Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I welcome Colin and Jonathan from DFI. Is the Committee happy for the session to be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): We will take an opening statement of up to 10 minutes from Colin or Jonathan — whoever is taking the lead — and have a discussion based on that. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

Mr Jonathan Saulters (Department for Infrastructure): I will open. I am director of major projects, and I will give a potted history of major works prioritisation.

On 14 August 2023, in the absence of a Minister, the Department for Infrastructure published a prioritised list of major road schemes that would continue to be progressed. Prioritising the development and delivery of major road schemes was necessary at that time because of the Department's challenging budget position, along with constrained resources and the commitments under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The roads prioritisation list at that time included the closing out of projects that had recently been constructed and the continued development of schemes that had been identified as Executive projects — Executive flagship projects and those included in city and growth deals.

Work was also to continue on finalising the business case and completing the preparation of the contract documents for the A1 junctions phase 2 scheme. In addition, work streams were to be completed on the York Street interchange and the A32 Cornamuck scheme. All other schemes were paused, with their place on a future major works programme to be informed by the Department's emerging transport plans and any decision taken by a future Infrastructure Minister.

That initial work was to be reviewed after six months. Due to the re-establishment of the Assembly, however, time had to be taken to understand new ministerial priorities and align work with those priorities. Following consideration by former Minister O'Dowd and Minister Kimmins, the review concluded that the following list of schemes, which includes the closing out of projects that have recently been concluded, should be taken forward. The flagship projects to be taken forward are the A6 Randalstown to Castledawson scheme; phase 1 of the A6 Derry to Drumahoe scheme; the A5 western transport corridor scheme; and phase 2 of the A6 Derry to Dungiven scheme. The city and growth deals to be taken forward are Belfast Rapid Transit phase 2 (BRT2); the Lagan pedestrian and cycle road; the Newry southern relief road; the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass; the A29 Cookstown bypass; Derry riverfront; and Strabane footbridge.

Other ministerial priorities to be advanced to procurement and construction brought in the A1 junctions phase 2 scheme, which was announced by the Minister in July 2024; the A24 Ballynahinch bypass, which was announced by Minister Kimmins on 12 March 2025; and the A32 Cornamuck scheme, which was announced by Minister Kimmins on 20 June 2025. We concluded the prioritisation work at that stage. The York Street interchange and A2 Buncrana Road schemes remain ministerial priority projects, but additional funding will be required to progress those schemes to construction. All other projects are not being advanced and await the outcome of the new regional strategic transport network transport plan.

That concludes the opening statement on the prioritisation of major projects. I welcome any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Wow. That was the fastest statement ever. I was hoping for it to be at least another three minutes so that I had all my ducks in order up here — all my questions. Thanks for that, Jonathan. I found the evidence interesting, and it is timely, given where we are on major capital projects and roads.

I will kick off the questions and then go to John Stewart and other Committee members, who may have questions. I will go first to the FAQs paper that you provided to the Committee as evidence. One of the questions is:

You highlighted three things as being part of that: switching vehicle fuels, shifting modes and reducing the need to travel. It struck me that in order to meet the climate change targets, which, I think we all agree, are challenging — I may come on to that in my second or third question — how much confidence do you have that the three things that you mentioned in answer to that question will deliver what is required?

Mr Saulters: You are specifically mentioning the three schemes — BRT2, the Lagan bridge —

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): No, I am sorry. Do these guys have this? This paper says, "FAQs for DFI website".

Mr Colin Woods (Department for Infrastructure): I am happy to jump in on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Do you want to take that one? OK. Do you know what I am talking about?

Mr Woods: I do, yes, absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK, great.

Mr Woods: Those are our three headline proposals for the decarbonisation of transport. Our confidence is high that those things will, in fact, decarbonise the transport sector by 2050. We have developed a transport emissions model that, we believe, is best in class in terms of looking at the specific Northern Ireland vehicle fleet. I do not mean just the public sector fleet but the fleet of vehicles that exists and uses the roads in Northern Ireland. In combination with the zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which was brought in by the UK Government — the Assembly consented to its extension to Northern Ireland — that will, over time, change the make-up of that fleet from vehicles that use fossil fuels to vehicles that do not. Essentially, when you work that through a 25-year programme of vehicles dropping out of fleet at the end of their life and new vehicles coming in, that decarbonises the fleet over time. That measure alone accounts for the majority of the decarbonisation that we need to deliver under the Climate Change Act.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Do you know what the percentage of electric vehicles (EVs) is in Northern Ireland?

Mr Woods: Not off the top of my head, I am afraid. The Department definitely knows what that is.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I do, obviously, otherwise I would not ask you the question. A year and a half ago it was 1%, and it is now at about 2% or 2·3%, according to recent data. That is an astonishingly small proportion of the number of cars that we have in Northern Ireland, which is around 1·26 million cars. If that figure continues to rise by 1%, by the time we get to 2030, which is the first milestone for decarbonisation, by my reckoning, 7% of Northern Ireland's cars will be electric. Given what I have just shared with you, do you still have confidence that we will meet the stringent climate change targets on the basis of this sector decarbonisation fact sheet?

Mr Woods: The short answer is yes, but it is a complicated question, so the answer, by necessity, is a bit complicated as well. The targets that are set in the Act apply to Northern Ireland in total and are not specific to the transport sector or any sector. The transport sector alone does not have to go in a straight line towards 2050. When you look at what we have published about what the outworkings of those policies will be, most of the change to the vehicle fleet composition obviously will happen as time goes on. Not everybody buys a new car every year, so it takes time for vehicles to leave the fleet and others to enter the fleet. They circulate around the second-hand market for years before they exit and all that kind of stuff.

When you talk about 2050, we have a high level of confidence. We have modelled what, we think, that pathway looks like. One of the things that the Department will have to do as we move through the different carbon budgets and past the 2030 and 2040 targets is keep those policies under review to determine whether we retain that confidence that the combined effect of what we are doing will deliver on our statutory obligations.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I want to turn to the schemes that you mentioned. We are, obviously, aware of the A5 judgement. I should say to Committee members that we should not go into past stuff on the A5 but, instead, focus on the future. Are you confident that the schemes that have been outlined to the Committee can be delivered after Justice McAlinden's judgement on the status of the A5?

Mr Woods: The judgement is being appealed, so you can take from that that the Department does not agree with it. That is the logical conclusion to draw there. Until the outcome of that appeal is known, it is hard to answer that question. There is probably not an awful lot more that I can say beyond what the Minister has already said in the Chamber and in her answers to Assembly questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): Do you accept that it would have been easier to deliver the schemes had the judgement gone the other way?

Mr Woods: We would be in construction on the A5, so, on that scheme, yes, certainly. The broader implications, as I say, very much depend on the outcome of the appeal process.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. We have the list of additional schemes here. We will park the A5, the cost of which is cited in this paper as £2·1 billion. I added up the cost of the other schemes, and the total came to about £1 billion, which is a sizeable amount of capital, obviously. From a wider perspective, how does the Department decide whether to prioritise new infrastructure — the long list of roads that we see here — or carry out maintenance of existing roads? As MLAs, we sometimes hear from our constituents that they are not completely happy with the roads. Peter, I am being gracious again, just in case you are wondering. How does DFI determine whether to prioritise new infrastructure or repair existing infrastructure?

Mr Woods: Jonathan, do you want to talk about how we put together the portfolio, and I can then comment on the wider point?

Mr Saulters: When we were doing the prioritisation exercise for major projects, we looked ahead to try to profile a flat-line projected budget for what we would have over the 10-year period. We then looked at what was committed through ministerial priorities or Executive commitments to flagship schemes to see what the residual was. We then looked at scenario planning to see what schemes we could fit into the profile. We also looked at structural maintenance and all the other things that the Department does and made high-level assumptions around that. Then we came up with a plan on how we could sequentially deliver the A1 junction scheme followed by Ballynahinch and then Cornamuck, more or less to ease the pain there in terms of not reducing the peaks through that 10-year period and allowing a balanced approach between major projects and other commitments.

Mr Woods: On the wider position, as Jonathan said, we attempt to model and make assumptions over the long term about what capital budget will be available and what the requirements will be across the full range of business areas in the Department. We then put advice to the Minister during each Budget cycle and each monitoring round, and the Minister takes her decisions on what to allocate where.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I have a final question, and I will then hand over to the Deputy Chair. The transport decarbonisation pathway is —. Does that look familiar? Is there a policy behind this? This is quite nice, but I could not find any policy on the Department's website. Is there more to the policy than the document that I have here? Is that just a fact sheet? Is there a detailed policy that sits behind this?

Mr Woods: There is the "Transport" chapter of the 'Draft Climate Action Plan', to which the Department contributed. That sets out the policy a bit more. The source of the policy goal on decarbonisation is simple: the Climate Change Act sets the targets, and we now have to figure out how we will deliver them. We have a transport strategy that is out for consultation, and that attempts to put some of the policy thinking and narrative around that as well. Those two sources are the main places to look.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): This is definitely my final question. Looking forward, as you mentioned, the Minister has appealed the A5 judgement and, I am sure, is hoping that the decision will be overturned. I imagine that that is the reason for appealing such a decision. Obviously, if it is not overturned, it puts a big question mark over the A5. What impact will that have on the Department's long list of major infrastructure plans? Essentially, what will happen if DFI cannot get the A5 scheme through because of climate change targets and the judge does not think that it will deliver what it is meant to? I completely agree with you that this is an Executive push to decarbonise and reduce emissions across all sectors, but, if the judgement is not overturned, what will the impact be on the list of infrastructure projects that we have before us today?

Mr Woods: It very much depends on exactly what the judgement from the Court of Appeal says. You could have a range of scenarios from an unamended High Court judgement, the overturning of that judgement or something in between whereby the Court of Appeal sets out the law in a way that we do not yet know. It is hard to answer that question until we see the judgement. We are looking across the full range of projects and modelling scenarios to determine how each project will need to adapt to the implications of the ruling. Unfortunately, it is too early to know what the judgement will be, and that makes it hard to be more definitive.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I accept that. Thank you very much for answering those questions.

Mr Stewart: Colin and Jonathan, thank you very much for coming along and for your answers so far. The York Street interchange has been an upgrade concept since the 1960s and an Executive priority since 2008, yet the Minister recently said that it is highly unlikely to start for another 11 years, if at all. How does a project that will clearly have such a positive economic impact on the local area, in the opinion of many experts, and bring hundreds of millions of pounds a year to the local haulage and other economic sectors, get the go-ahead nearly 20 years later?

Mr Saulters: When we did the prioritisation work, the estimate for York Street interchange had grown to a level that could not fit into our normal departmental budget.

Mr Stewart: What is the estimate?

Mr Saulters: Originally, the scheme was somewhere between £125 million and £165 million, but those figures are from 2015. The estimate has probably risen to nearly £300 million at this stage. We could not fit that into our budget. We need to look at other ways of financing the project, and we will undertake work on alternate methods to fund the scheme.

Mr Stewart: It frustrates me and many in the haulage sector because we have all been stuck in that area, and we all realise the economic benefits that the project could unlock. The 11 years or potentially longer does not make me optimistic or positive about what could be done. What would alternate funding mechanisms look like? Can we get that scheme under way in some form before then?

Mr Woods: First, I will come back to something that you mentioned about the Department's priority for the scheme. If you recall, the scheme had gone through the procurement process.

Mr Stewart: That is the frustration.

Mr Woods: It was to be delivered. Since that point, the combination of a Minister not being in place and the financial constraints that we are experiencing explains why it has not moved back to that stage. We have been working on the placemaking and active travel elements of the scheme. The scheme needs to be funded before it can be brought forward. We need confirmation that the funding is available to deliver the project. We are not ready to finalise the design, and we are still working through the placemaking and active travel elements that the previous Minister asked for.

Once we get to the point where the project is ready to go, it will have to go back through the statutory processes. The previous public inquiry will no longer hold, because it was too long ago and too much has changed. That accounts for the development phase that has yet to be completed, which will take years. Then there will be a year or a year and a half for procurement and a multi-year delivery programme, and that is where the 11-year time frame comes from. The next stage of the delivery is to get the project to a point where we have a settled design.

Mr Stewart: I do not know how accurate my figures are because they come from various contributors. What is the Department's economic impact assessment of the savings that the York Street interchange could unlock? Has that been looked at? I am sure it is a moveable feast.

Mr Woods: It will be in the business case. I do not have it in front of me.

Mr Saulters: It had a reasonably high benefit-cost ratio (BCR). We need to review the estimate and do some detailed work on the benefit-cost ratio of the scheme. We still envisage that it will have a good BCR because of the journey time savings and other benefits.

Mr Stewart: Some in the sector say that not going ahead with the scheme costs over £1 billion per year to the local economy, and that is a vast sum. We want to invest to save. That concept is thrown around, but it is hard to do that if the money is not there. However, the impact could be vast. It would be hugely advantageous to do the project as quickly as possible, but I know how constrained budgets are.

I will move to the active travel budget, I am sure that you tuned in last week, when we had representatives from the Mineral Products Association NI (MPANI) before the Committee. First, we have a lot of cyclists and runners who use the roads and therefore are actively travelling. How much of that active travel budget can be redefined towards capital works for resurfacing and roads maintenance? Is that being looked at, and is that project now under way?

Mr Woods: We have defined what we mean by "active travel", in part because of the Climate Change Act and the obligation to spend 10% of the transport budget on active travel. To do that, we had to decide what our working definition would be, and it absolutely includes footpaths and facilities for pedestrians, recognising that cyclists use the road as well. We do not allocate any resurfacing of roads to active travel, but we allocate some of our footpath spend — our structural maintenance of footpaths — to active travel, just for that reason. It is something that we are mindful of. We have the statutory obligation in the Climate Change Act, and we are mindful of the need to grow our spend on active travel while ensuring that we deliver value for money. We have been putting a lot of effort into growing our capability and capacity to meet that target. Ultimately, we are still in a one-year budget cycle, so we have no certainty about future years, what our budget will be, and, therefore, what the share of each element might need to be. However, we have an understanding of what, we think, the requirement is, and that is the starting point for putting advice to the Minister on the budget.

Mr Stewart: A percentage of the active travel budget can go on roads maintenance. The majority of cyclists are on the roads, runners are on the roads and equestrians are on the roads. It could be argued by many that the funding pot could be opened up to maintenance. Is that something that could be done if there was a mind to do so, and what would it take for that to happen?

Mr Woods: So, the question is what is legitimately defined as active travel.

Mr Stewart: Yes, and you could argue that what I have mentioned is active travel.

Mr Woods: People will have different views on that. We include things that are of benefit for walking, wheeling, cycling and other forms of active travel. I would need to check whether equestrian is included in our definition; I am not sure off the top of my head. There are different definitions used in most jurisdictions, unfortunately. "Is an activity a legitimate thing to badge as active travel?" is one question, but I am not sure that that is the constraint. There is no special pot of money for active travel; it has to come out of the same pot of money as everything else.

Mr Stewart: It is ring-fenced for it, but it might not be spent.

Mr Woods: We have the 10% statutory duty, and we are mindful of that. We have a plan to grow what we spend to deliver that, but it does not come with any ring-fenced money from the Department of Finance. There is no extra money; it is literally 10% of what is already being spent on transport. By definition, money that is spent on active travel is not spent in other areas of the transport budget, so it does not mean an overall growth of spending in transport; it is simply a re-profiling of that money. That is where the Minister has to make difficult decisions, at times, about what to allocate to which area of work.

Mr Stewart: Just finally, Chair, if I may. When we heard from the Mineral Products Association last week, there were serious concerns about the constraint on roads maintenance. We are talking here about major capital projects, but they were arguing that it is hard to justify spending tens or hundreds of millions of pounds on new schemes when we cannot even have what we hold. There is a legitimate argument in that, more so because they are under serious financial pressures. They have to invest. How sympathetic are you to their case, and how concerned are you for the long-term sustainability and viability of those companies? What more can be done to support them and give them the assurances they need when it comes to road maintenance budgets?

Mr Woods: We are very sympathetic to the case for additional funding for roads maintenance, as you would expect.

Mr Stewart: I am sure you are.

Mr Woods: We know that, from a structural maintenance perspective, we should be spending something in the region of £190 million to £200 million a year in today's prices to maintain the network in a satisfactory state. This year, the opening allocation was £68 million. It is no surprise to me that that puts pressure on our suppliers. I have met Gordon Best from MPANI and some of his members, and we have discussed that. Obviously, it will put pressure on them if we cannot put the same money, through our contracts, into works that they would then deliver. We recognise that and are mindful of that. The Minister is also mindful of that and will continue to bid at every opportunity for additional funding to attempt to put additional works and additional orders out. We have a range of pressures, and that is not a new thing for the Committee to hear from me.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that.

Mr Woods: The Minister is mindful of that and will continue to bid for the additional funds.

On the question of the balance between building new and maintaining old, most of our major capital roads projects are Executive-level schemes, so that is ring-fenced money that is not available to our Minister to reallocate from a particular bypass scheme or a new dual carriageway towards structural maintenance. The Minister has to work within the non-ring-fenced element of the budget, which is where active travel, street lights and other things come in.

Mr Stewart: I have a subsection to that question. I think that I asked you this before, Colin, but I have a head like a sieve.

Mr Woods: I hope that I give you the same answer. [Laughter.]

Mr Stewart: We are spending around £60 million to £68 million a year, and we should be spending between £120 million and £140 million, give or take — or is it more?

Mr Woods: Our initial target is to spend £120 million and £140 million.

Mr Stewart: What is the cost each year of not spending that? Has a quantitative survey been done on the deterioration of the roads caused by not spending the money? Is there a number for the rolling effect and how the network gets worse each year? I want to get my head around the cost of not doing what we need to do.

Mr Woods: We analyse the condition of the network every year. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) now publishes road condition statistics as official statistics. We have two years of such statistics on the Department's website, and I encourage you to look at what those say. Logic tells you that, if you do not maintain an asset, it will deteriorate over time, and roads are no different. We expect that, if we are not able to fund maintenance to the required level, the condition of the network overall will deteriorate. We believe that that is partly what we are seeing. There is no question that investing at the right time is better value for money than trying to patch everything later in the day, but, if you do not have the cash, you cannot do that. Therefore, with our policies and our approach, we try to ensure that we strike the best achievable balance by repairing the defects that are the most severe and safety-critical or roads that have whatever particular issue and maintaining resource to deal with unplanned expenditure for winter storms, emergencies and so on.

Mr Stewart: We are effectively running to stand still when it comes to maintaining the roads in that we are not putting in what is needed each year.

Mr Woods: We should not expect the condition to stay still if we are not able to resource it to the required level.

Mr Stewart: Exactly. Thank you, gents.

Mr Harvey: Colin and Jonathan, it is good to see you at the Committee today. First, I very much welcomed Minister Liz Kimmins's decision in March to put the Ballynahinch bypass back on the priority list. Your priority list states that the Department wants to start the A1 in February 2026, with the Ballynahinch bypass starting maybe in spring 2028. Of course, I would rather that it were the other way round and you were doing the Ballynahinch bypass first, but, obviously, I understand that road safety comes first. The amount that will be spent on the Ballynahinch bypass project is given in your paper as £50 million to £60 million. I am sure that you know the figures and that, in the past few years, little money has been spent out that direction, so it is warranted and very welcome. Will the A5 decision have any impact on the Ballynahinch bypass project starting in 2028?

Mr Woods: As with my answer to the Chair, depending on the judgement in the appeal case, it could. Unfortunately, until we know what that judgement is and we know what the settled legal position is, it is hard to be specific. What I will say is that there is time for the Ballynahinch bypass to cope with a range of scenarios, given where it sits in our schedule.

Mr Harvey: Can those problems be ironed out within that time frame?

Mr Woods: Once we know what the problems are, I will be able to answer that question a bit better. As the Minister has said, we are mindful of the potential for implications across all of the projects. Her commitment to the delivery of the schemes has not changed as a result of the judgement, so our task as officials will be to work out what the delivery strategy needs to be.

Mr Harvey: Thank you.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, gentlemen. It is good to see you again. I will pick up on some points.

The Mineral Products Association was here last week. It is deeply concerned about the fact that we are halfway through the financial year and almost all of the roads maintenance budget is gone. Is there any hope of funding in an October monitoring round? With that in mind, are we close to getting beyond the limited level of service, which we are now almost 10 years on from? I know that we have talked about this with you a number of times, Colin.

Mr Woods: The Minister stands ready to bid as soon as the Finance Minister calls an October monitoring round. I am not aware of whether the Department of Finance has formally engaged that yet, but DFI is ready, and we will continue to bid for structural maintenance. Our limited service standard primarily applies to our essential maintenance activity, which is funded from our resource budget. This year's resource budget allows us to look for ways of improving on the limited service standard. It is not as simple as saying, "We are moving the bar from here to there" as a result of that, but we are looking for targeted, risk-based ways of using some of the extra resource funding that is available this year on activity that would be of benefit, such as gully cleaning ahead of the winter and the weather that we expect. We are able to fully fund winter service at the start of the year without having to worry as much about monitoring rounds; that is a positive thing.

Mr Dunne: As you know, section offices are left with little or nothing for the rest of the financial year, which is a significant challenge, with, as you say, the winter pressures, which will negatively impact on our road surface conditions, coming in on top of that.

I appreciate that the A5 appeal judgement will have an impact on other infrastructure projects. Chair, I am sure that we can arrange a meeting swiftly following that judgement, because it will be important to discuss where the A5 will go and the major impact of that on so many infrastructure schemes and even other schemes; we will look forward to that.

Recruitment and retention and vacancy rates and so on have previously come up as an issue that impacts the Department and Roads in particular. Are there any updates on that since the Committee last met you?

Mr Woods: Partly because the resource budget is now a little healthier, our primary constraint is supply of available staff. We are working hard with the Department of Finance and Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) HR on their ability to support the delivery of recruitment competitions. We have been able to bring in all the supply that is available this year. We have run competitions for staff at a number of different grades in the organisation, and we have been able to bring people in. Unfortunately, the age profile of our workforce means that we are essentially standing still, however, having run very fast to do so. That remains an area of focus, and we continue to be concerned about it. I expect that to continue for the next five, six or seven years, just by looking at the age profile of our existing workforce and making reasonable assumptions about when people might retire or leave the Department.

Mr Dunne: OK. My final point is about the new regional transport plan. Is there a time frame for that, or does it depend on councils, with their local development plans (LDPs) and so on?

Mr Woods: The regional plan will not be just as dependent on LDPs, although they are obviously relevant and there is a connection to the local plans. We are working on a new regional plan. We are looking at the transport strategy and moving it through the consultation and finalisation processes to give the plan a solid basis. We have a team of transport planners and modellers who are looking at the regional network and trying to understand what it looks like through a need-based lens. The plan relies a little bit on having the clarity of policy position that the transport strategy will bring. I am afraid that I do not have a specific timeline, but it is under active development.

Mr Dunne: OK. Thanks, gentlemen.

Mr McMurray: It is difficult not to home in on our local areas and the places that we are more closely attached to.

What guarantees are there that shovels will hit the ground in the projects? A member alluded to York Street having been an issue since the 1960s, and the Ballynahinch bypass project is like that. All the challenges are well known. When will we see shovels hit the ground? What guarantees are there?

Mr Saulters: The A5 judgement is key to progress on schemes. We have three schemes in procurement. Tenders for the Enniskillen bypass are being assessed, but, because of the A5 judgement, we have to take a wee bit of further legal advice before we can proceed. The A1 junctions project has just finished the pre-qualification stage and will move to the tender stage. The Lagan pedestrian and cycle bridge project is out to tender effectively. We have gained some momentum on those schemes, but, unfortunately, the A5 judgement has caused us to come back and have a look at the legal side of that to see whether we can progress with those schemes.

Mr Woods: The point of the prioritisation exercise — inviting Ministers to set out a prioritised portfolio of schemes — is to allow us to put the plans in place to make them real. That is very much what we are doing and what we are getting ready for.

As with all major projects, the further away the date of intending to start construction, the less certain it is, because our budget cycle, the legal process and the statutory processes can all impact how quickly a scheme moves through development and gets to that point. This programme has been developed specifically to be affordable and to be something that we are comfortable that we can deliver. Part of the point of it was to allow us to prioritise our resources and ensure that we have credible plans to do the things that we set out to do. Over the medium-to-long-term time frame, those are absolutely the things that we intend to deliver.

Mr McMurray: I get that it is affordable, yet we have heard that there is alternative funding, so it is a difficult one to get your head around.

Will a more strategic approach be taken to active travel in the transport plans? The target was for 20% of short journeys to be cycled, but only 1% are. I get Mr Stewart's sentiment, but I have a slightly different view, having cycled through some of it. The emphasis should be on making it better for cyclists. I have cycled through Belfast, and, jeepers oh, it is hard to navigate on a bike, to be truthful.

How does the active travel definition in Northern Ireland compare with that in other jurisdictions such as Scotland and Wales? What can you do to make active travel better? It is important.

Mr Woods: I am afraid that I do not have the other jurisdictions' definitions in front of me today, but we can provide those. They are all slightly different. They are all determined by different Ministers in different jurisdictions for use for their purposes. We have a reasonably detailed technical note supporting the definition that the Minister has adopted for use by the Department. We have the active travel delivery plan: that is the key link into the local transport plans and understanding what we think the active travel network should be. I am sure that you have had a look at it, and have seen that it attempts to set out what we think the prioritisation of schemes across the whole of the network in urban areas would be. Subject to all the same sort of constraints around resources and planning and the statutory processes, that will see the production of a prioritised list of active travel schemes to improve the overall quality of the network and the extent of segregated cycling infrastructure in particular.

Mr McMurray: A lot of good points have been touched on. What effect does the lifespan of new projects have? Is there a saving due to less maintenance and stuff like that? Are new projects generally longer-lasting, or does that not come into it? The Mineral Products Association was very clear about recycling products and using them on the roads. Are new projects generally longer-lasting, or are they just as long-lasting as older roads projects?

Mr Woods: We model it over 60 years. Every business case for a new major project will include a 60-year life cycle. That includes the construction phase and the maintenance and operation phase. We do not expect to spend as much on structural maintenance in years 1 to 5 as we do in years 35 to 40, just as you would expect. Therefore, there is a benefit in that the new asset does not need the same degree of maintenance as an older asset.

At a network level, bearing in mind that our network is 26,000 kilometres, and that, even on our largest new construction projects, you are talking about less than 100 kilometres, it does not necessarily translate into an obvious visible difference, other than the fact that you do not expect to have to resurface a newly constructed road as soon as a road that is already being used.

Mr McMurray: Thank you.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks. What has been the consequence for progressing major roads projects of Sinn Féin and the DUP walking out of this place for five years? What has that done to the timelines?

Mr Woods: In the absence of the institutions, the Department did not have all the powers that would normally be available when a Minister is in office, and that had an impact on the ability to progress a number of schemes. That is probably all that I can say about that.

Mr McNulty: Timelines-wise, the A5 has obviously hit another roadblock. To what extent has that been delayed because Sinn Féin and the DUP walked out of this place?

Mr Woods: The A5 would be in construction now were it not for the legal challenge, so I point to the legal challenge as the thing that is holding it up.

Mr McNulty: Prior to the legal challenge, where would it have been without this place having been down for five years?

Mr Woods: Anything that required a Minister to take a decision and that was not available under the Act that empowered senior officials to take decisions in the absence of Ministers could not be done.

Mr McNulty: Again, if we had had a working Assembly for those five years, is it possible that we would now be looking at completion of the A5 project?

Mr Woods: I am not sure that I have anything that I could base that on.

Mr McNulty: OK. What is your view of the fact that the roads maintenance budget is allocated by section as opposed to by need?

Mr Woods: It is allocated by need in part. We look at a number of factors. We recognise the need for the structural integrity of a road to be protected. That is one of the primary things that we look at to decide which schemes progress. To be clear, though, there are more schemes that we would like to progress than we are ever able to progress. In that context, we are also mindful that all parts of the network need to be in an operable condition. We do not simply take the money and divide it by the number of section offices, nor do we spend all the money in one place simply because there is need there, because we know that there is need everywhere.

Mr McNulty: OK. Last week, the Mineral Products Association told the Committee that we could have had:

Setting aside the carbon-neutral piece, what proper procedures were not followed?

Mr Woods: I cannot ignore the existence of the High Court judgement, which sets out a number of ways in which the judge felt that the decision was not lawful. I am not clear exactly what was referred to in the evidence that the Committee received last week. The Department believes that the decision that it took was robust, evidence-based and lawful. That is part of the reason why the judgement is being appealed. However, you have to respect the judgement itself, which found that it was not. If that stands after the appeal, the Department will have to take account of that.

Mr McNulty: OK. I do not want to probe too strongly on that issue, because there is an ongoing court process.

I want to ask about the timelines for two projects. It is great to hear that the A1 is past pre-qualification and is going to tender. What are the implications of the A5 judgement on progress of the A1?

Mr Saulters: It has not gone to tender yet. We still have to issue the invitation to tender (ITT) documents. We are taking further advice on moving that scheme forward, in light of the A5 judgement.

Mr McNulty: So, further advice will be based on the A5 judgement.

Mr Woods: The Court of Appeal will set out what the law is in a way that, we hope, will change the High Court judgement. That is the logical definition of an appeal; that is what you want to happen. We need to see what the Court of Appeal says. Unfortunately, until we know the settled legal position and interpretation of the law as they apply to the project, it is difficult to know exactly what that means for other projects.

Mr McNulty: So, we are dealing with an unholy mess in roads construction based on DFI projects and the legal challenge, which is holding up progress on all major road projects.

Mr Woods: I would not use those words.

Mr McNulty: Is that the reality: that all major roads projects are being held up by the A5 judgement?

Mr Woods: All the projects are at very different stages in their life cycles. Some activities can proceed, and some development work is ongoing. We are not downing the pen on all the other projects.

Mr McNulty: If you cannot go to tender on the A1 project because you are waiting for a judgment on the A5, does that not hold up —

Mr Woods: The Minister has not decided not to go to tender. The decision on whether to proceed to tender is still ahead of us. We are still doing preparatory work, which includes considering scenarios for the outcome of the A5 appeal.

Mr McNulty: Is the delay in the decision to go for tender on the A1 based on the A5 scenario?

Mr Woods: There has been no delayed decision or non-decision to go to tender on the A1. We are just not at that stage of the process yet.

Mr McNulty: Where are we with the A1 now? If the pre-qualification has been done, why are we waiting to release the tender documents?

Mr Woods: We have an awful lot of work to do on the scheme. Jonathan might want to say a bit about what we are working on at the moment.

Mr Saulters: We are concluding work on the tender documents before they go out. We have still not concluded work on those. We also have a vesting order to make, so we are looking at that, how we can progress the whole scheme and what its timelines will be.

Mr McNulty: OK. I turn to two other projects: the A28 Armagh east link road and the A3 Armagh north and west link road. They are on a list of projects that have a never-never timeline. What do we say to the people in Armagh city who are waiting in and dying under those traffic conditions daily? They were promised those two link roads, yet the projects are on a never-never list.

Mr Saulters: Those two schemes will be considered in the rounds of the new regional transport plan. They will be taken on board there. Hopefully, they will be shortlisted. I am not sure what way they will progress. Hopefully, they will form part of the new regional transport plan, but, in developing that plan and deciding what schemes will go forward, we will weigh up all the priorities across the Province.

Mr Woods: About 30 schemes are on the paused list. It includes a wide range of schemes that have featured in various previous regional transport plans or local plans. The affordability constraint is the key thing. By the time that you look at the ring-fenced funding for Executive flagship and city and growth deal projects, there is not an awful lot of capital left for other projects. Only three other projects are progressing from a list of upwards of 30 projects that have been conceived of. Not all of those have been developed to a particular stage — some of them are simply conceptions — but no work has been taken forward on any of the rest of those projects.

Mr McNulty: OK. I appreciate that you are working in circumstances that are not your doing. This place having been down for five years is a major impediment to your progress. I know that you are trying hard to do your job, and I know that morale is the section offices is in a tough place because of the funding pressures. Well done, men. Thank you very much for your evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. Thank you, Justin. There are no other indications from members.

I have a final question for you. I turn to question 2 on the A5, which is, "When will construction commence?". I will not kill the Hansard staff by reading out a long paragraph, but a couple of very active phrases are used in your answer. Some things are "close to completion", and some things are "progressing well". When I read that paragraph, it seems clear to me that things are still happening with the A5. I can read out the whole paragraph if you want context. Are those things progressing at risk, because of the outstanding court judgement, which, I accept, the Department is going to appeal? Would you characterise any work that, you have said, is still happening on the A5 as being done at risk? Has the Minister given any indication about that?

Mr Woods: As the Minister has made public, progressing the scheme remains her intention. The appeal is the next step. Most of the work that we are doing is focused on preparing for the appeal and for the arguments that the Department hopes to set out there.

Other things are happening. The Committee will be aware that the Department continues to engage with landowners about the A5 scheme in order to come to an accommodation with them about what to do with the land as the appeal progresses. A range of stuff is still happening in that space. It is fair to say we would have expected to have been well into the construction phase by now, but, obviously, we are not. Therefore, a range of work that would have been happening is not happening. However, other sections of the scheme, such as the cross-border section and the section north of Strabane, continue to progress. Preparatory work continues in relation to both those sections of the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. I think that I am a little clearer. I will just read out a sentence and then ask a specific question on it. The answer states:

The phrase "close to completion" sounds as if they have not quite finished yet. Are archaeological and geotechnical investigations ongoing?

Mr Woods: I have no different information on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is OK. The second sentence states:

Is your work on site clearance, fencing, compounds and site mobilisation ongoing?

Mr Woods: No, I do not believe so. One of the effects of the judgement was that the vesting order no longer has effect, which means that it is not our land. The land reverted to the original landowners, so we are not able to do that. We are seeking to enter into licence agreements with landowners whereby we can continue to maintain some of the advance works in situ to avoid the cost of removing and potentially reinstating them, subject to the outcome of the appeal.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): OK. I understand that, Colin. I will just make the soft point that it reads very much as if — is the evidence from DFI?

Mr Woods: Is there a date on that evidence, Chair? The A5 position obviously changes a lot.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): I accept that.

The Committee Clerk: June 2025.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): It is from June 2025. OK.

Mr Woods: That was pre-judgement, I suspect, which explains the potential issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Martin): That is fine. Thank you very much. It is never easy to come before a Committee. Thank you for your time and your answers today.