Debate contribution: Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on 12 October 2026.

MLA: Mr Stephen Dunne
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 12 October 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5785913

Text

As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I too welcome the opportunity to speak during the Consideration Stage of this important Bill. As others have said, a considerable amount of work has gone into getting to this stage through the Committee processes, during which the Committee, I believe, took the opportunity to properly scrutinise the Bill. I also welcome the Committee Chair's joining us for this item of business. There has been good cooperation across the Committee to get the Bill to the place where it is today, strengthened and improved since we previously debated the issue in the House, when some elements of the Bill could have been seen as simply a mere enabling framework rather than a fully detailed legislative scheme. That is progress, and it is to be welcomed. The role of stakeholders who have contributed to get us to this point should also be acknowledged, as well as the work of our dedicated Infrastructure Committee staff. The measures in the Bill — strengthening flood resilience, promoting sustainable drainage, reducing pollution and improving water management — are all objectives that we can certainly share. We know the devastation that flooding can cause — homes ruined, businesses disrupted and families displaced — and we know that our ageing drainage infrastructure is also under increasing strain. The Bill provides some of the legislative tools that we need to respond more effectively to those challenges. However, the Bill will not be a silver bullet and will not really scratch the surface of the waste water crisis that we currently face here in Northern Ireland. Throughout the Committee Stage, one of our greatest concerns centred on clauses 2 and 3, which relate specifically to sustainable drainage systems, otherwise known as SuDS, alongside clause 6, on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme, and clause 15, which concerns the commencement dates. We recognise the significant benefits that SuDS can deliver, including reducing flood risk, improving water quality and protecting biodiversity. However, there were genuine concerns that several important decisions about how the new framework would operate had been left simply to future regulations, without sufficient detail in the Bill. In particular, the original wording about the body responsible for approving SuDS arrangements lacked clarity, and we talked about that at length and considered it extensively during the process. It was rightly questioned whether such an important governance decision, potentially involving a new public body, should be more clearly defined in primary legislation. One concern that was shared in the Committee — it was a concern that I had — was the potential risk of an approval body coming from across our 11 councils, which could potentially have seen 11 different bodies, adding more confusion and potentially having 11 different variations in interpretation of the regulations right across Northern Ireland. We also sought greater safeguards around the creation of offences and penalties, believing that appropriate limits must be established by the Assembly rather than left too widely to secondary legislation. On clause 6, we supported placing the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing but emphasised the need for fairness, transparency and proper Assembly oversight. During Committee Stage, we heard directly from residents who have been badly impacted on by significant flooding in the south Down area. As an MLA for North Down, which includes areas identified as being at substantial flood risk, I recognise the risks, challenges, fears and concerns that are out there. Hearing that directly makes it important that we put such provisions in place to support those who are most impacted on. We also wanted greater certainty that the Bill's provisions would be implemented promptly following Royal Assent. Those issues prompted extensive engagement with departmental officials, consideration of legal advice, as has been mentioned, and requests for amendments to strengthen the legislation. We maintained our previous position on clauses 2, 3 and 15, pending the Department's final proposals. I welcome the amendments that the Minister subsequently tabled, which address many of the concerns that we raised during scrutiny. It was certainly better late than never. They clarify that SuDS approval functions may be carried out only by the Department or a sewerage undertaker. They establish clearer statutory boundaries for offences and penalties, and they require that the regulations governing the flood grant scheme undergo the draft affirmative procedure. Importantly, they also introduce a 12-month deadline for making commencement orders, and they strengthen public notification arrangements concerning the water-use restrictions, on which the Deputy Chair touched earlier. That process demonstrates the importance of robust Committee scrutiny and that our responsibility is not simply to support good policy intentions but to work to ensure that legislation is clear, proportionate, accountable and strengthened where it can be. We believe that, overall, our engagement with the Department has helped to secure meaningful and lasting improvements. I look forward to Further Consideration Stage, and, hopefully, we can all start to see some of the benefits of the legislation progressing.

826 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification