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

Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on 16 September 2025.

MLA

Ms Liz Kimmins

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

16 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5111380

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank and welcome the new Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure. I hope that we can work together as well as I did with Deborah Erskine. To echo other Members' comments, I too wish Deborah and her husband all the very best in what, I hope, is a very exciting time for them both. I look forward to hearing her news in the not so distant future. I thank all the Members for their contributions and their optimism, because this will have an impact of a positive nature on our overall waste water systems and how we deal with drainage and flood management. Quite a number of queries and issues have been raised in the debate. I will do my best to address as many of those as possible. First, I go to the comments from the Committee Chair, Peter Martin. Others also raised the funding query. The Bill is broadly cost-neutral for NI Water, apart from some small administrative costs in terms of miscommunication. Hopefully, that will be welcome. The Bill will also allow NI Water to recoup costs for any repairs that are associated with miscommunications. Some cost may be associated with bringing private drainage infrastructure up to an adoptive standard, and that may be a shared cost with the original owner. Hopefully, that will be minimal as well. In relation to SuDS, there will be additional costs in putting in place the regulatory framework. However, as has been outlined in the debate today, there are already some examples of hard SuDS for that. The other queries were in relation to the expenditure on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme that already exists. As of May this year, 165 homes had been provided with grant funding at a total of £1·5 million, which includes consultants' fees and support fees. Approximately 20 homes per year have received an average grant of £7,850. On the subject of the flood protection grant scheme, others raised some queries. I will address Keith Buchanan's query on what the criteria are regarding the property itself. I think he meant the boundary of the property. I had an example of this in my constituency in the recent flooding. That is a challenge, and there will be an opportunity through engagement with the Committee and the consultation to look at some of the issues again and see where we can help. It is something that I am keen to explore as well, because I know that, where floodwater may not have come into the house itself, it can cause significant damage to the external part of the property. It is still very costly to deal with. We can look at that. John Stewart raised the issue of the criteria for the flood protection scheme. As I have said, that will require the making of regulations. As part of that process, those criteria will be legislated for as well. I welcome Justin McNulty to the Committee and look forward to engaging with him in the time ahead, when I am with the Committee and in debates in the House. He has questions around the SuDS proposals and why it has taken so long to progress SuDS here. I should say that, yes, there are already SuDS happening and in place. I know that the construction industry has also raised this. Those are more in relation to hard SuDS systems. That, as the Member said, is more in relation to bigger pipes and tanks and things like that. The focus of the regulations will be on nature-based SuDS solutions such as swales and detention basins. It will be on those types of natural drainage that align themselves with a natural approach, which is what should be happening in the environment anyway. If we can enable those solutions in a much more managed way, we will see a real impact. As I have said, next week, I will launch the public consultation on SuDS for new housing developments. The consultation will be another opportunity for the Committee and the wider public to engage, to raise any issues, concerns or queries that they may have and to make suggestions. Soft SuDS, unlike hard SuDS, have the potential to treat surface water by removing potential pollutants, which will be a positive in our efforts to tackle pollution in our waterways in particular. Justin asked whether we are already doing some of what is set out in the clauses. Yes, in some cases, we are. The clauses simply allow for future amendments to existing regulations, should they be required as new developments emerge or new technologies emerge, so that we are not hamstrung by what we have in place already. We therefore have an opportunity to continually modernise through making amendments in order to help us move with the times and respond effectively and efficiently. Members raised queries about the hosepipe ban. On the issue of communication, social media and other methods that are already being used for communication purposes — NI Water uses them well — will absolutely continue to be used in that way and as widely as possible. My understanding of the legislation is that notice must be given in a minimum of two newspapers. That requirement is probably a minimum one, but most of us know that we will use all communication channels and methods available to us. They are already used extensively. There was a query about the domestic allowance. To get clarity from the Member, is that about the hosepipe ban?

At this point, my understanding is that, for anything that relates to a private business — a window cleaner is another example — people can use a tap to fill a bucket or a private water tank to enable them to carry out their duties but, if they were to use a hosepipe to clean windows, that would be a contravention of the legislation. Hopefully, that explains the provision a bit better. Again, we can get into Members' queries in a bit more detail at Committee Stage. I think that I have responded on the majority of the issues that were raised. Members have been largely positive about where this is going, and I welcome their comments. I will return to what my South Down colleague Andrew McMurray said about some of the flood management issues that, I know, affect his constituency. As part of work that is external to the legislation, we have received confirmation from NI Water that it is doing modelling to find a permanent solution to the Newcastle issue. I met Sheila Maginn and others from the Newcastle Regional Community Resilience Group (RCRG), which does really good work there to find solutions. They are aware of the modelling, and a permanent solution will hopefully be found to the issue. That will provide confidence and reassurance, which is the crux of what we are doing through the legislation. I trust that today's debate has provided Members with an overview of the policy intent behind the Bill. As I said, if there are any points that I have not covered, I will endeavour to address them in correspondence, if Members wish to write to me in more detail to get further clarification. For me, the debate has been a valuable opportunity to hear Members' views. I am pleased that the consensus has been positive and supportive on the principles of the Bill.

1,230 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