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

Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Justin McNulty

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5111186

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise to speak as the SDLP spokesperson on infrastructure and also as a member of the Infrastructure Committee. I welcome the comments from the Minister; it is long after time. The Minister is very good at sharing the blame when things go wrong in her Department. She needs to share some credit here: this process was initiated by my former colleague Nichola Mallon. Obviously, it hit a brick wall along the way as the Assembly was down because Sinn Féin and the DUP walked away from this place for five years. Minister, your three-pronged approach deals with SuDS and with seeking funding from your Executive colleagues. Good luck with that one. Maybe you can speak to your predecessor, John O'Dowd, who probably knows about the funding crisis in NI Water and the Department, and you might be able to curry favour. You are also exploring developer contributions, and, obviously, that will mean higher house prices. That is something to recognise. I am interested to know whether AECOM and Arup have been consulted. I will go through the clauses one by one, and I have a few notes about them. Clause 1 is about temporary hosepipe bans, and that makes sense. It is probably about education more than enforcement, and it is a little bit of treating the symptom and not the problem. Will clause 2 show flexibility and imagination in relation to the incorporation of new technologies and offering SuDS? Is NI Water on board with the SuDS offer? Has it agreed to all the proposals? Is it about separation, reed beds or attenuation? Are oversized pipes and manholes the answer to SuDS, as is now? Some 25 years ago, I worked in an engineering practice in Dublin, Moylan Consulting Engineers. I will give a shout-out to Patrick Obdebeck, Paul O'Connell, Darragh Aiken, Lars Schneider, Hunter Jenkins, Niamh Ennis and Paul O'Callaghan.

I am almost there. Those colleagues and that company taught me a lot about engineering. They taught me about the standards of professionalism, about writing, about project management and about building relationships with clients, planners, statutory authorities, councils and contractors. I say that because in Dublin, 25 years ago, we were designing SuDS schemes. What has taken us so long here? What the hell is going on? SuDS are not an optional bolt-on but a design necessity for planning and development. Clause 3 is about issuing guidance. It is probably more about education than it is about enforcement. By the by, I support clause 5 absolutely. It is about reducing storm water volumes and — I cannot read my own writing — slowing down flows. That makes sense and is long overdue. Clause 6 is about flood protection grants. Are those not already in place? I thought that grants were already going to flood protection, but, yes, I support the clause absolutely. Clause 7 is titled "Flood risk: assessment and management". Really, are we not already doing that? Clause 8 is titled "Drainage works: environmental impact assessment". Really, are we not already doing that? Clause 9 is titled "Scope of regulations under sections 7 and 8". It is OK. Clause 10 is OK. Clause 11 is titled "Unlawful sewer communication: remedies". Where does the culpability lie? Who pays? If I am a developer who purchases a site, and it has issues historically, who is responsible? With whom does the liability rest? Clause 12 is titled "Adoption by sewerage undertaker: removal of restrictions". It is OK. Clause 13 is titled "Supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional provision etc.". It is OK. Clause 14 is OK. Clause 15 is OK. I think that clause 15 is the Minister's favourite clause. If Members will bear with me, I have a few other pointers. NI Water has to be flexible in its approach to SuDS and adopt new technologies. Those need to be approved via the planning approval process prior to the article 161 application stage. Are the Department, NI Water and planning services on the same page? NI Water's 'Sewers for Adoption' needs updated, as it was last revised in 2010. I am supportive of the Bill's proposals, so get a move on.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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