Debate contribution: Infrastructure Commission
Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Infrastructure Commission
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4921941
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Apologies for not being on the speaking list; I do not know what happened. I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party to join many organisations, including the Construction Employers Federation, the Northern Ireland Business Alliance, the Institution of Civil Engineers and many others in supporting the establishment of an independent infrastructure commission for Northern Ireland. I thank the Opposition for bringing the issue forward for debate. An infrastructure commission is vital if we are serious about improving how we deliver public-sector capital projects and restoring public trust in how taxpayers' money is spent. As others have done, I commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Office, which have compiled numerous reports on the back of evidence that they sought. Reports from the PAC and the Audit Office have consistently highlighted serious concerns about delays, spiralling costs, poor long-term planning and a lack of rigorous project management, where major capital projects are late and over budget and fail to deliver the full benefits that they promised.
We simply cannot continue to make those mistakes.
In its 2023 report, the Public Accounts Committee was blunt, concluding that Northern Ireland lacks the necessary oversight and strategic direction to ensure that public infrastructure is delivered efficiently and effectively. The Audit Office added that, without major reform, public services will continue to be undermined by poor capital delivery. The Comptroller and Auditor General went further than that in 2024, saying:
"it remains extremely concerning that, more than four years after my Office’s last report on this issue, there is little evidence of improvement or past lessons learned being applied to new projects. Even among the flagship projects, identified as the Northern Ireland Executive’s highest priority, progress has been very limited. It is clear that departments are not achieving value for money in the delivery of these major capital projects. Successful completion of capital projects is crucial for Northern Ireland in supporting our economy and ensuring the effective delivery of public services ... A comprehensive transformation project must be established to overhaul the system for commissioning major capital projects and ensuring stronger accountability for how these projects are delivered."
That is a damning reflection by the Audit Office. We owe it to our people to do better. An infrastructure commission would give us the tools to do just that by operating independently to provide expert, long-term advice on Northern Ireland's infrastructure needs. It would assess major project proposals, track delivery and intervene early whenever problems arise, helping to ensure that projects are built on time, within budget and to the highest standard. We have heard from the proposer and other Members about the litany of capital projects to date that have invariably gone over budget and over time and not been delivered as required. That includes the money that has been spent so far on the A5 western transport corridor, on which still no work has been progressed; the millions of pounds that have been spent on the York Street interchange, which has been a capital project priority for years, although we are still nowhere near to seeing the project being delivered — the list goes on. We could all point to dozens of examples, in our constituencies, of schools —
— hospitals or other capital projects that invariably go over time and over budget.
555 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.85 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:27 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.