Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I welcome from the Department for Infrastructure Ms Emer Morelli, the permanent secretary. I understand that Mr David Reid will join us when he arrives. I also welcome from the Department Ms Susan Anderson, acting deputy secretary for climate, planning and public transport; Mr Colin Sykes, acting deputy secretary for transport and road asset management (TRAM); and Mr Declan McGeown, deputy secretary for transformation. You are all very welcome.

I seek agreement from the Committee to have the session recorded by Hansard. Are members agreed?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Ms Morelli, I welcome you to the Committee and congratulate you on getting your new role. It appears that there is more than one newbie in the room today. We very much look forward to working with you during your tenure as permanent secretary and, indeed, throughout the lifetime of the Committee in this mandate. I invite you to make a brief opening statement, after which we will have questions from Committee members. Thank you very much for agreeing to come in slightly earlier. It is much appreciated.

Ms Emer Morelli (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you, Chair and Committee members. This is the first time that I have been able to address the Committee. I therefore welcome the invitation to speak to you all today.

As your opening comments reflected, Chair, this is a year of transition for the Department's senior leadership team. In December, Dr Denis McMahon retired as permanent secretary, following a long and distinguished career in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS), and Declan McGeown, who joins me today, then served as interim permanent secretary until my appointment to the Department in April of this year. I place on record my sincere appreciation to Denis and Declan for their leadership, commitment and professionalism during a very important period for the Department. I am also very pleased that Declan has remained with the Department and is now leading a number of new and important transformation work streams.

Alongside those changes, a number of important changes have been made to the senior leadership team. Colin Woods, who previously served as deputy secretary for transport and road asset management has moved to the Department of Finance and been succeeded by Colin Sykes, who joins us today. David Reid, who will join us when he arrives, has recently joined the Department from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), and he is undertaking the role of new deputy secretary for water and departmental delivery. Susan Anderson continues in her role as deputy secretary for climate, planning and public transport. I am delighted that all of us have the opportunity to appear before the Committee this morning.

You will all know that the Department plays a central in providing services across everyday life in Northern Ireland. Since I joined in April, I have seen at first hand the demanding portfolio of work that the Department undertakes to deliver those essential services while responding to significant financial, environmental and operational challenges. First and foremost, DFI is an extremely busy operational Department. It delivers crucial public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, often in the most challenging environments. I recognise that the Committee may wish to raise a number of issues today regarding the Department's performance.

Before turning to those matters, however, I will highlight some of the key areas in which the Department has delivered significant progress over the past year. On water and waste water, one area of sustained importance for the Department has been to find solutions to current capacity constraints in the waste water network. I fully appreciate the impact that waste water challenges are having on housing and economic growth here in particular, and that remains one of the Department's biggest challenges. During the year, the Minister set out her three-pronged approach, which is focused on obtaining increased Executive investment, the development of voluntary developer contributions and legislative change through the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. Working closely with key water stakeholders, the Department made significant progress on unlocking new waste water capacity through innovative localised solutions, but there is more to do. Northern Ireland Water (NIW) and the Utility Regulator are currently working through the price control 28 (PC28) process, which will determine the level of investment required by Northern Ireland Water up to 2033, and we are aware that our water network requires significant and sustained long-term funding. I welcome David Reid into the room.

I will turn now to extreme weather. Adverse weather had a significant impact on the Department's work during the year, with two named storms affecting Northern Ireland. As the lead Department for extreme weather response, DFI coordinated and prepared its response and recovery activities across government and partner organisations throughout those events. January of this year saw storm Chandra bring winds of up to 70 mph and was also recorded by the Met Office as being the wettest January in 149 years. In contrast, summer 2026 experienced a number of separate heatwaves, with temperatures reaching 30°C-plus. I pay particular tribute to the staff who worked outside day and night throughout those times in very challenging weather conditions. They are on the front line in bringing assistance in the worst of weather, leaving their families and ordinary day-to-day work to deliver public services for our people.

Those severe weather conditions also impacted on our road network, increasing the incidences of defects such as potholes, particularly on already stressed sections of infrastructure. Road safety is a key priority for the Department. Maintaining safe and resilient roads is essential for economic vitality and safety. Last December, in order to improve maintenance standards, the Department launched a consultation on a new road maintenance strategy, with the final strategy being launched in July of this year. It will help us deliver better-quality road maintenance that is timely and durable and will last longer. The strategy was also supported by a comprehensive digital survey of the road network, and the Department also launched a £10 million winter recovery fund to help mitigate the worst of the winter road defects.

As I said, road safety continues to be a key priority for the Department. Sadly, 56 people lost their lives on Northern Ireland's roads last year, and we already have had a significant number of fatalities this year. We continue to deliver interventions that are aimed at reducing the number of road fatalities and serious injuries. Those include the launch of the graduated driver licensing (GDL) scheme, which is the most significant reform of driver licensing and testing in 70 years; the expansion of 20 mph zones at schools; and progress on legislative measures to improve safety around schools and for pedestrians. Again, the major element of improving road safety is the upgrade of many of our roads.

The Department was disappointed with the outcome of the A5 ruling in June 2025, which has had a knock-on effect on other road projects, but we remain committed to the development of strategic road schemes, including the A5 and the A1 junction improvements, as those schemes remain hugely significant infrastructure projects, not least because of the road safety improvements that they will bring.

We have made progress on advancing active travel and the use of public transport, and 2025-26 saw the full opening of Belfast Grand Central station, a substantial increase in passenger numbers on the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service; the signing of the contract for eight new state-of-the-art Enterprise trains; exceptionally high public transport usage during the recent week-long fleadh; and continued development of a range of active travel schemes. In addition, the rail project prioritisation strategy was published, and it will support the long-term implementation of the all-island strategic rail review.

All of that is happening against the backdrop of significant financial challenges facing the Executive and the Department, owing to increasing demand and the cost of delivering public services. The latest position is that the Budget for 2026-27 has still not been agreed by the Executive. In the absence of an agreed Budget, the Department of Finance has provided the Department with contingency planning envelopes. Although the sums are lower than the proposed draft Budget allocations for the Department, they have allowed for continuity of vital services and further progression of the capital programme in the short term.

Finally, since joining the Department in April, I have been deeply impressed by the outstanding commitment, professionalism and dedication of all staff across DFI and its arm's-length bodies (ALBs). Time and time again, I have seen colleagues go above and beyond to deliver essential public services. The expertise of staff in the Department and the ALBs, their resilience and their strong public service ethos drive the changes that we need to see happen and also maintain the essential services that we are required to deliver today.

Chair, I do not want to delay the session any further, as I am sure that you and members will have questions for me and my senior team.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you, Ms Morelli, for your introductory remarks. You have highlighted clearly how public-facing and important the Department's role is in Northern Ireland. There is not a single MLA represented around this table who does not deal with aspects of the Department day and daily. Indeed, our constituents use your assets day and daily. I am clear that, although a lot of the problems predate your time in office, there are still significant issues pertaining to the Department. There are serious issues of accountability, and I have no doubt that members, in their own particular areas of interest, will have significant questions to ask.

If you do not mind, I will begin with the A5 road scheme. As accounting officer and departmental lead, can you tell the Committee in one sentence the precise position of the A5 litigation today? What decisions are we waiting for and what will happen immediately after the judgement?

Ms Morelli: You will be aware that the matter of the A5 is currently before the court and that we are awaiting the outcome of the appeal hearing from the judgement in June 2025. It is therefore not appropriate for me to comment in detail on that legal hearing or on what the outcome may or may not be. The Minister has, however, given her commitment that all contingency options will be considered once we have the detail of the judgement in front of us.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I respect that the legal aspect determines what you can and cannot talk about on the ongoing case. Do you have an indication of timescales in which we can expect to see the issue back before the court?

Ms Morelli: We cannot prejudge the timing of the court, but we expect and hope for a decision sometime in September, if possible.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): A lot of that is outside your control. I respect that, but what is within your control, based on your knowledge remit in the Department, is this: what is the total cost to the public purse of the A5 to date?

Ms Morelli: The total cost of the A5 — let me get you the precise figure — is £192·5 million. That includes £36·8 million for the 2025-26 year. The 2025-26 figure is, as yet, unaudited, however, and may therefore be subject to change.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Does that include current legal costs to date?

Ms Morelli: As I understand it, those are the full costs, but, we can clarify the figure for you if that is not correct.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): It is quite a staggering figure, I am sure that you will agree. Here we are, so many years later, and a road that has still not been built has, by your figures, incurred — albeit they may change, given the time frame from when they were last accounted for until now — close on £200 million of public money, if not more. I estimate that it will be a lot more, yet no road infrastructure has been built. Of that total, how much has been spent on consultations, consultants, contractors, legal proceedings and land in compensation respectively? Do you have a breakdown of the figures?

Ms Morelli: I can provide the breakdown to the Committee. I know that the cost to date includes scheme planning, design, development and, as you referred to, the ongoing legal challenges that have beset the scheme.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): It is close on £200 million, if not more, so do you, as permanent secretary and, ultimately, accounting officer, regard that as responsible stewardship of public money?

Ms Morelli: I am content that the value-for-money aspect of the spend to date has been supported by the various business cases that have been in place throughout the project. The delays that have led to construction price inflation, legal challenges and defending those legal challenges would not necessarily have been the most value-for-money way forward, but that is the democratic process that we had to work through. In my view, the costs incurred to date are not disproportionate when one looks at the length of the scheme and the work that has been undertaken to date. As you say, however, that will be the case until we have the road commenced. The retrospective lens, I am sure, will be on the full scheme in due course.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): It is ridiculous. The situation is widely criticised and ridiculed across the country. It is almost a dog's dinner. Some £200 million of public money has been spent, yet no road infrastructure has been built. That is a damning indictment of how the project has been handled. Has anyone in the Department been held accountable for any of the subsequent failures following the preparation of the application and all the different aspects of it?

Ms Morelli: All major works projects incur significant costs before works commence. Significant departmental preparation work has taken place that has incurred, as I said, the design, planning and development costs to date.

As for accountability and due process, due process has been followed. The business cases are in place. They demonstrate value for money. I cannot prejudge the outcome of the appeal and what it may find, but the Department will have to consider what the judgement states.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I am sure that you understand and respect the fact that, from a general public point of view, £200 million of public money has been spent yet no road infrastructure is in place is a considerable slight to the ability of the Department to deliver large road infrastructure projects.

Ms Morelli: I dispute that. The Department has a well-founded track record of delivering major projects and major road infrastructure projects. The A5 is an important economic corridor, and the scheme is important for safety. The Department remains committed to the A5 scheme, which is also an Executive commitment across the piece. We are doing everything that we can within the processes that the Department works to ensure that we deliver the best value for the money. I appreciate that the £200 million spent to date will be subject to further scrutiny, and it should be, as we move forward, but, as I stand here today as accounting officer, I am content with the spend that we have incurred to date.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You are content with a spend of over £200 million.

Ms Morelli: Given the processes that we have been through and our requirement to deliver the scheme, that is where I stand today. As I said, the judgement, when we have it, will have to be considered carefully as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): I respectfully disagree. I think that it is a huge point of public concern that such an amount of money has been spent. What engagement has there been? Are you aware of the considerable anger that there is, particularly among landowners along the A5 route? Hundreds of acres of land have been vested, reinstated, vested again and reinstated again. Landowners will probably have to go through the same process again. They have significant issues about their engagement with the Department on compensation. Are you aware to date of land that was vested and then returned with no compensation in place for those trying to make a living along that route?

Ms Morelli: I do not have the specific detail in front of me today about individuals, unless colleagues have.

Mr Colin Sykes (Department for Infrastructure): No, I do not have the overall details of the compensation issues at this stage.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You are aware of the anger, however.

Mr Sykes: Absolutely, Chair. I appreciate that, given the protracted nature of the scheme and the difficulties that we have encountered through the legal process, it is certainly not the position that the Department wants to be in when it comes to delivering that major piece of infrastructure. Unfortunately, however, we are in that legal process and need to follow it through to ensure that we can take the scheme forward in due course.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): The initial ruling in the current A5 case goes way beyond the A5 now. As you outlined in your opening remarks, that ruling has a knock-on impact on other major road infrastructure projects. You mentioned the A1 and the Enniskillen bypass, but there may well be more that are affected by the court ruling. Northern Ireland cannot be in a situation in which legislation that is intended to address climate change concerns in practice becomes a dead weight on the Department and on the delivery of roads and other infrastructure right across the country. What legislative changes does the Department therefore believe are necessary in order to make the law workable?

Ms Morelli: Given where we are at with the legal proceedings, it is not appropriate for me to comment on the current legal framework.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Has the Department provided the Minister or the Executive with specific proposals to amend section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 or any other relevant legislation?

Ms Morelli: Respectfully, Chair, you will be aware that that is a key point of clarification in the appeal. I cannot comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Have you presented the Minister with options, depending on the ultimate outcome of the court case?

Ms Morelli: Given that we do not know what the outcome of the court case will be, to do so would not be appropriate.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Is it fair to say, however, that the Department is preparing for all eventualities?

Ms Morelli: The Department is awaiting the outcome of the judgement and will consider it at that time.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK.

It has been announced that the Minister is going to undertake a forensic governance audit of NI Water because of what she described as the "scale, volume and severity" of concerns. Did you, as accounting officer, recommend that specific course of action? Yes or no?

Ms Morelli: As accounting officer, yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): You did. OK. For how long were you sufficiently concerned before recommending it?

Ms Morelli: As you have reflected, I, as accounting officer, have responsibilities under 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' ('MPMNI') and in my role as steward of the sponsor Department for NI Water. I have to be content that I have a full, clear line of sight into all my ALBs and organisations and that I am content that systems and processes are in place to provide the assurance that I, as accounting officer, require and that I can provide to you, as the Committee, to the Minister and to the Assembly.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): We respect you for that. The statement from the Minister refers to the:

You said earlier that you, as accounting officer, have confidence in all your ALBs. It is not a ringing endorsement of NI Water that we see such an audit taking place at such an early part in your tenure. Is that a fair comment?

Ms Morelli: No, not at all. The audit is being taken forward in partnership with Northern Ireland Water. Northern Ireland Water has faced a number of challenges. There are processes that it is working through, correctly and completely. My job is to stand back, look at all the issues across the piece, have a clear line of sight and take my assurance across the landscape. That is in no way to say that Northern Ireland Water has not followed its processes correctly. It has had a number of challenges across a number of years. Coming into post as I am, I want to be absolutely content that we are on a stable platform across the piece. That is a key priority for me. As accounting officer, I feel that I am entitled to the information that I seek, and I am entitled to have a clear line of sight across the piece. I am sure that all the information is there. All that I am asking for is a clear landscape to work on.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): When the Committee, those who are interested and elected officials hear about, the "scale, volume and severity" of concerns, it flashes a red light on NI Water's governance arrangements. Over the summer, we heard about one of the finance directors leaving post, and we have been hearing of ongoing trouble within the organisation. What are the "concerns", specifically? The Committee and other MLAs have a right to know.

Ms Morelli: "Concerns" is perhaps a strong word at this stage. As you have set out, there are a number of strands of investigations and a number of issues, all of which are in the public domain. Processes are followed between us and NI Water. One of them is mainly around the assurance that is provided to me as the accounting officer. That assurance is provided in a certain way. That is fine, and we will work with NI Water in that way. I just want to ensure that I have a clear line of sight and that, if there are any issues that are not yet addressed or known, we are all aware of them, or that, if there are any gaps in the processes, the Department can help. It is a partnership approach. The Department has responsibility as well. We have to make sure that we are working fully and transparently together in a very open way.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): With respect, permanent secretary, you said that "concerns" is a strong word in this instance. That was not my word but the word used by the Minister in her written statement. She talked about the:

That concerns me greatly. Some £500 million — half a billion pounds — of public money is spent on NI Water. We are aware of the concerns. We have a right to know what those concerns are. It is not appropriate to say that the use of the word "concerns" is outlandish when the Minister herself has used it. What were the specific concerns that triggered a governance audit of NI Water?

Ms Morelli: With respect, I do not think that I said that the concerns were "outlandish". There are various elements involved: HR matters; issues concerning a clear line of sight of contract procurements; and issues concerning general whistle-blowing. All of those are being investigated properly by NI Water. As you say, however, in that landscape of review, as accounting officer, I am entitled to understand the full picture and where it sits. The audit is just to give me, as accounting officer, and the Committee and the Assembly, clear assurance across the piece. When I say that "concerns" is a strong word, I mean that it is not necessarily concern about a specific issue. Significant and serious issues have been addressed by NI Water. The audit is to ensure that the full picture is available. I can reflect on my experience in the Senior Civil Service (SCS). Accounting officers are required to step back and look at all aspects and facets of an organisation in order to get the assurance that we need. The audit — it is an audit, not an investigation — is just to make sure that the systems, processes, compliance and transparency are being correctly applied and are in place.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Would you say that you, as permanent secretary and accounting officer, have full confidence and faith in the leadership of NI Water and its governance as things stands?

Ms Morelli: Yes. As I said, the audit is being done in partnership with NI Water to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): If the audit identifies significant governance failures, what consequences should the Committee expect to see?

Ms Morelli: Again, not to prejudge any outcome of the audit, but the options that will be available at that stage are well set out and listed. They will, however, be proportionate, if anything is found to be out of place.

It may not be. This is my sixth month in the role. I am doing this review and work early, I suppose, with all the areas that I am responsible for to make sure that I am sighted and to provide assurance to the Minister, the Executive, you and the Assembly that we are working in partnership but in a clear and transparent way.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): How quickly should the Committee expect to see the terms of reference published?

Ms Morelli: The Minister has given a commitment that they will be available very quickly, so, in September.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): So, very quickly: is that imminent, given that you have talked about it being a quick audit?

Ms Morelli: Yes, it is.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): So, can the Committee expect to see those next week?

Ms Morelli: That would be the Minister's intention.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK.

Ms Morelli: Not intention, sorry, but decision.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Decision, OK. As accounting officer, would you recommend getting those out the door as quickly as possible?

Ms Morelli: Yes. We are working to finalise them now. As I say, it will be the Minister's decision as to when they are released.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): On another topic, the Minister is in court regarding Irish signage at Grand Central station. Has the Minister been informed by officials or by you that the decision to impose Irish-language signs at Grand Central station would in fact place the Department and the Executive in breach of EU law — something which the Minister's party has been keen to see upheld?

Ms Morelli: Again, given the ongoing legal proceedings, it is not appropriate for me to comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Is that a yes or a no? Have you been informing the Minister on particular positions?

Ms Morelli: With ongoing legal proceedings, I cannot give an answer to that question today.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): In the light of how the case has developed, is the Department giving consideration to conceding the issue rather than continuing to waste further taxpayers' money on court resources trying to fight it?

Ms Morelli: Again —.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): No decision has been taken?

Ms Morelli: No. Given the ongoing legal proceedings, it is not appropriate for me to comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Finally, I am not asking about the legal advice between the Minister and advisers or the Department because it is clearly privileged. I am asking in respect of advice given by departmental officials to the Minister. Has the Minister been given any advice not to proceed with the decision?

Ms Morelli: I am not clear, sorry.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Have you as accounting officer, permanent secretary, advised the Minister not to proceed with the current case?

Ms Morelli: The case that is before the courts?

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Yes, but to concede.

Ms Morelli: That would be —. It is not within —. I cannot comment.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Have you provided any advice to the Minister in that regard?

Ms Morelli: Given the ongoing legal proceedings, I cannot comment on that at this time.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you. Finally from me, permanent secretary, one of the major issues affecting us all is public road maintenance. It is a huge matter of concern. As we go towards the winter months, we all know the state that our roads are in. Considerable work has been carried out across the country, and I respect and understand that, but there are still significant gaps compared with where we want our built road infrastructure to be and where it currently sits.

One of the biggest concerns — indeed, it is one that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has highlighted — is that over 50,000 utility road openings and reinstatements occurred in DFI, which is astonishing. There is nothing more frustrating to a constituent than to see a piece of road being opened up by utility companies within months of it being retarred. That is happening in Hillsborough, where a road was recently retarred: a utility company is digging it up today to lay other works. You will agree that that is totally unacceptable. Is the Department able to get a grip on that issue, given the significance of the findings by the Public Accounts Committee?

Ms Morelli: We take the findings of the Public Accounts Committee seriously. An enhanced oversight role for the Department regarding utilities and where they are opening is something of which we are seized. In fact, we are setting up that work now. The main issue that we are also looking at is ensuring that the quality of work by the utilities is to standard and that we are able to impose sanctions, where we have the power to do so.

Mr Sykes: Road openings by utility companies are essential for economic well-being. Everybody needs their broadband or water connection. Overall, the Department's role is coordinating and managing that process as much as possible. We went into a lot of detail at the Public Accounts Committee on some of the issues that are caused by road openings and how those impact on the overall condition of the road network. As a result, we have a plan to address the recommendations from that Committee and do what we can to strengthen the framework, improve the quality of reinstatements and ensure that we do as much as we can to manage utility reinstatements across the network. As you have highlighted, however, there is a significant number of them, and it is a large piece of work that we need to take on.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): The numbers are scandalous, but nothing angers people more than seeing good money being thrown after bad. No matter how intricate the work is and how sensible and respectful the utility companies are, nobody will be convinced that they will ever restore the road to the standard of one that has just been laid by the Department and its contractors. Reinstatement significantly reduces the lifetime of a road. We have seen instances of bubble ups and blow outs in periods of difficult weather in Northern Ireland. I am not convinced that DFI has finally got a grip on the issue, and I want to see it do so, including its having the potential to impose penalties on utility companies that rip up public roads and do not consult with the Department to ensure that there is a strategic approach to laying utilities and roads in communities to ensure that we do not throw good money after bad. Does that happen? Can you reassure the Committee?

Mr Sykes: That is the work that we are now taking through. A number of recommendations were made as a result of the audit, and we have a plan in place to address all the actions as we move forward. A large part of that is about understanding the impact of road openings on the network, looking at how we improve the quality of work, potentially extending the warranty periods for utilities and looking at the Department's overall ability to manage more coherently the utility work that has to be carried out on the road network. Ultimately, a lot of the work is essential, as I said. It supports the country's overall economy, but we have to ensure that we take it seriously and get the best result from utilities.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): OK. Thank you. Sinéad may have to leave early, so I will take her questions first.

Ms Ennis: I appreciate that, Chair. I was not intending to speak about the A5, but I feel compelled to do so. It is totally disrespectful and crass to mention the A5 and not talk about it in terms of the almost 60 people who have been killed on it since 2006. That has to be the driving force behind conversations about the A5. We talk about the costs being incurred due to delays, but the delays are caused by people who do not want to see that vital, life-saving piece of road infrastructure upgraded and built and who have mounted legal challenges. Those people are to blame for the rising costs of the A5. That point is important to make.

When it comes to wasting money on pointless legal challenges, Chair, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. The Minister has invested heavily — tens of millions of pounds — in waste water infrastructure to facilitate the building of new homes. Approximately 400 new homes were facilitated in the Newry area and in Derry as a result of the Minister's investment in waste water infrastructure. Will you give us a wee bit more information on that? Are there plans to unlock homes in other areas, notwithstanding the challenges with that?

Chair, I will rattle through my questions because I am tight for time.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Go on.

Ms Ennis: Following on from the Chair's question on the road network, back in July, the Minister announced plans to make roads fit for the 21st century — I think that is the phrase that she coined. Again, significant funding is going in to achieve that, which we can all agree is needed, especially as we head into winter. If we could get some more meat on the bones and more detail on that, it would be helpful.

The A1 junction scheme is also pertinent to those of us whose constituencies it runs through. That, too, is long overdue and should have been built before now. Again, I would really appreciate an update on that.

Lastly, before you came in, the Committee decided to extend its Committee Stage on the Harbours Bill. Hopefully, we will not need to take the time that we have extended it to, but will you give us your thoughts on what the implications of not getting that done on time would be for ports such as Belfast, Warrenpoint and Foyle?

Thank you, Chair.

Ms Morelli: I will take the questions in reverse, if that is OK.

Ms Ennis: Yes.

Ms Morelli: Thank you. A key element of the Harbours Bill is the classification of harbours, as well as the change in the governance arrangements. Given the broader financial context in which the Department is operating, in which we are making sure that every pound that we have is targeted where it will have the biggest impact, any opportunity for any of our organisations or connected structures to access further money is key. From a number of perspectives, therefore, we would be keen that the Bill should pass in this mandate to allow the conversations with respect to classification to happen, with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in particular. We engage closely with our colleagues across the harbours. The Department is not directly responsible for them, but we have an oversight role. It is a priority that the Bill moves forward in this mandate, should the Committee be minded to take it through.

I know that the A1 scheme has been progressed in part, but do you want to come in on that, Colin?

Mr Sykes: As you said, the A1 is a vital scheme for us. It sits on the strategic eastern corridor and is a vital link between Belfast and Dublin. At this stage, as with our overall major works programme, we are awaiting the outcome of the A5 judgement before we can move forward on that scheme, but the Minister is certainly committed to delivering what we need to deliver on the A1, and, as soon as we are able to, we will take that scheme forward at pace.

Ms Morelli: On your question of waste water infrastructure, that is a key priority for the Minister but also for housing and wider economic development. The Minister's progress has, to date, unlocked 5,300 home schemes. That is an area in which transformation and, in particular, innovation are key. We know what we are facing with our colleagues in NI Water as we go through the price control 28 (PC28) discussions. Given the financial constraints that the Executive and this Department face, we are mindful of looking at how we can help strategically and, as I said, at how we can put money where it will have the greatest impact.

Declan is leading on work around transformation and innovation in the Department. Maybe you would like to tell it from that point of view, Declan.

Mr Declan McGeown (Department for Infrastructure): Thanks, Emer. Sinéad, this has its roots in 2024 or so. You will know, as Emer rightly said, that there is a commitment, in the Programme for Government, to build more social and affordable housing. Our previous Minister, Minister O'Dowd, and our current Minister, Minister Kimmins, have been keen that we look at that and at how we could unlock the constraints on housing in Northern Ireland. I was asked to chair a group that included the Utility Regulator, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and Northern Ireland Water to look at how we might do that. That gave rise to two areas that we could target in Northern Ireland. We were able to get funding, through the Minister, that allowed us to unlock 5,300 new homes in the Derry area and then more widely across the region.

Alongside that is the Newry project that you mentioned. That goes back, way beyond our current Minister, to 2024, when the chief executive of Northern Ireland Water and I were looking at how we could be more innovative. We thought that we should look forward with a kind of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) way of thinking about how we could take water out of the system at key times. Using innovation, Northern Ireland Water developed a scheme in the Newry area that looked at diverting water at key times, working with traders in the area and using technology to look at when the water was at its peak in certain areas. That has unlocked 400 houses as well as the potential to build a civic centre and a factory. That started in 2024, under Minister O'Dowd, but it has continued through and was announced with Northern Ireland Water colleagues last year.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Does that conclude your questions, Sinéad? Are you happy with that?

Ms Ennis: Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Chair.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, folks, for coming in again. It is good to see all of you — we have seen some of you before in the same seats and same roles. I thank Colin Woods — I want to put that on record — for the work that he has done. I worked with him quite closely on a number of TRAM projects. Thank you for that.

I just want to comment on a couple of points. The A5 has been mentioned a number of times. Obviously, the cost to date is staggering, and, at £192·5 million, it is around £50 million more than I thought. Is that correct? [Inaudible.]

Mr Dunne: Yes, as you had mentioned. There is obviously considerable concern about that. Has the penny dropped at official level about the impact of climate targets — some would say unrealistic climate targets — specifically on major road projects?

Ms Morelli: Again, we await the judgement, which will clarify any issues. It is not appropriate for me to comment.

Mr Dunne: OK. We have seen that other countries and jurisdictions — the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, for example — have considered that. They are looking at adapting their targets to make them fit with major road projects. Both of those are examples of nearby countries that have looked at that. I suppose that I am keen to establish whether there is a plan B. Obviously, I appreciate the legal position that we are in. We all recognise that. However, it is important that, whatever the outcome is — we hope that, for everybody's sake, across Northern Ireland and beyond, it is soon. I am just keen to establish that. When it comes to impact, the penny does not seem to have dropped at ministerial level. What work has been done around a potential plan B or plan C, regardless of the outcome of the legal situation?

Ms Morelli: The Department appealed the findings in June. Until we have clarification on that appeal, that remains the Department's position.

Mr Dunne: OK.

I understand that, within the past year, a considerable amount of upgrading work has been done along the A5 route. Is that part of the plan B approach?

Ms Morelli: I will defer to Colin. However, as members have already mentioned, the safety of the road is paramount here. As I understand it, work that has been done has been in respect of public safety.

Mr Sykes: It is, yes. To be clear: the Minister and Department are still committed to delivery of the A5 scheme. The work that is being done around some of the route interventions and targeted safety measures are primarily there for that reason: to provide specific safety interventions until we are in the position to deliver the overall A5 scheme.

Mr Dunne: Obviously, as mentioned, there is still confusion — I think that "confusion" is a fair word — for landowners, particularly along that stretch. There has been the vesting of land — oftentimes, very active farming land — from them and given to the Department. Hedges and fences were torn down, preparation work had begun and now it is being returned to landowners. I am sure that you see, know and feel the sense of frustration and confusion among landowners. We all want to see the road improved. Hopefully, we can get to that place.

I will move on to the road maintenance issue. We are now at the anniversary — it is over 11 years — of a limited maintenance service from the Department. It is fair to say, as some do, that it has been a very limited service in some places. I am keen to establish whether we will ever get beyond that limited service on road maintenance.

Ms Morelli: To give a commitment, the Minister has prioritised road maintenance in this period of the mandate. We have undertaken a number of recruitment campaigns for industrial workers. There have been other opportunities to bring in apprenticeships and other staff. I think, even today, we are launching another recruitment to build sustainability within the group of staff that is delivering that important service.

Mr Sykes: Absolutely. As you said, we have a legacy of over a decade of underinvestment in road maintenance. That has certainly built up a large backlog of defects across the road network. To answer your question about whether we will continue with that limited service: the idea is that the new maintenance strategy will try to reset that position to some extent. The key issue around road maintenance is always the available funding. However, there are other things that we can do, and that is why the road maintenance strategy has been published. It looks at new approaches to the way in which we manage and maintain the network. We want to take a more proactive approach, with more preventative maintenance, using the technology that is now available to enable us to be more targeted in maintaining the network. We want to be able to use the funding that we get in the best possible way, to do as much as we can as regards the overall maintenance of the network. We have, essentially, changed our approach to road maintenance.

Mr Dunne: I welcome the final version of the road maintenance strategy, which was an improvement on the draft strategy. It recognised the adverse impact of street works and utilities, which is something that we have been pushing on. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I know that you have spoken to that Committee, Colin, about the work that is going on. I am keen to see how the digital mapping project is going. Has that been completed?

Mr Sykes: We have completed a digital survey of the entire network and we are finalising the results of that survey. There is a lot of analysis involved in that, but it will give us a complete picture of the condition of all 26,000 kilometres of the road network. That information is being validated, and we will soon have it available to allow us to carry out the life-cycle and preventative maintenance analysis that we need in order to inform future structural maintenance programmes and how we deliver routine maintenance.

Mr Dunne: The proof will be in the pudding. I welcome the more strategic approach, which I have seen locally. When section offices have the resources, they can do a good job by carrying out more large-scale patching and properly resurfacing larger areas. There was huge frustration last winter in particular, when there was a pothole crisis. Hopefully, that work can continue.

The living with water project in Belfast was paused relatively recently. That is a significant issue for the greater Belfast area in particular. Has there been any progress on that since some of you were last in this room?

Mr McGeown: It was not paused per se. We agreed that it would be treated as "business as usual" in Northern Ireland Water's planning portfolio. The funding is not there to fully develop the waste water treatment works in Belfast, so Northern Ireland Water agreed to target maintenance of the works to ensure that they are at an acceptable standard to maintain the service that Northern Ireland Water is currently providing. That is where we are still, and work to update and upgrade the waste water treatment works will be subject to additional funding being made available.

Mr Dunne: I appreciate that, as I appreciate the small-scale, relatively localised approaches in Newry and Londonderry, which are positive. The quantity of new homes that are being unlocked, amounting to 5,300, is modest, given the scale of the challenges that we have across Northern Ireland. I feel that there is room for major improvement, particularly given the knock-on impact on housing and so many other things that you have touched on, Emer. I presume that looking at that again is high on your agenda.

Mr McGeown: It is worth saying, Stephen, that the target in PC21 was for 4,500 properties to be unlocked, so we exceeded that. That is a good news story, but as you know —.

Mr Dunne: There is a crisis.

Mr McGeown: Yes, absolutely. There is a list of areas that we want to target. If the funding becomes available, we will build on the work that we have done.

Mr Dunne: The Wastewater Infrastructure Group hosted a recent event entitled 'The Cost of Doing Nothing', at which it launched a report highlighting the cost of inaction and so on. The Institute of Directors published a similar report relatively recently. You know what the issues are and the seriousness of the situation.

My final question is about public transport. We heard recently from Translink officials who spoke about their concerns about the potential impact of cuts. I am starting to see that coming through. This morning, a constituent of mine raised the issue of the 10.00 pm curfews and so on and their impact on vulnerable people and many others across Northern Ireland. I am keen to see where we are with the Translink situation and the impact on services.

Ms Morelli: The constrained budgetary and financial position that we are all working in means that we have to make the best use of the funding that is available. Where we can provide additional funding, we will try to secure that. I will bring Susan Anderson in to explain the latest on the Translink situation.

Ms Susan Anderson (Department for Infrastructure): We have been working quite closely with Translink. I appreciate that when Translink was here previously, it was at an earlier stage in the process, and we have been working with it to appreciate and understand the pressures that it is experiencing and the potential impact on public transport. As Emer said, we are focusing on the funding that we can give it in the absence of the Budget. We are looking at other options and at our ability to release additional cash to Translink in accordance with ‘Managing Public Money'. We are in the process of doing that, which will help its cash flow situation in the short term.

You are probably aware that Translink has issued a consultation on some options that it is looking at. The consultation launched in July and will run for a 12-week period to the end of September. At this stage, they are just options, and none of them has been implemented. The consultation is to get views for Translink to consider in the normal way before deciding what action may be needed. Having an agreed Budget at that stage will give more certainty around the funding for Translink this year. The impact, for example, of the increased passenger numbers during the Fleadh will have helped Translink's position, which will not have been the case when it was here previously.

Mr Dunne: Thank you.

Mr Boylan: You are very welcome, and it is good to see you again, Emer. Good luck in your new role.

I have listened to some of the questioning, and I would not deny any member the opportunity to ask a question. However, given that there is a live case, the Committee needs to look at its future approach to that. I have lost a loved one on the road, and there is no monetary value in that. People are entitled to ask questions, but we know that a live case is ongoing. Fair play to you for answering the questions on that. That is my personal view.

On the NIW issue, we have tried the three-pronged approach. There were complaints about that and rightly so. People are entitled to scrutiny. We are now to have an audit, and I believe in the audit process. In the past, I have had the odd ding-dong with Declan because I challenged the Utility Regulator. I welcome the audit, and we will see what comes out of that. I will have a conversation with the other members after the session to see how the Committee wants to go forward. I welcome your response to those two points.

I want to raise two points. I have a personal interest in planning, having been at it for nearly 20 years. We have introduced validation checklists and other things to try to make progress on and improve planning. I am mindful that there are six months left in the mandate and that the Department will continue with the planning improvement programme. Where are we with the programme on working with councils to address some of the matters? No matter what we do, there are issues every day. It is a two-tier system, and the council has a responsibility, but what progress has there been with the overall programme?

Ms Morelli: We are making progress. I may turn to Susan for some of the detail, but I know some of the basic facts and figures. We have had a 78% response rate to our planning consultation. Susan, do you want to give the detail?

Ms Anderson: We continue to engage closely with local government on the planning improvement programme. There have been quite a few successful engagement pieces in conjunction with local government, including engagement with elected members and planning committees. We engaged a lot there to understand and share experiences. We have also looked at best practice arrangements between planning authorities, namely us, council officials and elected members. As Emer said, we have engaged in the statutory consultation process, and the response rate is now up to 78%. We are also looking at financial sustainability in the planning system and potential planning fees.

Members will be aware of the transformation project to appoint independent inspectors to deliver and report work, and that programme has progressed well, to the extent that we hope to be able to allocate work to the people appointed in quarter 2 of this year. That is progressing well, and it will help.

On the performance of the planning system, we know that the statistics have improved. However, the statistics are only one indication, and we also want to make sure that, as well as improving the timelines, we are giving quality decisions that have been properly scrutinised. They are increasingly technical, which takes a bit more time.

Mr Boylan: I will keep an eye on that. I do not know how many weeks it took us to get the Planning Bill introduced.

The other issue of keen interest is road safety. We have made some progress, especially around the 20 mph zones. Where are we on the delivery of that? Obviously, there are budgetary challenges, and priorities have been set, but where are we on the road safety stuff?

Ms Morelli: It is a key priority area for the Minister and the Department, and it has been prioritised as such. There are a number of elements ongoing with road safety. You mentioned the 20 mph zones. There is also a lot of work going into education and behavioural change and engaging with schools in particular around that, as well as the legislation changes that we are trying to bring in and are working with the Committee on.

Ms Anderson: It is all linked with the overarching road safety strategy. We have a detailed action plan. I chair a forum on road safety that brings together all the relevant parties that have an interest in road safety to ensure that we are working together to try to get the message out about road safety.

Behavioural change is a key issue. We are working on that as well as on the legislative changes. We have an enhanced advertising campaign on road safety and graduated driver licensing (GDL), which was released recently. Two weeks ago, at the start of the preschool academic year, we released the safer journeys to school advertising campaign.

Mr Harvey: I welcome the permanent secretary, Ms Morelli, and her team. We have had a good bit of conversation on the A5 and A1 schemes, but I will ask about the Ballynahinch bypass. Have we done all that we can to progress that scheme? When we get a green light, are we pretty much ready to go? I know that other projects are pending in the area.

Ms Morelli: Thank you very much. The Minister is committed to the scheme. All our statutory processes are largely complete, and the direction order was issued in July 2021. Colin, do you have any more detail on that?

Mr Sykes: In light of the A5 case, all the schemes are impacted by that potential judgement, but we have taken the Ballynahinch bypass as far as we can in the overall process. As Emer said, the Minister is committed to its delivery, but we will need to look at how we sequence that, alongside the remainder of our major works programme going forward, to ensure that we can deliver a pipeline of schemes as we move forward.

Mr Harvey: I understand that. Thank you for your update. While we are on the subject of roads, what have we learned from last winter? It was particularly bad, especially from the end of November into December and January. Has the Department learned from the condition of the roads at that stage? Could we do our repairs earlier, when tar is warmer and the days are longer? Last year, there were a lot of factors — not excuses but reasons — including the roads being wet, frost and so on.

Ms Morelli: We have adopted and taken forward various short-term measures. It speaks to that wider piece around climate change and a sustainable road network going forward. We have had a conversation today about short-term fixes, but it is about making sure that we can look to transformation and a longer-term approach to sustainability. Colin will provide precise details.

Mr Sykes: It is about the resilience of the road network. We are seeing changes in the climate. The winters are wetter, and, at times, there is more severe weather. We need to ensure that we take appropriate steps to develop the road network. We are developing a resilient road network plan. That will set out exactly how we propose to build resilience into the road network.

Regarding the specifics on winter preparedness, we are doing a number of things on the back of the large increase in potholes last year. One of those is around drainage in the network. Clearly, water is getting into those defects and creating the issues. Increased funding has been put against our road drainage systems to enable us to clean the gullies and clear the drainage lines. As I said, there is additional money for patching to give us better-quality patching as we go forward. We always try to do the larger pieces of structural maintenance work during the summer months when we have more time and the weather is better. Doing it that way helps us as we move into the winter. That will be an ongoing issue as we have to adapt in order to manage the changing conditions in the climate overall.

Mr Harvey: On the subject of the rail network, I was just reading that they are reopening the Antrim to Lisburn line, with a link to Belfast International Airport. That will help all counties. The report was published in December 2025, but what is your thinking on that?

Ms Morelli: You referred to the all-island strategic rail review. That work is in front of us. All such issues will be subject to local decisions, the wider context that we are in at a given time and the budget.

Ms Anderson: Yes. That is pretty much where we are at the moment. We are focusing on the governance arrangements for the all-island strategic rail review. We have done feasibility studies already, and it will be about how we take those forward, working on the governance model with the South, particularly where Shared Island funding is in place.

Mr Harvey: I think that everyone would agree that a link to the airport, connecting all counties, would be better for everyone.

I have another wee question on the subject of rail. I saw a comment about the electrification of the line from Belfast to the border and restoring the line from Portadown to Londonderry. At present, what is the percentage of diesel versus electric locomotives? Do you know?

Ms Morelli: No.

Ms Anderson: At the moment, none of them is electric.

Mr Harvey: None of them.

Ms Anderson: As the new fleet is brought on, the train sets are being set up —.

Mr Boylan: They go up to Derry, by the way. They miss out Londonderry and go on to Derry.

Mr Harvey: Is the reason for changing to electric that it will be more economical?

Ms Anderson: There is a range of factors. Clearly, the electrification of the railway line will be expensive, but, once in place, it is expected that it will be more economical to run and more environmentally friendly.

Mr Harvey: I will finish on water. I have seen that there are flood alleviation schemes for Newry and Portadown. Where is Downpatrick on your list at present?

Mr David Reid (Department for Infrastructure): We are aiming to submit a business case to the Department of Finance. An outline business case (OBC) should be submitted in the autumn, so that is fairly imminent. The intention is then to commence design work on a flood alleviation scheme for Downpatrick towards the end of this calendar year or the start of the next calendar year. Beyond that, time frames will be subject to available funding, business case processes and everything else, but the process is being taken forward.

Mr Harvey: If I needed a title for my questions today, it would have been 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles'. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: Fair play, Harry. That's excellent, boy.

Mr McMurray: Thank you very much. Harry has just asked the question that was pretty much on the tip of my tongue — the one about Downpatrick. Could Harry or I be kept updated on that? The flood alleviation scheme has been a source of consternation in Downpatrick. It was disconcerting to see that it was not in the document, but it is reassuring to know that it is part of your plans.

On that subject, but keeping in mind the climate change element, the flood forecasting centre does not seem to be progressing as quickly as we would have liked. I also made a note about the digital road map for rivers, for which the situation is similar. How can that affect flood predictions? Where are we with the forecasting centre, and how could that digital road map be used?

Mr Reid: I might need to come back to you on the digital road map.

The OBC for the flood forecasting service is moving towards completion. It is worth pointing out that the flood forecasting service is a fairly complex undertaking that will take some time to deliver. It will involve a huge amount of data, hydrometrics, infrastructure, modelling, digital systems, operations, staff and everything else. There will be a lot to get right to make sure that it works.

Current cost estimates are in the region of £37 million. We think that it could take up to 10 years to deliver, but it is progressing. At this stage, we hope to finalise the business case for it fairly soon.

Mr McMurray: I take it that that will not be expedited in any way, given the more extreme weather that we are seeing. I was at a climate change conference in this Building, and south Down got three lemons on the one-arm bandit, given the measurement of wind at Killowen, the rain at Katesbridge and the flooding that we have seen. How much of a priority is that service and climate change for the Department?

Ms Morelli: It is a key area and a key priority. While it may take up to 10 years to fully deliver, there will be delivery milestones within those 10 years. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. There will be progress made. There will be a phased approach to manage affordability and to be agile and responsive enough should new technologies and solutions come forward over that period. As David said, the OBC will go through, but there will be progress quite soon on that.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. Sometimes, at this stage of the questioning, it is difficult to find new ground as such, so you will forgive me.

As Mr Sykes is sitting here, I have a question for him on the road maintenance strategy. The green colour coding for road maintenance will jar with a lot of constituents, given, as Mr Dunne referenced, the lived experience, if that makes sense. Can you elaborate on what the Department is doing to address the funding issue? You mentioned being more strategic and more innovative, so will the same amount of funding lead to improvements, or will more funding be required? What is being done by the Department to achieve that? As well as that, what tangible measurements do you guys plan to put in place to see whether the funding is making a tangible difference and leading to improvements not only on the ground but empirically? Will you elaborate on that, please?

Mr Sykes: There are two elements to the funding. The road maintenance strategy looks to change the approach. That means using the likes of digital information to develop life-cycle modelling of the road network. That will allow us to be much more targeted in how we spend whatever funding we get. Equally, that life-cycle assessment allows us to predict how future funding will impact on the road network. We will therefore have a very clear picture of how additional funding will help to improve the network or how a lack of funding will impact on its deterioration. It gives us a much better understanding of how the funding model should look going forward. In the very early days, it is about using the funding that we get as best we can, with targeted interventions and that sort of thing.

As for understanding whether the approach is successful, yes, we will monitor it. We now have a complete digital picture of the network's baseline condition. The plan is to do that again on a cyclical basis. We may not have to do a survey of the entire network, but we will be able to survey elements of it to understand how the condition of the network is changing, subject to how we are taking forward the various maintenance strands. That will give us metrics on exactly how it is developing. It will also help to inform us on whether the strategy needs to change. We still measure our performance stats by our responsiveness to various stages of defects. We will still have that. There is a range of metrics that will help us to monitor the delivery of the strategy.

Mr McMurray: How regularly will you do that, if that is a fair question to ask? When it comes to the practicalities — like, I am sure, others here, I go out and meet DFI Roads officials who are very good, very approachable and very helpful — will it lead to practical changes on the ground? The classic example is that a severe pothole gets fixed and a not-so-severe one gets left. However, it then becomes severe, and we get complaints from people saying, "They fixed that one, but they left that one". Sorry for being micro level, but will that work lead to practical changes on the ground in how these things are approached?

Mr Sykes: Yes. There are various strands to the maintenance strategy, one of which is about the quality of the repairs that we do. Where we intervene, the intention is to do larger, better-quality patching. All the information will be available to front-line staff on their screens at a granular level to enable them to see exactly what is happening on the network. They will then be able to make decisions on whether something needs a targeted intervention and where preventative maintenance would be the appropriate way forward. Instead of fixing small elements of the network, we might fix a larger stretch, which would give us a better, longer improved patch in a certain area. All that detail comes together, from the strategic level of the overall life-cycle modelling right down to the ground, where staff are able to use the same data to deliver the service.

We are considering how often road condition information surveys need to be done. A full digital survey of the network is quite an undertaking, and we do not necessarily need to do that every year on every road. The condition of some roads does not materially change from one year to the next. We are also looking at how we target that work to ensure that we have the most up-to-date data on the network in the areas where we need it.

Mr McMurray: Thank you. I have one more topic, Chair, if that is OK: NI Water. We have touched on specific areas. You mentioned helping it strategically. We all know that NI Water and waste water infrastructure are under huge stress — cracking under the pressure, or whatever. Cathal has touched on this, but it would be remiss of me not to ask whether we are going to stick with the same three prongs. You talk about helping NI Water strategically. Will that mean continuing the strategy and sticking with the three prongs, Ms Morelli, or will we now see a different strategy, a different prong and a different approach? What can we expect?

Ms Morelli: The three-pronged approach is the Minister and her Department's approach to these issues. There is something that we can expect to be slightly different. The Department for Infrastructure helps all other Departments to deliver their statutory functions and duties but is all too often taken for granted. Given that we are the Department that does that work for everyone else, we now need to be front and centre as the enabler and be recognised as such. That should be prioritised through the Executive, the Budget and our funding. It is incumbent on the Department and on me in my new role to make sure that everyone understands the importance of infrastructure. We see it in our daily lives. We have all touched on how it can be very local; it is also very strategic. Infrastructure is at the centre of economic and social growth, and that is the path that we are on.

The Minister and the Department have been fortunate in having the opportunity to pilot new ways of working and new schemes and in having opportunities for innovation and transformation. It is a Department with professional engineers: people who know what they are doing and how to do it in the best and most effective way. With that culture of change, transformation and delivery, the three prongs remain our key framework and basis, but, within them, we will do all that we can to drive forward. I am not sitting here naively thinking that that will bring all the funding that we need, however. We know the huge pressures facing our roads, NI Water and Translink, and we have touched on them all today. It is about recognition of how important all of those aspects of the work of the Department are. I know that the Committee shares our frustrations when things do not work to the absolute maximum. That is a key part of the transformation agenda that we are engaged in.

Mr McGeown: I echo everything that Emer said. As a Department, we want to make sure that we have aligned all our functions in the best way possible so as to maximise our impact and, importantly, to align better with other Departments.

We do well — we are innovative and creative — but we want to make sure that we can demonstrate and showcase, with other Departments, what there is and what win there can be for all of us if we pull together. There is a need to work closely with Infrastructure, because we are the platform on which a lot of things are built in Northern Ireland. We want to get that discussion going. From talking to Departments, my sense is that there is an open door and welcome to do that. We are going to walk through that door with them over the months ahead.

Mr McNulty: Thanks, folks, for your evidence. Best of luck, Emer, in your new role. Today has certainly been a baptism of fire. I commend you on maintaining your composure under fire, although I suggest that it is the Minister, not you, who should be in the hot seat on a number of these fronts.

There has been £200 million of public expenditure on the A5. As a civil engineer and someone who started his career in Roads Service in Marlborough House as an engineer, I understand the upfront costs and efforts that are involved in all roads projects, but there has been £200 million of public expenditure on the A5 and no infrastructure has been built. The project is stalled because of a legal case for which there is no timeline for a judgement. Gordon Best, chief executive of the Mineral Products Association (MPA) — the industry body for roads construction — said that the A5 could have been the first carbon-neutral dual carriageway on these islands if proper processes had been followed. How damning are those comments to the Department, ahead of a judgement? How does it potentially compromise a judgement when an industry expert is saying such a thing?

Ms Morelli: Not to repeat myself, but, obviously, the judgement is awaited. The processes that the Department has engaged in are the processes that it is required to follow. That is what we have done. I will not be able to comment until we get the judgement.

Mr McNulty: How many other roads projects have been stalled because of the A5 judgement? What are those roads projects?

Ms Morelli: We can provide further detail, but we have referred to most of them in the conversation this morning. We have the A1, the A4 Enniskillen bypass and phase 2 of the Derry to Dungiven project — Dungiven to Drumahoe — which has other connected issues.

Mr Sykes: There is also the Cookstown bypass and the Ballynahinch bypass. Lagan bridge is another notable project, but, at this stage, we are waiting for the outcome. Therefore, we have a number of schemes.

Mr McNulty: That is a major number of construction projects that cannot proceed because of the A5 judgement. Has a study been done on the economic cost of those delays to the economy in the North?

Ms Morelli: At the moment, the priority is getting the judgement and, in line with the priorities and commitments that the Executive have given in respect of a number of road schemes, working through the Minister's priorities.

Mr McNulty: There are implications for contractors who have been told that they have no choice but to down tools. Their ramping up has had to be put off. How many jobs are gone because of these delays? Will that be presented to the Committee so that members can understand the implications of the A5 delay?

Ms Morelli: It is not necessarily a black and white option and perhaps should not be presented in that way. Obviously, other work is ongoing in construction areas. Our essential roads maintenance has continued, and, where possible, we have tried to fund that as much as we can. It is a basic question that requires a very sophisticated answer, which I am not in a position to give today. Colin, do you have anything to add?

Mr Sykes: It is a very difficult thing to assess. We work closely with the industry. The work that the Department delivers relies on the local construction industry, primarily. As Emer said, we are still delivering our other programmes of work. Structural maintenance continues, as does resource maintenance.

Mr McNulty: Those other programmes of work have to continue regardless of the A5 judgement. A lot of work has been left behind and left on the table because of the A5 judgement. That is work that should be driving our economic growth and development, but it cannot happen. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr Sykes: At this stage, that is the position that we are in. We cannot take forward the major works programme until such times as we understand the outcome of the A5.

Mr McNulty: Water and waste water treatment capacity issues are a major barrier to economic growth and housing. No drains, no cranes. You will have seen the Turley report, which talks about a £2 billion funding gap, and you have talked about the 5,000 homes that have been unlocked because of the innovative approach that was adopted in Newry and elsewhere, which is fantastic and positive and should be celebrated. How many homes are unable to be built because of constraints on the water and waste water network?

Ms Morelli: I do not have that detail in front of me. We would need to engage with our colleagues at the Department for Communities to understand it through the lens of social and affordable housing, but there are wider private-sector developments too.

Mr McNulty: Can a figure be presented to the Committee that states clearly what —?

Ms Morelli: I do not know whether that figure will be available. Sorry that I cannot —.

Mr McGeown: We can contact Northern Ireland Water, Justin, but it is important to highlight that you will probably get a figure that looks at planning applications that have been put in, not necessarily the houses that will be built, and then there are the logistics of doing that. Northern Ireland Water will say, and has said, that, even were it fully funded in PC21 or, indeed, PC28, the logistics of delivering that would not be possible. Therefore, even if the number were 10,000, 15,000 or whatever it might be and Northern Ireland Water were fully funded, it would not be able to do it because of the logistics that we talked about earlier, such as opening roads etc. Certainly, we can get the figure, but it will come with that caveat.

Mr McNulty: The Turley report states:

the North. That is a pretty damning statement about infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. We have a three-pronged approach, but it is hardly touching the sides on various fronts.

Ms Morelli: There is a recognition that, given the budget available to the Department, it is incumbent on us to target it in the right place to ensure that it will make the biggest impact. That is in no way to say that those 23 towns are not a priority too, but it is important that, as accounting officer, I ensure that, within the budget that we have been allocated and with which we have been asked to deliver a range of statutory functions and duties, the money is spent in the best possible way and the most effective and efficient way.

Mr McNulty: In the Turley report, industry experts said:

We are in a pretty damning situation, and I suggest that the three-pronged approach is not really making a dent.

I turn to the audit of NI Water. When does an audit become an investigation?

Ms Morelli: The audit is a review of systems and processes with regard to governance. It is not an investigation.

Mr McNulty: This is what the Minister said in her statement:

Ms Morelli: That is in line with NI Water's processes. That is right. Those are the processes that it has been engaged in. As I said in my comments to the Chair, there are a number of different areas of which I need to be sure: are the processes in place; are they the right ones; in the landscape and overview, do I have all the information that is available; and are there any linkages or connectivity? It is about standing back and looking into the organisation.

Again, I stress that the audit is being done through a partnership-based approach with NI Water to ensure that we are all aware of all the issues and that the Department's responsibility in the matter is to the fore as well. It is incumbent on me to provide assurance, as I said, and I need to have that assurance from NI Water in order to provide it to you, the Minister and the Executive, but, at the moment, as accounting officer, I am not content that I have that.

Mr McNulty: I think that we will leave that, because there is an ongoing investigation.

Ms Morelli: It is an ongoing audit.

Mr McNulty: An audit. Forgive me.

To what degree is the Department aware of the bottlenecks in planning that are because of staff who are worked to the bone and stressed to the hilt by their caseload? Often, they feel that they are in an environment that is not conducive to the collegial working that planners need in order to be efficient in their roles. To what extent is the Department aware of the challenges that face planners and the number of planners who are leaving the planning system in the North and going to the South because of better salaries and conditions, essentially?

Ms Morelli: I can speak about the Department's perspective on that and the planners who work in the Department. We have undertaken quite significant recruitment in recent years. The planning improvement programme gave a very strong framework with which those planners are engaged. It is about reaching out to the councils in that spirit of collaboration. Obviously, councils are responsible for their staff and planners. Susan, I do not know whether you want to add anything.

Ms Anderson: That is exactly it. We had a number of recruitment competitions recently. The Committee will be aware of the trainee planner scheme. That is where we are bringing in trainee planners to train them up to make sure that we are getting the profession growing in the Department. We worked closely with councils in that competition, and a couple of councils took on trainee planners. We had three further competitions for planners within the Department. We are trying to get people in as planners and make sure that they stay with the Department to give them the best experience of the planning system as well as the training and support that they need.

Mr McNulty: I understand the merits of the ongoing picturing of the roads network, which has a significant cost. I believe firmly in the fact that, if you are not assessing, you are guessing. However, will that study expose inequalities in roads maintenance across the North? In south Armagh, we feel that we have the worst roads in the North and that that would not happen up the country. Is there a possibility that the study will demonstrate that there is inequality in roads maintenance?

Mr Sykes: It will give us a common condition picture across the entire network so that we know exactly where the roads in the worst condition are and which ones we need to target.

Mr McNulty: South Armagh has the worst roads in the country.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): What about north Armagh?

Mr McNulty: Get them sorted, please, pronto.

Moving on to the serious issue of road safety and the 56 fatalities, of which a number have been pedestrians. People in so many towns and villages across the North are screaming out for traffic calming measures, and we then write to the Minister seeking intervention only to be quite often turned down without being given any criteria for that. Would it be beneficial for the Department to provide the public with a clear set of criteria for what qualifies a road for traffic calming measures to be implemented?

Mr Sykes: We have a policy on the delivery of traffic calming. That policy is published, and we can provide that information to anybody who wants it. The policy sets out the process that we use to take forward the assessment of a traffic calming scheme. We are more than happy to explain our process and to be transparent about it. Part of the issue is that we receive a large volume of requests for traffic calming that far exceeds our capacity to deliver them all. There is no doubt that traffic calming is a good safety intervention in the right place at the right time. We are not saying that they are without merit, but there is a difficulty in being able to deliver them everywhere and in ensuring that they are appropriate.

Mr McNulty: Thank you all very much for your evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): It must an Armagh thing, because north Armagh is in a similar condition.

Mr McReynolds: I welcome Emer and put on the record my thanks to Denis, who was here a number of times, as you all know. I am grateful to him for his time here, and also Colin. I hope that Colin did not leave because I had to constantly phone him at the weekends.

Mr Boylan: Now we know what happened to him.

Mr McReynolds: He is safe from me now in Finance.

A lot of my questions have been answered, so apologies if this is a bit disjointed. In connection with the waste water report that Stephen and Justine mentioned, Justin and I and a number of other Members spoke at that waste water report launch in July. I think that it is fair to say, Justin, that there was anger in the room. There were a number of points from the construction sector about the approach being taken to ensuring that we have a viable waste water infrastructure system to support the construction sector. We have a response from the Minister today about the three-pronged approach, which is well rehearsed. I am conscious, however, that we have six months to get legislation through. I am not saying that she is hitching her wagon to the three-pronged approach, but that seems to be the only show in town based on her response to us today. Are we confident that we will be able to get that through, given that the Committee has a significant workload and Chamber time will be constricted? Are we confident that we will definitely get the SuDS Bill and developer contributions through by the middle of March next year?

Ms Morelli: If the current legislative timetable goes as planned, yes. The Department is available to the Committee for any information or evidence that it requires as part of its consideration of the Bill.

Mr McGeown: As you know, Alison and the team come quite regularly to the Committee at its behest about the Bill. It is about how far we can get before the mandate ends. That work is progressing.

A working group involving staff from the Utility Regulator and Northern Ireland Water has been set up to look at how we move forward with developer contributions. We are in the first phase, in which the Minister talked about having a voluntary contribution approach. We will then look at whether it needs to be made mandatory down the line, which will be determined by how things develop in the months ahead.

As you know, one of the prongs of the three-pronged approach is about securing additional Executive funding. That will be the main bit. If there is additional funding, that will unlock things. It is as basic as that, as you know, Peter. Alternatives will come with a version of water charging. The Executive policy at this stage is not to have water charges.

Mr McReynolds: "Water charges" is a concept that I have never liked. Water infrastructure requires money to deliver it. Essentially, we already pay for water through the block grant; our taxes go to that in a very indirect way. The Fiscal Council's report debunked a number of myths about how we finance our waste water. We have had several conversations, Declan, in Committee about how we probably fund our waste water infrastructure in the worst possible way in comparison with everybody else in Europe and across the world, but that is neither here nor there.

The living with water Derry programme is mentioned in the report. As a constituency MLA, I was out with a colleague from the DUP very recently in an area of inner East Belfast that is impacted on by the Sydenham waste water pumping station. There are smells and odours that may be an indirect impact of the living with water Belfast programme's not having been delivered; it has been stalled, paused or shelved — whatever you want to call it semantically. As someone with in-laws in Strabane, I am looking at the living with water Derry programme and wondering whether it is just going to be a document. What is the timeline for the living with water Derry programme? Belfast's is not happening; it is very piecemeal, here and there. Declan, you referred to maintenance earlier. What is going on with the living with water Derry programme?

Ms Morelli: I will talk about the wider strategic piece. On semantics, as a brand or tag, "living with water" is exactly that. The actual investment that we need in our infrastructure, including in our waste water and drinking water, is an ongoing issue. It is about maintenance and making sure that there is sufficient capacity in the system. It goes back to my earlier comments about the wider economic and social growth across Northern Ireland and the role that the Department plays therein, especially in the north-west, with the Magee campus expansion and the requirements, benefits and opportunities that that brings. It is about making sure that the waste water capacity is fit for purpose in that region, just as that is what it is about here. Maintenance is the key piece in respect of public safety when it comes to our drinking water and waste water. We need to make sure that, if we have money and target it at impactful or required projects — maybe not in a wholesale way under a huge programme — those are prioritised and delivered. David has taken up the reins of engaging very closely with NI Water about its programming to make sure that investment is secured for priority or impactful projects.

Mr McReynolds: As chair of the all-party group on active travel, I engage with that sector quite a lot. I think that it was always quite well known that 1% of journeys in Northern Ireland are made via active travel. I think that that is down to 0·5% now, going by the current studies. Given that a number of the targets in the business case that we have in front of us today have been missed, how confident are we that we can encourage a greater multi-modal shift for active travel?

Ms Morelli: It remains a business planning priority. There has been investment in active travel. It is about behavioural change and how we encourage people into active travel, from the perspective of safety and effective journeying.

Mr Sykes: As Emer said, the Department is committed to increasing investment in active travel as much as it can. Members will be aware that the active travel delivery plan has been approved. That should be published in the coming weeks. There is also the 'Belfast Cycling Network Delivery Plan 2022-31' and the strategic plan for greenways. Quite a bit of work is continuing on taking that programme forward as quickly as we can and increasing investment in the overall active travel infrastructure.

Mr McReynolds: I was reading through the report, and, as someone who is bringing forward a private Member's Bill on trees and tree protection, I noticed —

Mr Boylan: It impacts on the legislative programme, but [Inaudible.]

Mr McReynolds: — that it mentions the tree management policy. Will that have to go out to consultation? When is that likely to be published?

Mr Sykes: Sorry, the —?

Mr McReynolds: The tree management policy that is mentioned in the report.

Mr Sykes: It refers to how we manage and maintain our tree stock.

Mr McReynolds: On highways, yes.

Mr Sykes: On the subject of how the Tree Protection Bill goes through, that —.

Mr McReynolds: That is secondary to the question. It is completely irrelevant.

Mr Sykes: We are taking forward the work that we are doing as quickly as we can. It will take us a bit of time to get to the point of having a fully developed policy, because we are looking at how to develop an implementation plan and manage the huge stock of trees that we have along the road network. Work is progressing on that. I cannot give you the definitive timescales today, but there is a strategy and implementation plan, and we need to be able to resource that, depending on what we want to —.

Mr Boylan: He is saying to wait, Peter. He is saying, "Come next year".

Mr McReynolds: I know.

Mr Boylan: Defer your Bill to next year, kid.

Mr McReynolds: I look forward to seeing that. Cheers. Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you, Peter.

On road asset management, Colin, how many reportable road defects are outstanding as of today? Do you have that detail?

Mr Sykes: I do not have that figure in front of me, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Will you provide the Committee with that detail as soon as possible —

Mr Sykes: Yes, certainly.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): — as well as how many of those outstanding defects are outside the target repair period?

Mr Sykes: OK.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Those are a couple of questions from the Committee.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to say that a young lady, Grace Hamilton, is with us today in the Public Gallery. She is a 20-year-old R-driver who, sadly, was involved in a car accident recently on the motorway. That sparked her interest in writing to MLAs to try to get attention to be given to the piece of graduated driver licensing legislation that has been going through. The Committee has been delayed in its deliberations of some of the statutory rules. Grace's main issue was with the lack of engagement from the Department or the lack of information for already established R-plate drivers on the risks that they face on the road, particularly motorways. The Committee has had sight of that piece of correspondence today; it is not in our Committee packs, but we have committed to forwarding it to the Department, and we expect a response on the rationale behind some of the issues that Grace found from her experience and on how the Department plans to address those issues and to communicate the changes made and how those coincide with some of the failings that Grace found in the current legislation.

Mr Sykes: OK.

Ms Morelli: Sure.

The Chairperson (Mr Buckley): Thank you all very much. Thank you for your time, patience and flexibility in attending the meeting early. We understand that you have a vast programme. Nothing said is in any way personal towards any of the officials before the Committee today. We have a job of work to do, as you do, and we will continue to hold the Department accountable and to assist, where possible, in delivering functioning legislation to the betterment of all the people of Northern Ireland. Thank you for your time.

Ms Morelli: Thank you, Chair.