Debate contribution: Infrastructure Commission

Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on 29 April 2025.

MLA

Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

29 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Infrastructure Commission

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4921959

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions on this important topic and the proposer of the motion for giving us the opportunity to highlight what we are already doing to improve how we plan and deliver infrastructure and, importantly, the opportunity to reflect on what more needs to be done. I begin by acknowledging the issues that the Public Accounts Committee identified and the updated NIAO reports, which highlight a significant overspend on major capital projects. I have no doubt that there has been a high degree of commonality across political parties over the years in our deep frustration at the lack of delivery, the slow delivery or the overspends on infrastructure projects. Over many years, I have had the privilege of working with many Ministers from different parties. Without a doubt, I know that no Minister goes into their role expecting or desiring not to deliver the capital projects in their portfolio. On the point about accountability that the proposer of the motion referenced in his speech, I will say that Ministers are accountable for the capital projects in their portfolio. There is no doubt about that. Some of those projects can be cross-cutting, which presents a different set of unique challenges to be overcome, but neither is there any doubt that the way in which we are doing things is not working. It is not working for Ministers, not working for the Executive, not working for this place and, most importantly, not working for the people who require services, such as the much-desired York Street interchange. Think of all those people sitting in traffic, wasting precious minutes and hours of their life every week, who could really benefit from that scheme. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to recommend using public transport as a sustainable option. It is, however, not just about people wasting their time but about what they could be doing with that time to be productive, to contribute to the economy and to make their life happier and more content with friends and family instead of sitting there. Delays with capital projects have a real-life impact that is felt not just on roads but on hospitals, schools and so many other things that have been set out by ministerial teams in the Executive year after year and that, unfortunately, because of delays and overruns, the Executive have not been able to stand over and say at the end of the mandate, "We have delivered this". I know that the Executive want to address and fix the issues, no matter how difficult and challenging doing so might be.

I agree with the Member that it is about the cost of the lost opportunity and the wasted hours and about the additional bureaucracy, staffing or whatever else that may be required in order to operate within infrastructure that is not fit for purpose. When we look at NI Water's infrastructure, for example, we see that the challenge is the stopping of housebuilding and of the economic development that we require in order to grow our economy. At the heart of everything that we want to do — it is right there in the Programme for Government — is an objective to grow our economy. We can do that only if we fix and improve how we do infrastructure, because infrastructure is at the heart of it all. In the Programme for Government is a desire to genuinely improve people's lives, and that must mean addressing the vital public services of education and health in order to deliver for people. The infrastructure that is required to deliver those services for people is again at the heart. We therefore acknowledge the concerns that have been raised. Indeed, we share them. We also share a commitment to tackling the issues that we face, but, as Members have said, although the motion suggests one potential solution, we need to look much more widely. We do not believe that simply creating another commission will be the panacea for the issues and challenges that we face. Whatever we do must address them. Although we talk about oversight, the establishment of new bodies and independence, democratic accountability is important in all of this. It is about joined-up working, not necessarily about the creation of a new body. We are not ruling that out as a possibility at this juncture, nor are we saying that it is the only option on the table. We are absolutely open to looking at a range of options that may be available to us as long as they work. We want something that works, and I am giving a genuine commitment on behalf of the First Minister and myself, because, as I have said many times, we are focused on delivery.

We know that delivery has not been achieved in the way that other Ministers have wanted it over the years, but we have a determination to fix and change what needs to be done in order to deliver in this term and beyond. I will give way.

Absolutely. There is a huge incentive across government to do better when it comes to big infrastructure projects, but to do that we must identify the problems and barriers to delivery. We have the slowest planning processes anywhere on these isles. We know that: so how do we fix it? If the costs are projected 10 years before the final costs come in, of course, there are going to be factors, such as overruns, that influence the costs and related increases. However, those issues are by no means unique to us. Research carried out by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) identified similar issues across the UK, but it also found that UK costs were, in many cases, not dissimilar from international benchmarks. It is something that every Government across the globe struggles with, but, by working collectively — not just the parties in the Executive but with the official Opposition — we will, hopefully, find a number of interventions to significantly improve the roll-out of capital development and delivery in Northern Ireland. I assure the House that a number of different initiatives and projects are under way. We hope to bring our investment strategy to the Executive very shortly. Unlike previous iterations, the new investment strategy will take a longer view and look out to 2050. We hope that it will mean that longer-term planning will support the delivery. Indeed, we raised our concerns about the single-year Budgets directly with the Chancellor, because we need multi-year Budgets to enable us to plan for our longer-term investment strategy. It will set out a pathway for investment in infrastructure for the next 30 years to stabilise, deliver and transform. Of course, the investment strategy will also have an enabling action plan. The work will be developed, assessed and monitored, because that is essential to ensure delivery. We are looking at all those structures, including the use of the internal delivery unit that we have established in the Executive Office to work with all Departments in seeking to improve on a number of the barriers. The assessment that was carried out identified over 100 actions, and those have been rationalised to 12 key actions, including addressing capacity and capability barriers in infrastructure delivery. My colleague highlighted the skills that the Civil Service requires to oversee project delivery. Skills are also needed to tackle things when they do not go right, which often happens in capital projects, and to find swift solutions. We are looking at the business case process. It takes a huge amount of time for business cases to work their way through the system. I often think about the A5 project: Ministers in a five-party Executive were fully, politically behind that, some 17 years ago, in 2007-08, along with the Irish Government; yet, despite that political will, the road has not yet been built. Again, it is about identifying the barriers. The important question in the debate is whether an infrastructure commission would have addressed that or whether there are serious issues throughout the process, including in our planning system and its appeals process, that need to be addressed. Otherwise, no matter how many independent bodies we set up, the same challenges will be encountered as those that Departments and Ministers have faced when rolling out projects. Procurement expertise is another key area, and integrating the key concepts of the social licence is an important part of that.

I am conscious that I am rapidly running out of time. At this juncture, we do not agree to support simply the option set out in the motion, but we are content to look at the amendment's specific proposal in line with other actions that would be required. We will bring that back to this place and to the Executive as we look at a road map for a way forward, because we are determined to deliver capital projects better, on time and on budget, if at all possible.

1,502 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification