Debate contribution: NI Water: Funding and Governance

Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on 29 April 2025.

MLA

Mr Mark Durkan

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

29 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

NI Water: Funding and Governance

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4922339

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on this important motion. I thank everyone who contributed, particularly the proposers of the amendments, both of which we are happy to accept. It is clear from what we have heard today that everyone is aware of the issues. Some, maybe through the privilege of having a place on the Infrastructure Committee, are more aware of the exact extent of those issues. That is what prompted the SDLP, as the official Opposition, to call for an independent review of Northern Ireland Water's funding and governance. Why? Because the current situation, as we have heard, is clearly untenable. Our waste water network is in crisis, over capacity, underfunded and dragging down economic progress and environmental protection across the North. In my constituency of Foyle, we have seen real-world consequences, with planning applications halted, the building of homes delayed and rivers polluted. That is far from unique to Derry. It is happening in every constituency and council area across the North. Chronic underinvestment in waste water infrastructure is not just an environmental issue, a housing issue or an economic issue; it is all those things. It is becoming a crisis that will shape the lives not only of this generation but of many to come. Let me also be clear that, while we need a review, we also need honesty. There has been a lot of talk about mutualisation, with some presenting it as the magic bullet that will solve all of Northern Ireland Water's problems. Let us not kid ourselves. A review, to which the Minister is resistant, may well vindicate her position. While mutualisation might offer some advantages in borrowing powers or long-term investment planning, it is not necessarily a panacea and should not be used as a smokescreen to avoid the deeper and more difficult conversation about how we fund water infrastructure fairly and sustainably. To use the example that has been given today, we need only look at England and Wales to see the disaster that can result when public utilities are driven by profit and not by people's needs.

That will not be too far away from people's or parties' consciousness. People also need to know that they already pay for water, and I will come on to that. Amendment No 2 might deviate a wee bit from our motion, but we will support it, because, when we talk about fairness, we are talking about domestic water charges. We in the SDLP have consistently opposed the introduction of separate water charges, and we stand by that. However, let us not pretend, as I said, that people are not already paying for water. Let us not allow the Minister or anyone else to maintain that fiction. People are paying, and, in many cases, they are paying more. Domestic rates have gone up and continue to go up. Water infrastructure investment is being squeezed out of general public funding, and the burden is quietly being shifted on to households. Meanwhile, businesses, which pay direct water rates, see their bills rise by about 5% year after year. For many small and medium-sized businesses, that is unsustainable. It is really death by a thousand cuts. While the Minister will point and has pointed to developer contributions, as others have said, the revenue that is raised will just scratch the surface of what is needed to do the work. It will have to come from somewhere. It will be passed on to homebuyers, pushing up the price of homes, which, in turn, will push up the cost of rent. People will pay more. Fewer social homes will be delivered as a result. Therefore, we need an expert-led independent review, but it must be open, transparent and rooted in fairness. It must ask the hard questions. How do we deliver the infrastructure that we need without placing a burden on working families or businesses, which are already stretched to the limit? I will turn to Members' contributions. It is clear that everyone knows the issues and knows that there needs to be some action; we just might not all agree on what action that should be. I will start with what my colleague Patsy McGlone said. While much of the debate subsequently focused on the funding model, my colleague's remarks demonstrated that, while there is a clear problem with funding, there are also clear issues with governance. The fact that the Minister had to bring in a forensic accountant is further evidence that all is far from well. We still do not know how far the forensic accountant will dig beyond the overspend of a few million pounds on this year's dramatically reduced requirement.

Andrew McMurray made the point that the Minister's desire to work with Executive colleagues to get more funding is likely to be as successful as that approach has been so far, which is not particularly successful, other than in the example that we heard of — the monitoring round in which we got an extra £19 million. That was welcome, but much more is needed. My fear is that it will continue to be less successful as the costs of, and demand for, other infrastructure projects continue to grow and grow.

I am not going to get extra time, so I am afraid not.

The Member also politely questioned the value of the internal reviews carried out by the Department. Nicola Brogan pointed out that outdated infrastructure is a consequence of British austerity. Of course, underfunding has had a hugely negative impact on development and public services, and it is important that we come together and continue to demand more, but no one can honestly say that the Executive have played well with the hand that they have been dealt over the years. Keith Buchanan brought up a few highlights from the avalanche of evidence that the Infrastructure Committee has received on the issue. We have been looking at it for a long time, and the longer that we look at it, the worse it looks. He sought more detail from the Minister on developer contributions, and we did not get that from the Minister today. Stephen Dunne raised the pausing of the living with water programme in Belfast. At the same time as it is being paused, there is an ongoing public consultation on living with water in Derry, when the reality is that, without some sort of miracle, it is already dead in the water. John Stewart focused on the blockages to development that impact on our ability to attract investment. Northern Ireland Water needs stable, multi-year investment. We are not even treading water; we are sinking. The leader of the Opposition, my esteemed colleague, made the point that developer contributions are almost a smokescreen — an attempt to muddy the waters, if you like — to distract from the real action that is required. He spoke about the potential for new borrowing points and pointed to the promises that were made on water infrastructure in NDNA. I am starting to think that that is an acronym for "Neither Delivered Nor Achieved". Gerry Carroll said that the fault does not lie with the workers in Northern Ireland Water but with the Executive, who have starved the agency of funds. Of course, the same applies to NIW as applies to the Executive: NIW needs more but it could do better with what it has got. I move now to the Minister. She said that we have had these discussions numerous times. Unfortunately, we have had to, because they have not made any difference. She said that she was proactive, like her predecessor; I would say that she is as proactive as her predecessor. She referred to the fact that a previous Infrastructure Minister was from the SDLP. That is never forgotten — we are never allowed to forget it. In her two years in office, through a global pandemic, Nichola Mallon brought PC 21 to the Executive, where it was agreed by the Executive parties. That agreement is another agreement that has been reneged on. The Minister said that she had not heard the Opposition's proposals. We are asking for the Minister to seek the expert-led review that was recommended by the Audit Office to hear the experts' proposals. She referred, again, to her three-pronged approach. I have already mentioned two of those prongs, The sustainable urban drainage system stuff is dead on, but, again, it is tinkering and legislating for something that already happens in practice. Anyway, where is that legislation? By the time that we see it, development may well have already ground to a halt. That really would be "SuDS" law. I appeal to Members to back the motion.

We will be supporting the amendments. We need to ensure that, this time next year, we are not still standing here debating the issue.

1,484 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:31 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