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Minister, this is not about your feeling.

Ms Kimmins: No, but if —

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): This is about —.

Ms Kimmins: — you let me finish, it is also another Minister's opinion. We will work through the legal challenge. That is all that I will say about that. There are lots of other examples. There is already bilingual signage in Newry train station. We see it in the Gaeltacht Quarter. There are lots of examples, so that is open to interpretation. We will leave that for the legal case that is ongoing.

Mr Stewart: I echo the Chair's comments about Department for Infrastructure front-line staff. I think that I speak for everyone when I say that they are hugely responsive, often in difficult circumstances. We appreciate their work.

Minister, in the past five years, over £25 million has been paid out in compensation to road users who have damaged their vehicle or their bicycle as a result of hitting potholes. The state of our roads has been described as shocking by many, and it seems to be getting worse. It is a public safety crisis not just for car users but for motorcyclists and cyclists. What is your strategy for tackling the horrendous state of our roads?

Ms Kimmins: Thank you for raising that issue, John. It is another of the key issues facing the Department. It is not a new issue, and it is undoubtedly challenging.

Our road network is a critical element of the infrastructure that underpins everything that we do daily. Everyone, directly or indirectly, uses it. Given the budgetary constraints, we are all aware of the challenges of maintaining the large road network that we have. In my constituency role, particularly as I represent a large rural area, I know the challenges, as I have said before. The well-discussed funding shortfall and the years of limited service have undoubtedly had an impact on the condition of our roads, which have continued to deteriorate. As I said in the Chamber, that is why we have tried to look at how we can do things differently, and that is through a new road maintenance strategy. That new approach to how the network is maintained is one that will help focus our limited resources on ensuring that we get the most out of what we do and that we do better-quality repairs, as well as more sustainable repairs.

Officials are working on the strategy, and I hope to have a final draft in the coming weeks. I will then announce the strategy and share it with the Committee and the Assembly. I reiterate the point that it is about delivering more high-quality repairs. It is, however, also about using modern technology to ensure that we direct investment to where it needs to go and that it is used to make smarter maintenance decisions.

We all know the issues with potholes, including their depth. We hear about staff passing potholes to fix one only to have to go back. We are trying to take all the issues on board. It is also about future-proofing our roads to meet society's changing needs. We have seen further active travel schemes rolled out. We are trying to achieve that modal shift and the decarbonisation of public transport. Increasingly frequent adverse weather events also have an impact on road structures and on the demand for maintenance.

For me, the strategy will be a really positive step forward. As with water infrastructure, I am trying to get more money to invest in our roads. Doing so is absolutely critical. If, as we get more investment, we can maintain the roads to a higher and more sustainable quality, we will hopefully see costs gradually reduce, and the people whom we represent will then see the benefits.

We have already had a pilot scheme in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, and, from having recently met councillors from there, I think that it is fair to say that the area has seen an impact from it. I hope that such an initiative demonstrates that the Department has been working really hard to find different ways of maintaining roads that will have positive benefits for all of society. I look forward to further engagement once the strategy is finalised.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for that, Minister. You are therefore confident that, on the back of that new work, people will start to see a noticeable difference. Until now, as you alluded to, the frustration has been that a pothole appears, a pretty poor job is done of patching it up and, three weeks later, another one appears. Staff drive past two potholes to fix another one, and that is an ongoing cycle. The roads are what people see every day, so they epitomise for them the Department for Infrastructure. Even though we know that the Department is about so much more than roads, their condition epitomises the Department's failings often. If people were able to start to see those positive impacts, they would be more confident. Are you confident that we will see noticeable improvements?

Ms Kimmins: The initial feedback from the pilot scheme that I referred to has been that there is a marked difference. I spoke to some councillors last week or the week before. In the Assembly, we had debated infrastructure funding for that area. The councillors stated that, in previous years, it had been a challenge but that, in the past year, which is when the pilot scheme was implemented, they have seen a difference. That is an early indication that the work is having an impact, and I look forward to seeing pilot schemes being rolled out further. As I said, once we see a finalised strategy based on what has happened to date, I hope for there to be work on the ground as soon as possible.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for that.

I will move on to ask you about the legislative agenda. Time in the mandate is quickly disappearing. I would like to get an update on your legislative programme and a time frame for each piece of legislation's introduction. Are you confident that everything that you have committed to introducing during the mandate will have completed its legislative passage by March or April 2027?

Ms Kimmins: Yes. As you know, we introduced the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill this week. That is a positive step and another aspect of the work that I am doing to address the significant waste water infrastructure issues of which we are all acutely aware. Just yesterday, I met Fleur Anderson from the British Government to discuss them. We are looking at nature-based solutions and at some of the collaborative work that we can do with the British Government, in addition to the work that we have already been doing with the Irish Government. There is already movement there.

The Committee is aware of the proposed ports and harbours Bill and knows that the consultation on the review of trust ports closed on 10 March. The responses to that consultation have been analysed by officials, and a summary report is being prepared. A summary of responses has been shared with the Committee and is on the Department's website. Within the next few weeks, I expect to receive a policy paper outlining the options that are available to me. If legislative change is required, I will seek Executive agreement. I am content that, if needs be, we will be able to introduce legislation during the mandate. From meeting representatives of some of the ports in recent months, I know that they are keen to see some changes made.

The Committee is also aware that I recently announced that I will be introducing legislation on safety on school buses and on overtaking school buses. Officials are working on options for how to progress that legislation. One will be to amend existing legislation. Again, I am confident that we can deliver that in the remainder of the mandate. It will be part of a package of measures. I have written to the Minister Education to determine how we can work collaboratively to ensure that we cover different aspects of road safety for children, particularly on the home-to-school journey, and especially in rural areas. We recently had the tragic death of Caitlin-Rose McMullan, and I have met her mum about the proposed legislation.

We have just announced the consultation on policy proposals for the rail safety and transport Bill, which will modernise the regulation of our railways and address issues with the operation of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 and the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to provide new powers for railway regulation and to modernise existing powers. It is anticipated that an Executive paper on the policy will be shared in September. The Bill will hopefully be introduced in the Assembly before the end of the mandate. That is the plan at this stage. The Committee has indicated that it would like to receive a briefing on the result of the consultation. I will make sure that that happens and that officials come to the Committee once the analysis has been completed. I am keen to work closely with the Committee on that, given the significant amount of work coming off the back of the all-island strategic rail review and the fact that we are looking at hopefully expanding our railway services. That legislation is important. I am attending a Railway Industry Association (RIA) event this evening, which will be hosted by you, Peter. That is timely.

The Committee has been looking closely at the Reservoirs Act 2015. It is important legislation, and I propose to commence its provisions further and implement the majority of the Act through five pieces of secondary legislation. In October of last year, the Executive agreed to progress that legislation. I know that the Committee is still considering the SL1s, that it has had numerous briefings from officials and that it has recently received the further information that it requested from NI Water. At this point, it is important that I again stress the importance of the legislation. While its provisions remain not enacted, there is a public safety risk.

The Committee has raised concerns and questions, particularly about grants, so I hope that sufficient information has been provided to date, given that extensive discussions have taken place with officials.

You will see from the consultation that I am focusing support on the reservoir managers who need it. Those will be mainly private reservoir managers and those in not-for-profit sectors. The grant scheme cannot be established, however, until the legislation gives the Department the power to establish one. Hopefully, we can get that moving. I will therefore progress the Reservoirs Act provisions at the earliest possible stage, particularly given the public safety risk.

Mr Stewart: Two weeks ago, Minister, we heard from departmental officials about the active travel spend. We know that every pound in your budget is a prisoner year-on-year. Given that 10% of the overall transport budget is statutorily required to be spent on active travel, how are you ensuring that taxpayers' money is being spent well, sensibly and fairly on schemes? I ask that in light of the scheme in Whiteabbey, which I have raised with you in person and with your officials. It is new half a million pounds and counting fencing along the promenade that, I am told, is now the industry-accepted norm. If it is the industry-accepted norm, which I believe is fundamentally far too excessive, your budget is going to be gone in weeks should you have to replace every fence to that standard. Can I get a commitment from you that that is not the way in which things are going and that we will see some rollback?

Ms Kimmins: I met some Members about that, and officials are looking at what can be changed, because concerns have been raised. Not every scheme is going to require that type of fencing.

Projects to be included in the active travel spend will vary. I will ensure that that money is spent properly and that we get the best value for the money that is allocated to the budget. We have seen really positive schemes be done so far. Seven main schemes are already under way, particularly for greenways. The north-west greenway officially opened in September. We are due to open the Carlingford lough greenway this September. Officials are engaging with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, Ards and North Down Borough Council and Fermanagh and Omagh District Council on plans for the Portrush to Giant's Causeway, Comber to Newtownards, and Sligo to Enniskillen greenways respectively. A significant amount of work is therefore going into those schemes. We also recently saw the upgrade of the Stranmillis Embankment cycle lanes. It is fair to say that that is a high-quality upgrade and that the cycle lanes are being well used. We were out there with the team last week.

You asked about our reporting against the requirements. Overall active travel spend in the Department is in the region of £45 million to £50 million, which is 5% to 6% of the overall transport budget. In addition to the spend on new active travel projects, we also have to ensure that existing schemes and infrastructure are well maintained and upgraded, which I mentioned in the Chamber this week. That is all part of the ongoing spend and spend into the future.

Active travel is important to people. We have had questions about adding street lighting and upgrading road surfaces and footways. Those are important aspects. So many things go into the spend that has been allocated to active travel, and not just to provide new options for people but to upgrade what is there and to make the options safe and accessible in order to encourage more people to use them. I am confident that we can do that in a responsible way and that money will be spent in a way that will make a real difference and enhance active travel options for people.

Mr Stewart: May I comment on that?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Very quickly.

Mr Stewart: I know that I raised it with you and that officials are looking into it, but, although I accept that there has been some really good spend on active travel, that particular scheme is deeply alarming. A public consultation was not done. The fencing is excessive, given where it is, and if that is now the accepted standard, every single cycle lane and roadway that straddle our promenades and seaside up and down the country will now be expected to have that fencing as standard. That must be reviewed, and I urge you please to look at doing so with your officials. There has to be some rollback of that scheme, because it simply cannot be the case for all promenades.

Ms Kimmins: I have had detailed discussions with officials about it. There was significant consultation with the council. It is on the record —.

Mr Stewart: There was one meeting.

Ms Kimmins: I have records of there being more than one engagement. It is important to say that each case will be looked at on its merits. Not every case will require fencing. The Department has a standard that has to be met. It is important that it be met, and it is in place for lots of reasons. Although I acknowledge that the scheme incurred a significant cost, we are looking at it, and, given the budgetary constraints, I will be cognisant of that for future schemes.

Mr Stewart: OK. Thank you.

Mr Boylan: I welcome the Minister and thank her for her commentary this week. She was busy in the Chamber with a statement, Question Time and a question for urgent oral answer. Most important, however, Minister, is your support for the families who have lost loved ones on the A5.

My first question is about the Fiscal Council's 'Sustainability Report 2025: special focus — Water'. The emphasis is on bridging the gap, as opposed to introducing a model to address the issues in NIW. Will you comment on the report's findings, given the fact that any funding model will face challenges and problems?

Ms Kimmins: I certainly welcome the report. It reinforces what I have said, and, before me, what John O'Dowd said, about alternative funding models for NI Water. The Fiscal Council has said clearly that there are challenges with the funding model that is in place, but they relate to the lack of available funding. It also said, however, that the only alternatives that it can see are funding models that require domestic water charges to be introduced for householders here. Aside from the fact that the Executive have said that they will not implement water charges, they have said that that is not a solution anyway. We have seen the challenges and the difficulties that water charges have presented in other jurisdictions. It is therefore fair to say that the alternative models are widely acknowledged to be failing elsewhere. Aside from the cost to householders, there are lots of other issues to consider, which is why the existing model is the best way forward for us.

It is important to reiterate what I said about that in the Chamber this week. When we talk about domestic water charges, it is not a case of their meaning an extra £10 for people or whatever. Rather, we are talking about a significant sum of money, especially for lower-income households. Introducing domestic water charges would have an impact not only on households but on our economy. There would also be a huge implementation cost if we were to introduce them. It is therefore not something that we should be doing, and I do not intend to introduce them. As I said, we have to continue to look at how we garner increased funding for the existing model, and that is what I am doing. I mentioned the three-pronged approach. At every point, I am trying to ensure that we get significantly more investment into the Department that we can direct to NI Water, and I am working with NI Water collaboratively on coming up with solutions for some of its plans. For example, as I may have mentioned, it is already working on potential upgrades that had been costed previously. It is looking at how it can do them differently, in a way that will still have a positive impact and increase capacity but that will be done at a lower cost. The life cycle of the upgrades may be shorter, but we can return to them at a later stage.

Across government, we have to think differently about our plans and about how to do things based on the respective budgets that Ministers have. We all have to live within our budget, and it is challenging to do. There is no doubt about that. Already in the session, we have outlined some of the key issues that impact on public services, particularly our roads and our waste water infrastructure, and we have to ensure that we still deliver out of the budget that we have.

Mr Boylan: Thank you, Minister. My other question is about the forensic accountant's report on which you made a statement the other day. How will you ensure that there is a good, constructive working relationship with NIW going forward? How will having a multi-year departmental budget improve budget management between the Department and NIW?

Ms Kimmins: Protecting public funds is of the utmost importance to me. While some Members in the Chamber earlier this week felt that the report is not worthwhile, I think that it is. We all need to relook at how we spend money, where we can possibly make savings and how we can do things differently in order to live within our budget and also continue to deliver. Even for NI Water, I do not think that the report should be viewed as being a bad thing. It shines a light on areas for improvement. I spoke to the chair of its board this week and said that I am committed to continuing that work with NI Water. There are things that we can improve that will make a difference. If we are able to make savings across the board, whether in NI Water, my Department or any other public body, that is all worthwhile, because, collectively, those savings could make a huge difference to investment in our public services.

There are things that we can do, particularly with planning, out of the budget that has been allocated. You mentioned multi-year budgets, which will put everyone in a better position. In planning, we can make greater efficiencies through the work that we are doing, but we have to be realistic about our budget and what is achievable and deliverable from it. There is learning there for everybody.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for coming in this morning. There are a lot of major issues that we need to discuss, none more so this week than the A5 project. The situation is serious and alarming, in the present and also for the future. I am keen to know the impact that the ruling will have on other projects, including Executive flagship projects. It is of great concern to me. I am keen to establish your thoughts on that.

Minister, when you were with the Committee in February, you outlined your seven foundations, and I asked you whether they were ranked in order. Foundation 1 is to tackle climate change, while foundation 3 is adapting to the climate. With that in mind, do you now accept that it was mistake to back what were unrealistic net zero targets? They have had such an impact and caused such devastation, and they have led to the A5 project's effectively being axed this week.

Ms Kimmins: No, I do not. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, we can do both, and it is important not to jump ahead and make assumptions about what the ruling means. The judge himself said that the situation can be remedied. From speaking with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I think that there are ways forward. It is important that we recognise that we all have a responsibility to respond to climate change, because, if we do not, the consequences will be far greater. We are seeing those consequences every single day.

It is important that we consider carefully what the A5 ruling states. Key issues have been identified. I have said that I am optimistic that we can overcome them. What that will involve is not clear at this point, because we are still going through that detail. We hear all the potential solutions, but I am not sure how many people have closely analysed the ruling, because officials, our legal team and I are still working through it. It is important that we do that in order to get a very clear understanding of what the ruling means, what its implications are and, most important, how we resolve the situation

You mentioned other projects. I have no doubt that all Departments will now be thinking about the ruling. It is something that we all will have to think about when considering new projects. The ruling has been the first test of the Climate Change Act 2022, so there is no doubt that there is learning for all of us to take from it. Again, I do not think that the ruling is something that we cannot overcome, not do I think, at this early stage, that it means that agreeing to the Climate Change Act, which was supported by the majority of Members and parties, was the wrong thing to do. We needed to pass legislation, and we will deal with the outcome of the ruling.

Mr Dunne: Despite, as you say, it being at an early stage, significant work had already taken place. Confirmation was given this week in the Chamber that the vesting orders have been quashed, and I presume that work has to be got under way in order to try to repair the devastation that has been caused to over 3,000 acres of land on over 300 farms. Work had begun. As I said, we got that confirmation. As it stands, is the project still alive, or is it not? Hundreds of farming families in such a vast area need clarity. In concurrent Committee meetings, we have heard directly from farming families several times about the lack of communication, from your Department in particular but also from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, on the scheme's impact. We need decisiveness as well. Is the A5 scheme happening or not? If the project is going to be the same land, it will be quashed, so the ruling is significant.

Ms Kimmins: At this point, we are in the hands of the court's ruling and have to abide by it. I said earlier that, once the vesting orders have been quashed, it means that the land will return to the landowners. The Department will be engaging imminently with the affected landowners.

I am not giving up on the A5. I want to ensure that the scheme is delivered. We have to move ahead with it. What it will look like and how we get to that point is not clear yet, but we are actively working on finding a way forward and on doing so as quickly as possible. For me, the ruling represents a pausing of the project, but I hope that that pause will be short-lived. I have officials proactively working on an analysis of the ruling in order to find a way forward in collaboration with other Departments.

Mr Dunne: OK. Another crisis on your watch is the waste water and water capacity issue. The head of Invest NI recently said that it is the one issue that keeps him awake at night. You will know from the Fiscal Council report, as well as from what you have heard from the Construction Employers Federation (CEF), the Chamber of Commerce and many others about the constraints that the capacity issue is placing on everyday society, including on housebuilding, infrastructure projects and so much more. What else can you do? I appreciate your taking a three-pronged approach, which includes exploring options for developer contributions, but, ultimately, any developer contributions will be passed on and become consumer contributions, because people who are buying a new home will have to cover the cost. Do you therefore feel that you have done enough? You have been in office for more than four months. What more can be done and what more will you do on that important issue?

Ms Kimmins: I will say at the outset that it is not a crisis on my watch. The crisis developed —.

Mr Dunne: It developed on your colleague's watch.

Ms Kimmins: Let me finish. No, it is a crisis that is a result of decades of underinvestment by British Governments and the Tories' policy of austerity. That has to be made clear. It has impacted not just on my Department but across all our public services, including healthcare and education. I am sure that many of your colleagues feel the same.

I am looking at everything that I can to tackle the issue. We have made some progress. We are working closely with stakeholders to try to get more funding in order to ensure that we can deliver. That is happening at a slower pace than any of us would like, but it is my priority that we continue to move forward. That is why it is so important to work collaboratively with NI Water and others. I have been meeting construction industry representatives — you mentioned the CEF — the NI Chamber of Commerce and others about all the issues. I have said to everyone to bring me suggestions, in case we have missed something. If there is something that they think that we should be looking at, I am more than happy to do so.

Having as many perspectives as possible is key to our trying to solve the issue. The one thing that I will not do, however, is introduce domestic water charges. Until such a time as we find another solution or an alternative that will help, I will continue to work to my three-pronged approach.

I am under no illusion about developer contributions. I know that they are not a silver bullet. I know that they will not solve all the problems, but should we be saying that we will not look at them? No, because we need to look at every option that is available to us. The consultation closes on Friday. We will look at the responses to it and analyse them before deciding on the next steps. I hope that that indicates to the Committee and to wider society that I am looking at everything that is available to me to ensure that we find a viable solution that will make a difference.

Developers are already having to pay in order to connect and having to find solutions in order to connect. We see that all the time, so I have no doubt that it is already having an impact on house prices. There are, however, lots of other things on a global scale impacting on house prices, including the cost of materials, so it is unfair to say that introducing developer contributions will naturally cause a rise in house prices.

As I said, I am continuing to have discussions with all stakeholders in order to find a viable way forward that will deliver.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thank you. I will move on to another crisis: our roads. I appreciate that the road maintenance strategy will be launched soon. We lobbied for it and look forward to its being rolled out. As you said, we have had over 11 years of limited service, which has had an impact on the condition of our roads. That is also reflected in the number of liability claims that the Department has paid out.

You mentioned Ards and North Down, and I recognise the work of the local section office in that area on the larger potholes. It is worth noting that we are starting from a very low baseline, with that council area the least funded. I am keen to hear a bit more detail on your time frame for getting to grips with our roads.

Ms Kimmins: As I said earlier, the limited service is another impact of the significant underfunding of the Executive and the Department. That is why there has been a limited service for such a length of time. None of us want to see that, and none of us will champion it, but we have to live within the budget that we have been given and find ways forward. The strategy is in its final stages, and I am waiting for officials to provide me with the finalised document. I hope that that will be in the coming weeks.

Mr Dunne: Finally, I go back to the major issue of the week: the A5. In hindsight, would you have done anything differently?

Ms Kimmins: Again, that remains to be seen. We need to look at what the ruling means, compare it and analyse the evidence and everything that has gone into the legal challenge. It is important to say that a huge amount of work has gone into providing the strongest possible case. Some of the issues are things that the Assembly has never had to deal with before. We are looking at whether there are grounds to appeal or whether we can find solutions without going to appeal. I cannot say that we would do anything differently without knowing what we would need to do differently.

Mr Dunne: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Members and Minister, be aware of the time. I do not want to curtail the conversation, but can we keep the questions and answers succinct?

Mr McMurray: Hello, Minister. I was taken back to the Sacred Heart Grammar School in Newry, but it is a different environment now. You referenced the flooding in Downpatrick and Newry, and we are going to the event tomorrow on climate change and flooding risk. Will the Minister give an update on climate change and flooding and on the resources that are earmarked or ring-fenced for that project? We saw what unfolded yesterday with a big infrastructure project. The flood alleviation scheme has a different context, but can the Minister give assurances that the necessary administrative groundwork — I hope that that is not a poor mixed metaphor — is being completed to ensure the project can progress in a timely fashion?

Ms Kimmins: You will be aware that I recently made an announcement on the report into the Downpatrick flooding. The flooding impacted on my constituency, and I am acutely aware of the devastation that it caused across the board, largely for businesses but also for many residential properties. We have to be proactive on flooding, and officials in DFI Rivers have worked very closely with community and business partners to find ways forward.

A number of options for the Downpatrick flood alleviation scheme have been looked at. Fourteen options that came out of the flood study were investigated, including dredging the River Quoile and removing the Quoile barrier. However, those interventions were found to be ineffective in managing flooding in Downpatrick. The study identified solutions to help reduce the flood risk to the standard that we are targeting for Downpatrick, but the benefit/cost ratio of those is quite close. Officials are looking at the solutions that offer the strongest level of protection but are also economically viable. It will take six months to get to the next stage, and officials are working on that.

As the Minister and as a local representative, I know how important this is. I met with the regional community resilience group in Newcastle to discuss the issues that are having an impact there, and I am keen to find solutions and implement them at the earliest possible stage.

Mr McMurray: Is there anything on the finances?

Ms Kimmins: That will depend on the solution that we decide to go with. I am confident that the budget will be there for that.

Mr McMurray: I want to associate myself with the comments about the work that the Department does and the workers on the ground, including how approachable they are and all the rest of it. I appreciate their work. It reflects on your Department for sure.

One of the major issues for your Department relates to NI Water. What are your targets for the three-pronged approach? For example, what are your targets for improvement and for moneys raised from developer contributions? What improvements would be your gold standard?

Ms Kimmins: Ideally, we want to achieve the amount that is required to deliver what is needed. The cost that has been outlined by NI Water has increased significantly in recent years. There is currently a consultation on the developer contributions. We will need to look at what comes back from that and what is achievable. As I said earlier, that is a smaller part of the bigger picture in how we move forward in this area. The biggest aspect of getting funding and investment will be done by working with Executive colleagues and looking at how we can engage with the British Treasury and others to get the support that we need. Once the work is done, it is done. It is capital spend, so it will have a lasting impact. I hope that it will take us to a better place with regard to the basic operation of something that is essential.

As I have said before, at the Committee and in the Chamber, the Programme for Government outlines the Executive's priorities, but in order to achieve those it is important that our waste water infrastructure is addressed. For me, that is an indirect Executive priority: it might not be outlined specifically in the Programme for Government, but it has to be addressed in order for us to do everything else that we want to do. All Ministers will be acutely aware of that. I have already initiated discussions with the Agriculture Minister, and Minister Lyons is keen to discuss the housing supply strategy. I am working collaboratively with everyone because addressing waste water infrastructure is in all our interests.

The other thing to consider is how we can take pressure off our system. It is not all about physical infrastructure: it is also about other solutions that we can put in place to ensure that we are delivering properly for people. That relates to the sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) Bill, which was introduced this week, and nature-based solutions. From speaking to developers, I know that some of them already use nature-based solutions on a smaller scale. How can we do more of that and deliver properly for people, without there being a high cost and lots of physical infrastructure, while ensuring that we put money to best use? Members are often quick to dismiss what is on the table. Let us test the proposed solutions and see what we can do. We can review them continually as we go along. It would be irresponsible not to try those solutions out and see where we get. I am confident that they will make a difference, but I will also continually lobby for additional funding because that will give us a head start and help us to get moving at a much quicker pace.

Mr McMurray: My last question is on the three-pronged approach. Some of us might have used a three-pronged graip for shovelling stuff about. At what stage do you get rid of the three-pronged graip and just take a shovel to it?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, we need to go through the process that is in motion with the legislation. Contributions to the consultation will conclude this week, so we will soon know the outcome of that. You will have seen that we have submitted a bid in June monitoring. Recently, John O'Dowd announced the additional funding that we have secured for the next number of years through the comprehensive spending review. That, in itself, gives a really clear indication of where the Executive are. With regard to waste water, we will benefit from that additional £600 million. I will lobby very strongly to ensure that we do.

Addressing waste water infrastructure is a work in progress. As we progress with that work and see the benefits, I will be sure to keep the Committee informed of them.

Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for coming along. I start by thanking the workers on the ground — the local engineers and all — who do a sterling job. However, they are hamstrung by not having enough money. I will come back to that point.

I turn to the A5 and the timeline. I have written down dates, and you can confirm or deny them. On 2 October, the Minister announced the go-ahead for the project. The vesting order was made on 15 October. On 19 November, the court case was lodged. The vesting came into effect on 25 November, and on 10 December Minister O'Dowd said that he was going to proceed. What happened after 19 November, at which point the Department was aware that there would be a judicial review? At that point, technically, you were still six days away from owning the property. I am looking to you, Denis, because, to be fair, Liz was not the Minister at that point. What happened in that time? I admired your honesty at the start of the session. Your role is to advise the Minister. What advice did you give the then Minister?

Dr McMahon: I also received advice. I do not want to give the impression that it was somehow me taking a —.

Mr K Buchanan: Fair enough. You collectively pulled all that together for the Minister. The Department technically did not own the property until 25 November and the legal case started on 19 November. What advice did you give the Minister and when?

Dr McMahon: To be honest with you, in order to provide that level of detail, I will need to go back and have a look at the individual records and come back to you.

Mr K Buchanan: Do you agree that you pulled advice together?

Dr McMahon: Advice went up to the Minister continually.

Mr K Buchanan: Denis, you said that you work under the direct control of the Minister.

Dr McMahon: Under the Departments Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, we work under the direction and control of Ministers.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. Was the Minister in place at that point?

Dr McMahon: At which point?

Mr K Buchanan: On 19 November, when the judge —.

Dr McMahon: In 2024?

Mr K Buchanan: Yes.

Dr McMahon: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: Did the Minister make the decision to motor on with the road?

Dr McMahon: I would need to look at the paperwork to see whether we went to the Minister and specifically asked him whether he wished to continue on that basis. I suspect that we did, but, again, I would need to look at the paperwork to confirm that.

Mr K Buchanan: You assume that the Minister made the decision at that stage.

Dr McMahon: If not, the Minister certainly would have been kept informed of the process. One of the questions is about the extent to which some of the decisions that are taken are operational. Those are taken under the Minister's mandate, with him having decided to move forward on them.

Mr K Buchanan: I need to know who made the decision to proceed, Denis.

Dr McMahon: Yes, it —.

Mr K Buchanan: No, hear me out. It is as simple as this. I will come on to costs in a minute. You and your Department did an evaluation and pulled out figures to present to the Minister or whomever made the decision. What were those figures? Was it a case of saying, "Option 1 is to keep going. Option 2 is to stop"? What is the difference in the financial figures for those options?

Dr McMahon: I will have to answer those questions in writing, if that is OK. As a general point, the reason that I spoke up earlier was that, as accounting officer, I have a specific responsibility to the Assembly for the money that is spent in the Department, so, of course —.

Mr K Buchanan: But the Minister makes the decision, Denis.

Dr McMahon: Absolutely.

Mr K Buchanan: To be fair, as accounting officer, you advise the Minister by saying, "Do it" or "Do not do it". What was your advice with respect to the A5?

Dr McMahon: I need to look at the submissions that went up to the Minister.

Mr K Buchanan: You cannot recall at this stage.

Dr McMahon: I cannot recall individual submissions at that level.

Mr K Buchanan: Denis, this is not a pothole in Cookstown.

Dr McMahon: I get that.

Mr K Buchanan: It is a £1·x billion project.

Dr McMahon: Indeed, there was a series of submissions during that period. I am happy to look at our timeline and get back to you on that.

Mr K Buchanan: We will have to seek clarity on that.

Dr McMahon: Sure.

Mr K Buchanan: My colleague referred to the fact that you have vested 3,000 acres. You technically had not vested that land when the legal challenge went in. The 3,000 acres that were vested involve 330 farms. Do you have any idea how much the compensation for those 3,000 acres will be? I am not talking about the cost of putting the land back to the way that it was. Do you have any ballpark figure for that cost?

Dr McMahon: We will need to assess that with the landowners.

Mr K Buchanan: I will give you some ballpark figures. For 3,000 acres, if you average £1,000 an acre of income per year, the cost is £3 million. If you try to cultivate land that has been wrecked, as happened in the devastation in December that I referred to, it will take 10 years for that land to be 100% productive. So, the compensation for the income from the land will be £30 million, never mind the cost of putting it back the way it was. Therefore, it is vital to know the information that you had, which you either used to make a decision or sent to the Minister. For example, was there a discussion along the lines of, "If we stop the contractor, it will cost x amount. If we do not, we risk this"? It will cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

Dr McMahon: I am happy to come back to you with the specific dates, times and figures. The general decision, as I outlined earlier, was about whether to proceed with a major programme at a certain point in time. We were looking at the programme of work for the whole scheme, which was the biggest project that we have ever undertaken.

Mr K Buchanan: It is surprising then that the Minister would not make the decision on that.

Dr McMahon: Sorry, I am not saying that the Minister was not responsible or did not take decisions. We work under the direction and control of Ministers all the time. I am just saying that I need to look back. You have asked me specific questions, and I need to go back and look at the timeline and provide you with those detailed answers.

Mr K Buchanan: I now want to move on to road safety. Thank you, Minister, for moving on the issue of buses stopping on the road and vehicles overtaking them. That is something that we need to look at broadly. The messaging on road safety is in complete tatters because I see young children holding placards that say, "Roads kill". I have the Policing Board's causation factors: roads do not kill. When you are driving, alcohol kills, drugs kill, excessive speed kills, using your mobile phone kills, careless driving kills and not wearing your seat belt kills. At last Thursday's Policing Board meeting, which your colleague was at, we were told that those are the five causation factors in road deaths.

I am not taking away from any loss of life on the A5, and I appreciate that making improvements to the A5 would reduce road deaths. There is no doubt about that. However, the narrative from young people now is that the roads kill. The roads do not kill, based on police statistics. I have read out the five causation factors of road deaths in Northern Ireland. The narrative out there is that the A5 kills, but the issue is people making mistakes when they are travelling on the A5. Engineering improvements will help with that. What do you say, Minister, to the narrative that the road kills, when, given the five causation factors that the police have published, it is now in tatters?

Ms Kimmins: It is important to say that mistakes can happen because of the type of the road as well. That has to be reflected. Dual carriageways are much safer, which is why the A5 scheme was approved and why there was significant support for it, particularly at Executive level. However, I completely agree that a lot of the work that we have to do is around driver behaviour, and every member around the table will have lobbied for physical traffic-calming measures and infrastructure measures to improve roads. Many of you will have seen the responses that I have provided on specific schemes. We have to look at both in every case. Road safety messaging is hugely important. You will know that I have recently launched a consultation on using mobile phones while driving and penalties for drink-driving and drug-driving. We are looking at all of those things and driver behaviour.

The road safety messaging, particularly about school buses, has been very welcome because it is helping to make drivers think. That is why I am also looking at what we can do, along with the Department of Education and the Education Minister, to help schoolchildren understand safety when they are getting on and off buses as they go to and from school. It is also why we are looking at active travel routes and making those routes safer to encourage more people to walk, wheel and cycle to school or wherever else they are going. I am also introducing more 20 mph speed limits, focusing on rural schools because I recognise the significant safety challenges, particularly where there are national speed limit roads outside schools. We are also looking at permanent 20 mph zones in more residential areas. There are lots of things that we can do. Where we can, we need to implement physical measures, such as upgrading the physical layout of the road to make it safer.

The A1 junction scheme is another example. There is absolutely no doubt that the layout of that road and the crossover points on it have a massive impact on the number of deaths. It is not far behind the A5 in terms of the deaths that have occurred on it. I travel on that road every day.

People take chances at the crossovers on that road, which, again, is about driver behaviour, but there are lots of other factors. The upgrade of that road will undoubtedly save lives as well.

We have a huge job of work to do. Driver behaviour is undoubtedly the key cause of road deaths, but things can happen and people can make mistakes. We have to look at all of that in the round. We work very closely with the PSNI, the road safety partnership and other partners. Members will be aware of our massive road safety campaign, Share the Road to Zero, which is completely focused on driver behaviour and how we all have a responsibility. I am also introducing graduated driver licensing. Unfortunately, the figures show that the number of collisions involving young male drivers is the highest. There is lots of work to do. We are focused on that and continue to work on it at every opportunity. We want to look at lots of different aspects of that messaging in order to improve everybody's safety.

Mr K Buchanan: I will go back to the point that I made at the start. It is difficult for the engineers to get money. This decision is going to cost tens of millions of pounds. Do you agree or disagree? Making the wrong decision is going to cost tens of millions of pounds: the project was not halted when the judicial review began, but it should have been until we knew what costs would be incurred.

Ms Kimmins: The flip side of that is that if we had received a positive judgement, trying to restart the project after halting it would have come at a significant cost. We could have lost contractors and the cost of the contracts would have increased. You cannot look at one aspect of this in isolation. That is why Denis is keen to look at the timeline and the submissions that led to the decision that was taken. All of that has to be taken in the round.

Mr K Buchanan: It will be interesting to see that. I appreciate, Denis, that if you were producing information for the then Minister — I assume that he made the call — that will be clarified and we will see option A or option B on a bit of paper.

Dr McMahon: The Minister would certainly have been aware of it. The only question in my mind is over how we put it to the Minister: that is the point. I would say, however, one of the challenges with major projects generally is that there are risk management issues. Risk management sounds very simple when you say it out loud: it sounds like risk registers and things like that, but you have to take measured and appropriate risks in order to be able to deliver projects.

Mr K Buchanan: This was a sure thing. You did not expect the judgement. The difficulty with the A5 project is that it is about the head and the heart. I am not saying that it does not need to go ahead, but I think that the heart overruled the head.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): If you do not mind, Keith, we need to be brief here.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. This is my last 30-second point, Chair. Based on causation factors — I am not going to get into individual tragic cases — have you looked at upgrading the existing road? Unfortunately, for each one of those statistics, there will be a reason for the loss of life. Have you looked at upgrading the existing road?

Ms Kimmins: The Executive's position is that the road needs to go ahead —.

Mr K Buchanan: That was the Executive's position. We will know shortly what costs have been incurred.

Ms Kimmins: For me, the solution that was identified is the best solution. My focus is on ensuring that no more lives are lost. Unfortunately, we cannot put a price on that.

Mr Durkan: Minister, to lose one legal challenge is unfortunate and to lose two is careless, but to lose three is completely unacceptable and, some might say, unforgivable. Our sympathy and support for the families who have lost loved ones is assured, but that is not something that we, you, or the Department can hide behind when it comes to accountability. This is not a criticism of you personally: this was not your decision. Even if it was, it is important that you do not take it personally. I say that as someone who has been on the receiving end of a few quashed decisions. Do you agree that your Department, or your predecessor, even, has repeated avoidable mistakes and ignored expert advice? The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) gave clear reasons and specific recommendations that appear to have either been completely ignored or brushed aside without proper analysis or justification. Furthermore, the Department failed to work with others to coordinate on Climate Change Act duties. You said that your predecessor met the AERA Minister towards the end of last year. Was that after the scheme had been approved by the Minister and the Executive?

Ms Kimmins: No. You have outlined three legal challenges, all of which were made on different grounds. The third legal challenge was made on the basis of an Act that the Assembly passed in more recent times. That legislation was not in place when the previous legal challenges were made. The Climate Change Act was passed in 2022, as you will be aware. Your colleague was the Minister when it was enacted. We have moved into a different space with the issues that the applicant put forward in the latest legal challenge.

The meeting that my predecessor had with the AERA Minister was one of the last engagements that he had with him. However, I do not agree that there was no collaboration: there was close collaboration with DAERA, including at official level, which had been ongoing since the scheme's conception. As I have said clearly this morning, that work continues. The Department liaises with DAERA on environmental impact assessments, wildlife issues and the impact on farm payments, and it liaised most recently on the production of a letter on single farm payments that was issued on 9 April to all the landowners who are affected by the A5 vesting order. It is completely unfair to say that there was a lack of engagement. We have been working closely and will continue to do so.

As I have said repeatedly this week, we will analyse the judgement on the legal challenge. We need to look at the issues that the judge has identified, where they lie and how they can be resolved. Again, they are not insurmountable. We can overcome them, and that is my focus. At the forefront of this are the families and the people who use the road every day. We need to get past this and get the work done. We can sit here this morning and say, "Who's to blame?", but we will not know where the issues lie until we go through the judgement in detail. For me, it is about finding the solutions, Mark.

Mr Durkan: I said that the failure to work and coordinate with others was on Climate Change Act duties. You have outlined where there was collaboration between DFI and DAERA, but I was talking about Climate Change Act duties. That is what the judge found.

Ms Kimmins: In my response, I talked about the environmental impact assessments. That is all part of the work, because it relates to climate.

Mr Durkan: For example, what carbon reduction measures were incorporated in the scheme? Were the materials and even the vehicles to be used in construction subject to those measures? With anything that Derry City and Strabane District Council and, I presume, others go out to tender on, sustainability and carbon considerations are core.

Ms Kimmins: All of that was considered as part of the work on this, Mark. Everything that you outlined was considered and presented to the court. We now need to look at why the judge felt that that fell short and how we can remedy that.

Mr Durkan: It was considered and presented to the court, but what was done beforehand? It is my understanding that, when stuff went out to tender, there were no questions about sustainability or whether low-carbon materials and low-carbon vehicles would be used. That is absolutely barmy in 2025, whether we have a climate Act or not.

Dr McMahon: This is more of an administrative point, but the procurement processes use the latest approach and become more sustainable over time. When we were going through the procurement processes, we would have built in sustainability. It is also worth saying something about the scale of the carbon emissions. The judgement acknowledged that there was detailed evidence about the carbon emissions that would be involved in building the road. Of course, there will always be carbon emissions in any major capital project. A big focus was on how those carbon emissions could be mitigated in the context of an overall carbon budget and how we will reduce to net zero overall. The Department's role in those emissions was a big focus, but it was also about how that role fitted with the wider plans to reduce emissions to net zero and whether we could achieve that in the context of those plans. That is why a piece of this goes beyond the Department. Of course, there is a clear focus for the Department, but there is also something beyond that.

Ms Kimmins: All the information on what was looked at in relation to the scheme is available on the Department's website.

What I will say again — I think I said this earlier, in response to other members — is that hundreds of pages of scientific evidence were provided. That gives you the level of detail that was provided. All of that was worked on in collaboration with DAERA officials. Until we get a clearer analysis of everything in the round and look at whether there were gaps or whether we should have provided more information, it would be unfair to say that, because we do not know at this stage. That is essentially what I am saying. The Department provided as much information as possible at that point and, again, worked closely with DAERA officials. We also need to look at the interpretation of the Climate Change Act in respect of the judge's ruling and what he felt was not there or why he felt those grounds were upheld. Again, Mark, it is very early stages.

Mr Durkan: We know that there was not enough. There may have been hundreds of pages, but the quality might not have matched the quantity. We know that, or we know that the judge felt that. It is not about blame; this is about accountability. It is a major Executive flagship project at a cost of £1·7 billion, not to mention the cost to the families who have lost loved ones, and the hurt that this has caused them. We have had this scheme announced again and trumpeted. It was announced —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Mark, I think we know the issues. I have other members on the list. If there are any other questions, will you please come to them quickly? I also ask the Minister to be succinct in her answers.

Mr Durkan: There are a lot more questions, but I have no great hope that I will get answers to them, so you can move on, Chair.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister and Denis, for attending the Committee. The A5 runs through the heart of West Tyrone. As a representative for West Tyrone, I and many constituents share your disappointment, Minister. Many people are devastated by the ruling, because we know that delays cost lives. We have all seen how families have been completely torn apart by deaths on the road; communities have been torn apart. Simply put, the A5, as it stands, is not fit for purpose, despite what others might say. I pay tribute to the families of those who have lost loved ones on the road and who have continued to campaign to see the road upgraded. I also thank you, Minister, for your commitment to overcoming the obstacles that we are facing as we try to ensure that the A5 is upgraded. I understand that it is very early days, and that you and the Department have only had sight of the judge's ruling in the past day or two, but will you give us some idea of what your and your Department's next steps will be?

Ms Kimmins: I met officials briefly in the immediate aftermath of the ruling on Monday and had a discussion on what the next steps are. Legal counsel will be meeting officials tomorrow for a consultation on the analysis. That will be a very detailed discussion. I have requested an urgent briefing immediately after that consultation, be that tomorrow or Friday — at the earliest opportunity — as well as a written briefing. That will, hopefully, help us identify what the next steps will be, or what the options are, to realistically help to move this forward and find solutions at the earliest possible stage. As we move through the process, which I hope will move at pace, because it is too important not to, and once we have agreed where we are going next, we will endeavour to ensure that we keep the Committee and the Assembly updated.

Miss Brogan: Thank you, Minister, and thank you for keeping us up to date. It brings some solace to the people who have been devastated by the news to know that you are working at pace to overcome the obstacles.

I will move on to another topic, because that one has been rehearsed a lot. Yesterday, your Department launched a public consultation on the transport strategy for 2035. Will you outline the benefits of that strategy and the changes you would like to see because of it?

Ms Kimmins: The launch of the strategy has probably been lost because so much else has been happening. It is a really important document, and I hope that Members will engage very comprehensively with it. It covers the period up to 2035, and I think that it will be fundamental to the growth and development of our society in terms of how we develop a more modern, efficient and sustainable — we have talked about that today — transport system. I think that that is essential not just for connecting communities but for future prosperity right across the North and, indeed, across the island. It will help to shape a transport system that works for all, and a key part of that has been putting people at the heart of it. I talked earlier about inclusion of people with disabilities and other issues that might hinder how they can get about. I think that it is important to look at the priorities of people right across our community. The consultation is important, because it will help to generate debate on the issues and help to improve the strategy and, ultimately, the transport network. I know that people, particularly Committee members, will have lots of suggestions and proposals around that, and I am keen to hear from everybody, including the wider public, on that.

Miss Brogan: That is great. Thank you. Finally, Minister, in your briefing, you touched on the Reservoirs Act. You will know that the Committee has been discussing that at length in the past number of weeks. Can you give us any more detail on the need to progress the work at pace and how important it is for safety measures, essentially?

Ms Kimmins: As I said, how important that is cannot be overestimated, and I know that officials have made that very clear in the briefings that you all will have received. It is a matter of public safety, and we need to get the legislation enacted to ensure that we can protect the public from the issues that could arise if a reservoir were to breach. I emphasise the point on the need to move this forward, and I encourage the Committee to work with us on that. Hopefully, sufficient information has been provided.

Mr McReynolds: Minister, I look forward to seeing you later this evening at the rail event. I will rattle through this as quickly as I can. I have been deleting from it as I have been listening to the conversation. Your Department published a roads prioritisation programme in 2023. Will you be revisiting that to sit alongside the transport strategy?

Ms Kimmins: For the major roads?

Mr McReynolds: Yes.

Ms Kimmins: We have already made some announcements about our intention to proceed with some of the schemes, the Ballynahinch bypass being an example. I talked about the A1 upgrade earlier, and, obviously, the A5 is a part of that. The transport strategy is a very high-level document, which is why there is no specific mention of schemes in that. It is looking at how we can transform our overall transport system, which incorporates all elements of transport, including rail, road and active travel, again partnered with the other objectives that we have as a Department. My intention is that we continually work to what has already been agreed and on how we can continue to progress the schemes that have been identified in the time ahead.

Mr McReynolds: Flags went up in east Belfast last night and have gone up over the past number of weeks. What engagement have you had with the police about flags being erected on DFI assets?

Ms Kimmins: I know that that is a very important issue, and I met Bobby Singleton and some of his colleagues two weeks ago on that, because there are so many nuances not only to flags but to some of the other paraphernalia and signs and things that are being put up not just on DFI infrastructure but in other areas. For me, it was about finding a way forward on an agreed process or protocol for how we deal with those things. There are different aspects to that. Officials are working closely with the PSNI on it.

Specifically on things such as hate crime and racism, there are probably clearer pathways. The grey area is around cultural expression or what is deemed as intimidation, hate or racism as well. At present, we are looking at each case in isolation and assessing it to look at what the best approach is, where possible, if there are issues caused. We are assessing risk and all of the things that come with that. That engagement is ongoing and, as I said, I met the police in the past number of weeks on how we move forward. We have been getting contact from people across the North on similar issues, and we are feeding that in and dealing with those individually.

Mr McReynolds: Is that in the hope of producing new guidance?

Ms Kimmins: It is about agreeing a way forward and looking at what the police can do within their remit and where DFI needs to step in. We also looked at whether there was potential for an external contractor, which has proven to be more difficult in some of the more contentious areas. For me, it is about ensuring that all of our public spaces are safe and that people do not feel intimidated or under threat. I am not particularly referencing flags. In the general context, public spaces should be inclusive for everyone. It is about looking at how we deal with that, but not just in isolation; it is about looking at it sensitively, respecting culture and identifying the best way forward in that regard.

Mr McReynolds: The definition of "active travel" came up in writing a couple of months ago, when the active travel unit came to the Committee. Will you be publishing details of what you consider to be active travel spend? There is a bit of concern that footways and street lights could be prioritised over schemes. Given that you have published the definition of what active travel is, will you publish what the spend is to give clarity to the sector?

Ms Kimmins: I recently met Sustrans, and I have met other stakeholders as well. Officials are currently analysing the consultation responses on the active travel delivery plan. The final plan will be presented to me after the summer recess. I hope that that will provide further clarity and look at what we will prioritise. There may be concerns about how that spend is being implemented, but, as I said earlier, active travel spend is not just about putting in place a new cycle lane or footway. We need to ensure that they are safe for people to use, and part of that will be about ensuring that they have proper street lighting and surfacing or, for existing active travel routes, that they are properly maintained. That forms part of that. That does not mean resurfacing roads that have nothing to do with active travel. That clear distinction has been made.

Mr McReynolds: The argument from the active travel sector is that you have budget for street lights, footways and things like that. I totally take your point about using a bit of the active travel budget to facilitate safer active travel, but the argument is that you have budget in other areas for those things, rather than using the active travel budget itself.

Ms Kimmins: We have to put that in context. If it is new active travel infrastructure and we need to put in street lighting, that has to be part of that, because that is part of that scheme. You have to look at it in that context. It would be more challenging to look at the street lighting budget overall, because it is very limited. It is important to add that that is not the reason for it, but, for us to properly implement active travel routes and infrastructure that are accessible and safe for people to use, they have to be part of that scheme.

Mr McReynolds: You touched briefly on what Keith mentioned earlier about road safety. I was part of that briefing as well. Graduated driving licences were mentioned then, as you did. It was highlighted that those have been going on for a while now. Are we going to have any clarity as to when they are going to be introduced?

Ms Kimmins: It is something that I am very keen to see. It is definitely an issue that will help. It is resource-intensive work. We have to look at current driving training and testing, and testing arrangements. Obviously, there is then the work that comes on as part of that. An estimated £2 million of capital is required over a 16-month period because of the need for programme training and the log book. Officials are currently developing a digital app, which will be more accessible, particularly for new and younger drivers. I hope to be able to provide the Committee fairly soon with an anticipated date of introduction. We are just waiting on the preparatory work to progress sufficiently. That will require some statutory rules and things. It sounds as though it is very simple, but actually a lot of work is required.

Mr McReynolds: I appreciate that. Thank you. Increased fines for speeding were also mentioned. Is that something that your Department currently has in mind?

Ms Kimmins: We are looking at increased fines for drink-driving and mobile phone use. We are looking at a lot of that. As you will be aware, a consultation on mobile phone use is currently open. Drug-driving is another one. We are looking at all of that.

Mr McReynolds: Just lastly, or Frank Mitchell will come after me, you spoke to the Deputy Chair earlier about road defects. An Audit Office report, I think last year, referred to risk-based sampling and recommended what the Department could do to make better use of money to address those defects. Is that part of the strategy that you mentioned to the Deputy Chair earlier?

Ms Kimmins: I do not know if that Audit Office report specifically is part of it, but generally, in how we target investment and ensure that we make smarter maintenance decisions, that is the basis for the strategy. Overall, it will help to see better decisions and more sustainable repairs.

Dr McMahon: Part of what we will be looking to do in implementing that is implementing the recommendations from the Audit Office report.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. You have been generous with your time, and we appreciate that these are big issues. Before you go, Minister, I have asked for officials to come for a meeting with the Committee in relation to the A5, and hopefully you will agree to that. I also ask, Minister and permanent secretary, if you would come back to us with the timescales, which are very important regarding the clarity of the overall decision-making.

Dr McMahon: We can come back with a timeline and set out what was recommended and when.

Ms Kimmins: Thanks very much, everybody.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): All right. Thank you.