I beg to move

That this Assembly regrets the state of our waste water network; and calls on the Executive to commence an independent review of NI Water's funding and governance by September 2026.

There will be up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Patsy, please open the debate on the motion.

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle as ucht an t-am a thabhairt dúinn inniu.

[Translation: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker for giving us this time today.]

Of course, this is a crucial issue. It is very important. Northern Ireland Water has warned that up to 100 waste water treatment facilities are at or near capacity, with around 100 areas, including 25 towns, facing development restrictions. NI Water's own research shows that failing to invest properly could cost the economy 17,300 potential jobs by 2027. New housing projects cannot go ahead because the infrastructure is not in place to support them, which is a direct result of the current governance and funding model. The development of 19,000 homes has been stalled as a result. It is not just homes that are being stalled but factories, schools and any form of development that requires sewage disposal.

To take that a stage further, there are also implications for the housing market. Today, I met representatives of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations upstairs. Social housing schemes are being delayed and cannot go ahead. Private housing schemes cannot go ahead: they are being stalled and cannot progress. The lack of available private housing affects the market, so the whole question of affordable housing comes into play. As there are fewer houses available at a certain price, demand is increasing and prices are going up. All those areas are impacted on by the issue.

We can take it even further. Many councils are at varying stages of their local development plans. In some of those areas, the local development plans are being rendered hypothetical because councils can do no more than say, "There is the plan. We cannot implement it". That is for housing, local development, factories etc — the list goes on.

Northern Ireland Water's status as a non-departmental public body means that it is subject to rigid Treasury rules that prevent long-term planning and private capital access. Despite mounting evidence and pressure, including calls from the Northern Ireland Audit Office and NI Water itself, successive Sinn Féin Infrastructure Ministers have refused to initiate an independent review. Instead, they have opted for a forensic accounting exercise to address the projected overspend, which is £3 million this year. I do not dispute the need for that exercise, but it would be useful to have its terms of reference so that we could see what it would cover. I will return to that later because other issues there need to be addressed.

The SDLP has been consistent in calling for an independent review of Northern Ireland Water's funding and governance model to inform decisions on how that crucial utility provider can operate sustainably for everyone's benefit and in an accountable manner. I will come back to that. Without functioning waste water infrastructure, developing homes, growing our economy and protecting our environment — a crucial issue — will be impacted on. I represent a good part of the western shore of Lough Neagh, where the so-called toxic blossom of blue-green algae is starting to manifest itself again. The overflow from sewage disposal works is a contributory factor to that. There is no doubt about it.

You cannot fix a leaking pipe with a spreadsheet. Further delay is not just costing us money; it is costing homes, jobs and our environment. The Audit Office says, "Review it"; NI Water says, "Review it"; everyone says, "Review it". It is over to the Minister and the Department now. The solution itself is not forensic. We need real action, not more excuses — and, for God's sake, no more reviews. It is not just DFI that we hear that from around this place. From DAERA, we hear, "We are conducting a review of that", "We are having a review", and, "We are having another review". That is kicking the tin down the alley. We want practical, concrete measures that are driven by what are called "a Government". A Government are there to bring forward proposals to drive the economy and support the building of housing, including social housing.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I am a little bit confused. The Opposition's motion:

"calls on the Executive to commence an independent review", yet the Member has just said that he does not want another review. Can you clarify that?

That will become very apparent in my next comments — very apparent. That moves us on to the governance issues at NI Water. I am glad that you have given me the opportunity to mention those. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee back in 2010-11. It was something else to sit through our being misled and lied to by senior officials. That eventually resulted in the demotion of a very senior official. That Public Accounts Committee came up with a series of recommendations to be delivered, through the Department, to NI Water. I would seriously like to hear how many, if any, of those recommendations have been implemented at NI Water.

I have been contacted by a whistle-blower about practices in NI Water. I initially spent literally three hours going through stuff with him, and my eyes started to stand in my head. It was incredible. Poor workmanship, potential fraud, the use of unregistered subcontractors and the use of non-approved subcontractors was drawn to the attention of NI Water in November 2023. A meeting was held between the whistle-blower and senior managers from NI Water, and they were shown the information again. One of them said, "It could be fraud". A contractor user was consistently awarded tender works that were later discovered to be more expensive than other suppliers' work would have been. Much of the work ought to have been resolved as warranty claimed but instead was paid twice or thrice and, in some cases, paid and never resolved.

Potential fraud was officially reported to senior-category managers at NI Water and its mechanical and electrical (M&E) statutory maintenance and cyber compliance manager. A number of site reports were noted, with photographic evidence provided. On 12 April 2024, the M&E statutory manager and cyber complaints manager provided an update to the whistle-blower. There were suspicions that complicit fraud and wrongdoing was going on. The whistle-blower then received word that his contract had been ended. Right?

On 29 April 2024, the whistle-blower and one of the senior managers were interviewed by NI Water governance for four hours.

In May 2024, specific patterns in NI Water were noticed by the whistle-blower, and a further 40 cases of potential fraud and wrongdoing were reported to governance via a SharePoint folder that had been created to hold data. Furthermore, there were material changes on 24 May. The whistle-blower noticed that there were material changes to the C1100 contract. The perception was that it was turning into a witch-hunt of the whistle-blower, instead of his being held as a person of repute who was trying to resolve the issues that he perceived in NI Water.

On 30 July 2024, the whistle-blower wrote to NI Water's chief executive and its board to ensure that they were aware of the situation, again providing all the data on SharePoint. There was then a follow-up article in the 'Belfast Telegraph'.

Deloitte was appointed on 15 August 2024 to conduct an investigation. Incidentally, Deloitte had received £1·62 million from NI Water over the previous five years. The whistle-blower met representatives from Deloitte, and Deloitte undertook to come back to the whistle-blower concerning the investigation. Four separate emails were sent to Deloitte, but it never showed up to meet the whistle-blower to investigate the cases. Deloitte then declared that it was not necessary to discuss any of the cases, as they were consistent with what had already been examined. Purchase orders had been issued in the name of a contract user who was on sick leave. Then, on 28 March this year, I attended, along with the whistle-blower, a meeting with NI Water and Deloitte's head of audit and governance. It quickly became apparent to everyone present that the £144,000 that had been spent on Deloitte to conduct a forensic investigation had not dealt with the key issues. We were present at that meeting and showed Deloitte's representatives the evidence that they were supposed to have looked at, but they had not looked at it. It had all already been provided to NI Water. That is incredible stuff.

Patsy, your time is well up.

Go raibh míle maith agat.

[Translation: Thank you very much.]

It is important that Members hear this and that we are heard.

Tá a fhios. Ta a fhios agam. Go raibh maith agat, Patsy.

[Translation: I know. I know. Thank you, Patsy.]

I call Andrew McMurray to move amendment No 1.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. Our amendment seeks merely to augment —.

Andrew, will you just move the amendment?

Sorry, I am still a newbie.

It is grand. Patsy has you rattled. Just move the amendment, and then I will —.

Yes. I beg to move amendment No 1:

After "network;" insert: "notes that chronic underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure is a major driver of waterway pollution and biodiversity loss, as well as blocking housebuilding and stifling economic growth; is concerned that NI Water’s current funding model imposes strict caps on what it can borrow and inhibits long-term capital planning;"

Thank you, Andrew. You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I was a bit trigger-happy there.

I thank the Opposition for tabling what is an important motion. Our amendment seeks merely to augment the motion, not to change it, because the Alliance Party is in agreement with the points that are made in it. Our waste water system is in crisis. Lough Neagh is broken, and Belfast lough is going the same way. Construction has ground to a halt in many parts of the country, and NI Water has breached its resource budget. We do not yet know the reasons for the overspend, but NI Water has been clear that it cannot meet its legal obligations in the context of the huge resource and capital funding gaps that we are currently witnessing. I look forward to reading the findings of the forensic audit once it is complete.

There is broad agreement across the political spectrum that the crisis is real and is getting worse, yet the Minister continues to cling to the deeply flawed three-pronged approach. The first prong, which is to work with Executive colleagues to increase waste water investment, resulted in an extra £19·5 million in capital funding last year, which reduced NI Water's capital funding gap to £246·5 million. That investment falls far short of what is needed. Developer contributions — the second prong — are widely considered to be viable only for high-end properties, and they carry with them a very real risk of driving up house prices and making homeownership even harder for lower-income families. Indeed, those developer contributions are a hidden water fee. What is more, they are a particularly unfair version of a water fee, because they disproportionately hit those who are at the bottom of the housing ladder. That is the opposite of progressive policy.

That leaves the third prong: the water, flooding and sustainable drainage Bill. I have no issue with sustainable drainage. In fact, I am in favour of it. Natural flood management and sustainable drainage systems can and will improve things, but only somewhat. The capacity issues in our waste water system are so severe, however, that we need significant and hard investment in infrastructure in order to address them. Chronic underfunding is the cause —.

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with the construction industry's premise of, "No drains, no cranes"? All development is being halted because of lack of capacity in the system. Housing, infrastructure, schools, hospitals and factories have all stopped being built because we do not have capacity.

I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, schools, hospitals, small businesses, medium-sized businesses, large businesses and homes are all affected. We know the socio-economic impact of that, so I cannot disagree.

Chronic underfunding is the cause of those capacity issues. If we are to address them, the underfunding must stop. The Minister is on record as saying that she believes not that the model is not working but that the problem is that we do not have enough funding. We put it to the Minister that that funding will never come. It is wrong to continue to cling to a model when its basic conditions cannot be met and the consequences for our environment, our economy and our basic needs are so dire. We have to accept the reality that we live in, and we have to address it.

NI Water will still need significant investment. To be precise, compared with what it got last year, it will need an extra £269·5 million of resource and capital funding every year — that is the scale of the problem — and the three-pronged approach cannot and will not fix that. NI Water will never be in a sustainable financial position as long as the Minister clings to that funding model, which leaves our water system without the investment that it needs, and refuses to look at alternatives.

The Minister wrote to the Committee recently, stating that several reviews had already been carried out, but those reviews were led by civil servants and were internal policy development submissions that provided advice within the policy framework for funding NI Water, as endorsed by the Executive and the Assembly. It does not sound as though they looked at alternative frameworks at all, because doing so would mean looking outside the existing policy framework.

Yesterday, during Question Time, we heard that the Department has reviewed other funding models but only to evaluate whether they are compatible with the current funding model, which, of course, they are not. We were also told that officials are reviewing alternative models against three key tests, which, again, the current model cannot meet.

There were two Research and Information Service (RaISe) research papers and an NI Audit Office report. The latter focused on Northern Ireland and gave only a cursory look at alternative funding models. With the greatest respect for the authors of those reports, I say that none was an expert on funding models for water and waste water provision, and only some of them were independent. That is why the NI Audit Office encouraged the Department and NI Water:

"to complete a comprehensive review of the alternative funding and governance arrangements, led by suitably qualified experts."

That is what Alliance calls for.

I beg to move amendment No 2:

Leave out all after "network;" and insert: "opposes the introduction of water charges on already hard-pressed workers and families; acknowledges the need to ensure that NI Water is responsible in its management of public funds; welcomes the Minister for Infrastructure’s decision to appoint a forensic auditor to investigate how NI Water is managing its budget in light of its projected overspend; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to publish the findings of the audit when it concludes."

Nicola, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes.

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

[Translation: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I am sure that no one who is here would dispute that our waste water network is in serious and urgent need of upgrade and repair. The current state of that network and, indeed, of much of our vital infrastructure is a result of decades of chronic underfunding of public services by consecutive British Governments. That underfunding continues today, as Labour has eagerly run with the Tory policy of austerity. However, despite the extreme pressures on the Executive's Budget and on the Department for Infrastructure in particular, Minister Kimmins and her predecessor have ensured that NI Water has been fully funded. Yes, NI Water is dealing with crumbling infrastructure as a result of decades of British austerity and underfunding, but it has received almost £0·5 billion in public funding for 2024-25, so it is only right that how that money is used and managed is scrutinised. It is a fact that we cannot rely on the British Government to properly fund public services here, so the funding that we have must be used with extreme care.

The Minister has already demonstrated her commitment to ensuring that we have the required level of accountability through her decision to appoint a forensic auditor to investigate how NI Water is managing its budget in light of its projected overspend. There is also something important that the Assembly can do today, which is to support our amendment.

In the past 24 hours, the Chamber has heard a lot of talk about proposed solutions such as privatisation and mutualisation. Let there be no doubt that privatisation and mutualisation mean only one thing: water charges. As we have seen in England and Wales, such charges are no guarantee that infrastructure will even be fixed. In truth, the only thing that water charges guarantee is that even more pressure will be heaped on already struggling families and homes.

We already have a shameful situation here in that, during the colder months especially, many people, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, have to choose between heating and eating. We cannot allow a basic and fundamental resource such as water to become a part of the horrendous calculations that people are forced to make. In supporting our amendment, the Assembly can send out the message loud and clear that we will not support water charges.

In previous debates, we have highlighted the need to ensure that NI Water fix the problems in different areas so that everyone can get the service that they require. However, not much has been achieved yet, with people, developers and businesses still restricted in what they can develop or grow. Many places in Northern Ireland have old pipes and sewerage systems that need to be fixed or replaced. Some towns are struggling because they have inadequate sewerage systems. Northern Ireland's water and sewerage infrastructure crisis is holding back economic growth and housing development. Around 19,000 new homes are stalled due to the waste water capacity issues, and experts have said that, even with immediate investment, fixing the problem could take a decade.

Northern Ireland Water has warned that chronic underfunding is restricting new housing, schools and businesses in over 100 towns and cities. Without proper drainage systems, construction projects cannot move forward. It is clear that frustration is mounting over the lack of decisive action. While funding constraints are a reality, leadership is required to set priorities and find innovative solutions even in difficult circumstances. Ultimately, the responsibility to prioritise and address infrastructure issues lies with the Minister and her Department. The Minister must take ownership and provide a transparent road map for tackling underinvestment to ensure better alignment with the broader economic and housing goals. Without a clear strategy, Northern Ireland's economic growth and housing development will continue to suffer.

Recent efforts, such as securing funding of £19·5 million for 2,300 new property connections, show some progress. However, the scale of underinvestment, which is estimated at £3 billion, requires bold leadership and collaboration. The Minister must outline a comprehensive plan to modernise water infrastructure and ensure its alignment with housing and economic goals. NI Water's Sara Venning told the Infrastructure Committee:

"We have more overflows per head of population, and per kilometre of pipe, than is the case in" other parts of

"the UK". — [Official Report (Hansard), 8 April 2024, p47, col 1].

That is not good enough.

The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) told the Infrastructure Committee that roughly a quarter of the pollution incidents that specifically relate to water quality are a result of waste water treatment by NI Water. That is damming and, no doubt, has had a major impact on water quality and contributed to the recent issues in our loughs.

Storm overflows were introduced as a workaround for Northern Ireland's ageing sewerage system, but they have become a major issue. Recent drainage modelling shows that many overflows spill far more often than the standards deem to be acceptable. That is due to underinvestment and the lack of new infrastructure to manage waste water properly. As of February 2025, NI Water had 2,440 storm overflows. Around half of those have been modelled using NIEA criteria, and 39% have been assessed as unsatisfactory. The spills not only harm the environment but highlight the urgent need for strategic investment in the sewerage network. Without investment, the problem will only worsen as population and development demands grow.

I will turn to developer contributions. As I mentioned previously, the £19·5 million for 2,300 properties announced back in December equates to approximately £8,500 per property. An explanatory note on the current consultation on developer contributions indicates that £84 million:

"would allow 5,300 houses to connect and ... capacity for a further 2000 connections."

That works out at £11,500 per connection. We have two figures for the cost per connection: £8,500 and £11,500. The note further states that there is:

"no expectation that developer contributions will provide all, or even most, of the ... funding".

Can the Minister tell us, when responding to the debate, what the Department's thoughts are on that and on what the figure could be? The Sinn Féin amendment states:

"'opposes the introduction of water charges on already hard-pressed ... families".

Will the developer contribution, if it happens and depending on its size, be passed on to "already hard-pressed families" when they purchase a new home? We await the outcome of the consultation. I would appreciate it if the Minister could cover those points in her closing remarks.

As a member of the Infrastructure Committee, I am aware of the very serious issues and challenges that face our water infrastructure network right across every corner of Northern Ireland. Indeed, economic growth and prosperity depend on having a water and sewerage network that is fit for purpose for the future and today. However, our network is definitely not fit for purpose.

This is not a new issue, and my party colleagues brought a motion to the Assembly towards the end of the previous mandate that called for a new strategy to enhance and expand our water and sewerage infrastructure. We note with regret the lack of progress to date, despite many reports, consultations, surveys and engagement from right across the sector, which starkly highlight the need for action. Successive Ministers have spoken about how high a priority the issue is for them. There is no doubt that the running failure to address underinvestment in our water infrastructure is severely hampering economic development and housebuilding across our country.

Every month that passes without action leads to further missed opportunities to support business expansion, grow our economy, boost employment in the construction and many other sectors and to meet our ever-increasing housing targets.

We have also recently seen the suspension of the living with water programme, and I know that the Minister is aware of that. There are real concerns about that across the country, particularly in my North Down constituency, with the pressures on the already overstretched Kinnegar treatment works and the subsequent knock-on impact in Belfast lough.

The Minister recently pointed, as she often does, to developer contributions as a potential way of dealing with the crisis. My colleague Mr Buchanan touched on that. It is important to remember that developer contributions in themselves will not be a silver bullet; indeed, during a recent Committee briefing, senior NI Water officials confirmed that they are not a long-term solution. While developer contributions initially put the cost on to the developer, it will ultimately be the public that will have to pick up the tab when purchasing new homes.

The Minister recently announced her decision to engage forensic accounting services to investigate why NIW has been unable to live within its budget allocation. I look forward to, hopefully, hearing an update from the Minister today on when Members can expect to see any outcomes from that investigation. When we spoke around one month ago, a period of six weeks was mentioned, and the clock is ticking on that. We look forward to hearing more on that where costs and actions going forward are concerned. We do not want to see another report or review that sits on a shelf, as others, including Mr McGlone, said. We need to see action, and now is the time for that.

I trust that the Minister will take meaningful and decisive action, should the opportunity arise following the conclusion of the forensic accountants' work. We need to explore the merits of developing and looking at, for example, NI Water's borrowing powers and at innovative solutions. We also need to look closely at and consider global best practice. As I touched on, our housing supply strategy warns about the limitations, and all of us in the House know that, in every corner of our country, there is an ever-growing waiting list with thousands of people desperately waiting on that new home.

All in all, the debate has been useful. The Minister needs to urgently complete a comprehensive review and action plan for reform in order to secure the appropriate finance to invest in our water infrastructure, rather than simply repeating the mistakes and excuses of her predecessors by kicking the can down the road in the hope of avoiding difficult decisions.

This is the latest in a series of debates on Northern Ireland Water and the funding crisis that it faces. It is a crisis; you do not need to be a member of the Infrastructure Committee, like my colleagues and me, to know the seriousness and gravity of the situation. Every one of us from across all constituencies is well up to date on the problems and capacity issues that face Northern Ireland Water.

As we know, Northern Ireland Water is critical to the health, economy and environment of Northern Ireland, yet, for too long, it has been expected to deliver vital services with one hand tied behind its back. That approach has left Northern Ireland Water underfunded, unable to plan properly for the future and increasingly unable to meet rising demands. We now see the consequences of that.

As we have heard, new housing developments are stalled across Northern Ireland because the water and waste water infrastructure simply cannot cope. Tens of thousands of houses are stalled in key growth areas, such as Belfast, Newry, parts of mid-Ulster and in my constituency of East Antrim, where, for example, a whole section of Larne is banned from seeing any development. That is simply unsustainable, mainly because, as we know, we lack the investment in waste water treatment capacity.

As we know, it is not just a problem for private developers; it is a problem for everyone. It blocks economic growth, worsens housing shortages and weakens our ability to attract investment. The Minister for Communities has recently and rightly announced an investment in social housing, but we will not see that come to fruition without resolving the waste water capacity issues. The Minister for Infrastructure has a three-pronged approach, and, as part of that, developer levies are being considered. I, for one, join other Members in wanting to see the details of that, because I fear that, while those levies may be developer-led, they will ultimately be homeowner- or renter-paid. That is not what we want to see.

The previous Utility Regulator, the Consumer Council and independent experts have all pointed to the same root cause: the funding model is broken. Northern Ireland Water needs stable, multi-year investment, not the uncertainty of hand-to-mouth annual budgets that cannot keep pace with infrastructure needs. When members of the Audit Office were at the Committee recently, I made the point that not only are we not spending enough right now but, by underspending year-on-year, the infrastructure that is there will cost more and more to maintain, so we are running to stand still. It is simply unsustainable. We need an honest, evidenced-based, rational assessment of what is required to secure reliable, resilient water services for the future that support growth, protect public health and meet our environmental obligations. When we see raw sewage pumping onto our streets and into Belfast lough and the impacts on Lough Neagh, it is clear to all of us that something urgently needs to happen.

The Ulster Unionist Party is happy to support the Alliance Party's amendment and the original motion. We look forward to seeing action from the Minister.

I was not planning on speaking on the motion, but I thought that Members of the Assembly had not heard enough from me today and were perhaps hoping fondly to hear more from the leader of the Opposition. Part of the purpose of my speaking today is to reinforce some of what my colleague Patsy McGlone said. Patsy outlined some serious allegations and information and put those on the record in the Assembly today. I will add to that and to what he said about the seriousness of our overall motion.

Today's motions are about accountability and about forcing the Executive not just to be clear about what they say that they want to do or their vague aspirations but to provide detailed plans for improving people's lives and public services. There is widespread consensus, if not unanimity — I will come on to that; there may not be perfect unanimity — that Northern Ireland Water is not funded adequately and has had historical underinvestment and that our water infrastructure is failing us. That failure has been well rehearsed today. Lough Neagh is, sadly and tragically, becoming an almost sci-fi-like vision of failure. What has happened at Lough Neagh is probably one of the most horrific ecological breakdowns in Europe. Although the issues at Northern Ireland Water are certainly not the only or the majority reason for that, they have contributed seriously to what has happened there, and they are contributing to what is happening at Belfast lough and other watercourses.

There has been a long-run failure to invest and a failure by us to properly make progress on economic development. Members have all talked about the barriers to investment. I can talk about that in my constituency. I am sure that every MLA can talk not just about water issues in the building of new social homes but about small, additional issues for businesses. I will give an example, but I will not go into specific details. A cafe operating in my constituency employs people and is a well-liked community business and, if you like, asset, but it is having issues with NI Water permissions. It is a small cafe that serves sandwiches and drinks. That example will be replicated across the North. We cannot allow a situation to endure where we cannot meaningfully build social homes and where small businesses, let alone factories and warehouses, cannot expand.

Thanks very much to the Member for giving way. Does he accept that developer contributions, while they may make some modicum of a contribution to the solution, are not the be-all and end-all and should not be presented as such?

The Member has an extra minute.

Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. What we have had so far is a way of, frankly, parking the question for now. I am afraid that that is what we have had lots of from successive Infrastructure Ministers, who have deflected attention away from the question about the failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure. We have had partial answers, and we have been told, "We'll do something on developer contributions", despite the fact that there are challenges around developer contributions and that they could cause an issue by slowing down the pipeline of homes. Even if you did developer contributions, as my colleague Patsy McGlone has just said, there is no real evidence that they would deliver anywhere near the quantum of funding change that is needed. There is a consultation happening, we are told; perhaps the Minister will say more about that now. There is no sign, however, that we will get this implemented or delivered within anything like a meaningful timescale. It seems very much like the phrase "developer contributions" has been picked from the air in order to have something to say.

The other thing that is often said — there is a real problem with the repetition of this argument — is that we do not want water charges. My party does not want water charges. That is not an answer to the question. You cannot simply say — I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or perhaps she will reflect on that in her remarks. I am happy to give way.

I do not want water charges, but there are multiple other options for funding NI Water. The mutualisation model is one option. One mutualisation model might mean water charges, but I am not advocating that. There are other ways of doing mutualisation. Another model might be that the Executive say, "Over the long run, we will give NI Water the first call on the conventional capital budget. We do not want to go anywhere near mutualisation. We do not want to change classification. We do not want to worry about the Office for National Statistics. We just want" — perhaps officials have looked at this —"to give NI Water the first call on the capital departmental expenditure limit allocations". They have not said that they will do that. The former Infrastructure Minister is now the Finance Minister, and I have not heard that suggestion from him, but that is the upshot: if Sinn Féin Ministers want to do that, they should tell us.

Another option would be to look for a new borrowing power that would not involve any kind of mutualisation and certainly not privatisation. The Executive would, perhaps, simply do some kind of new borrowing, such as a new bond, to fund water infrastructure. That would still have to be paid for, probably, again, out of Executive repayments. I am not necessarily advocating any of those options — I see the officials shaking their heads — but we need something. We have a crisis.

Five years ago, 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA) promised that there would be urgent investment in waste water infrastructure. We are five years on, and we have not seen the urgent investment in NI Water. It is therefore legitimate for us, as an Opposition, to ask what is happening. What is happening with our waste water infrastructure? Lough Neagh is an ecological catastrophe. Nowhere near the number of new homes that we expected to see are being built. A couple of years ago, a Sinn Féin Communities Minister said that hundreds of thousands of new homes would be built in the next decade and a half. They will not — not with our current waste water infrastructure. All those problems are mounting up. All that we ask for is clarity, a review to produce options —

Your time is up.

— and the Executive finally to deliver on them.

I welcome the opportunity to share my concerns about how a limping Northern Ireland Water hurts economic growth and stifles investment across Northern Ireland. I will use my time to highlight two examples in my constituency that typify the problem that our economy faces due to an at-capacity Northern Ireland Water network across our country.

The first example is the case of a small housing site on the Grange Road in Ballymena. Planning permission was granted in December 2020 for 10 much-needed dwellings in a highly sought-after area. The development cannot proceed, however, because of Northern Ireland Water's stubbornness and the utter failure of successive Executives to properly fund and reform our waste water infrastructure. The site sits directly opposite Spencestown treatment plant — indeed, a stone's throw across the river. The main combined sewer runs along the site boundary, yet Northern Ireland Water refuses connection, citing capacity issues. The infrastructure is there, but, it is claimed, it is overwhelmed.

The site owner has commissioned an expensive Northern Ireland Water solutions engineer's report, which I have with me. The two options that are presented are wildly expensive, coming at a cost of £160,000 and £175,000. That is utterly unviable for a small site of 10 houses; indeed, it is a death sentence for the development. My constituent has spent over a year employing his own consultants and chasing every option possible. Nine of the 10 possible solutions outlined in the report were ruled out as not appropriate or simply not viable for the site. Only solution 10 remains:

"a private developer-produced waste water treatment works".

That would be built to an adoptable standard at no cost to the public purse. It is perfectly viable and ready to proceed at a fraction of the cost outlined in the report that, NI Water says, a connection will incur, but NI Water says no. Bureaucratic stubbornness reigns supreme in that organisation. Logic, reason and common sense are all set aside. Sites lie dormant as a result.

The second case that I want to highlight relates to a site in Connor, which was passed in February 2023. That development is for 24 houses in another highly sought-after area. The contractor has paid Northern Ireland Water the requested £10,000, plus £2,000 for VAT, non-refundable fee to redesign his drainage scheme. That was back in April 2024. Twelve months later, the contractor is still waiting. To put that in context, the work could have been carried out in a morning by one person in the private sector, but it has taken Northern Ireland Water 12 months and still there is no final product. The latest from Northern Ireland Water is that it is struggling to get a contractor to dig a hole in the road to survey the levels and that it will be July before it can provide the contractor — my constituent — with a price for the works to bring the tails to the site. Then, once that payment has been received by Northern Ireland Water, it will be a further three months before Northern Ireland Water will commit to bringing the tails to that site. To recap, it will take 16 months from the time that the £12,000 was paid to Northern Ireland Water to provide a design and a costing and 19 months to provide a design, a costing and bring the necessary infrastructure to the site.

Planning permissions expire. Housing need grows. To Northern Ireland Water, I say this: get out of the way of progress when it comes to these sites, get out of the way of builders who are willing to invest in our country and get out of the way of ordinary people who want nothing more than a roof over their heads. Minister, it is your arm's-length body: it is time that you got a handle on what it does.

We have to be clear that the major obstacle to economic, environmental and social progress in the North is mostly inaction and ineptitude by the Executive. The current state of our water network does not help. Poor water infrastructure is, as we have already heard, preventing homes from being built, poisoning our drinking water and leaking sewage into vital natural resources such as Lough Neagh. Each year, NI Water dumps millions of tons of untreated sewage into Lough Neagh and other waterways across the North. Seemingly, it cannot — or, rather, will not — be held to account for those actions. The fault does not lie with the workers in NI Water; it lies with the inaction of the Executive, who have starved our public services, including NI Water, of funds to the point of collapse.

Last year, the Assembly passed a motion calling on the Infrastructure Minister to consider the mutualisation of NI Water. However, mutualisation is just privatisation by another name. As I said at the time, that is nothing more than a red herring that is designed to distract us all from the fact that for years the Executive have failed to give NI Water the investment that it so badly needs. Any review of NI Water's funding and governance that tells us that the only way that we can build social homes is by seeking private finance or introducing water charges is selling a lie. Ordinary people are fed up with rates hikes, out-of-control rents, rising bills and an endless cost-of-living crisis that never seems to touch the wealthy. Making wealthy developers pay for investment in the network could be a fairer alternative but only if the costs are not passed down to people who are buying homes to live in. That means that the Executive must make sure that there is protection for renters and people with mortgages. So far, they have failed to act for both.

Privatisation and mutualisation are not the solutions to NI Water's dysfunction. We have seen how that has played out in England. Directors and shareholders have paid themselves billions in dividends while refusing to invest in infrastructure. Only 14% of English rivers meet the standards required for "good" ecological status. That should be food for thought. Welsh Water has been mutualised, and Welsh people pay over £500 per year for their water. I doubt anybody is advocating for that example to be followed, though maybe some people are. Welsh Water continues to illegally dump waste due to the state of its failing infrastructure. We have only to look to Britain for ample evidence that water charges and privatisation do not guarantee investment or clean good water.

People Before Profit will never support the quiet privatisation of our water infrastructure or the imposition of water charges on working-class people. We need to bring NI Water back in-house and allow it to be run as a properly funded public body. For that reason, I am happy to support the motion and Sinn Féin's amendment.

Thank you, Gerry. Our next contributor is the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, you will have up to 15 minutes.

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

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I thank the proposers of the motion on NI Water's funding and governance and those who tabled the amendments. The issue is well rehearsed. I have lost count of the number of times that we have had these discussions in the three months that I have been in post. That is not to underplay the issue's importance, because it deserves a focused debate.

Members will be aware, and many have mentioned in the debate, that I and my predecessor have been proactive in working to find solutions by means of a three-pronged approach, whether or not they agree with that, and some have indicated that they do not. I thank Mr Carroll for his comments about keeping NI Water in-house: that is our focus, and it is critical to ensuring that the people whom we represent get the service that they are entitled to and deserve. We have seen examples where other approaches have not worked elsewhere. For me, that is fundamental to how we move forward on the issue.

Before I address the motion specifically, I remind Members that NI Water was established in 2007 as a government-owned company to provide water and sewage services across the North. Since its establishment, it has been the Executive's policy to provide subsidies to NI Water in lieu of domestic water charging. Since 2007, some £4 billion of public money has been invested in the water and waste water infrastructure in the North, and NI Water has reduced its efficiency gap compared with similar companies in England and Wales from 49% in 2007 to 5% today.

As an arm's-length body sponsored by my Department, NI Water is required to deliver on three key areas: to provide a high-quality service that is independently regulated by the Utility Regulator, protecting the interests of consumers by challenging NI Water to deliver high-quality, value for money water and sewage services; to adhere to the requirements of a public-sector organisation, delivering services for all people across the North within the allocated budget and with due regard for statutory obligations; and to be accountable to my Department and the Assembly for its operational and financial performance and compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI'.

My Department has fully funded NI Water for the first three years of the current price control period. Indeed, my Department has provided almost £90 million of additional funding over and above the funding level that was recommended by the Utility Regulator for that period. The key issue is the level of public expenditure that is available to the Executive, not just my Department, to allocate to NI Water. That is a consequence of the underfunding of public services in the North over many years. I am glad to say that, previously, all parties were united in engaging with the British Government to try to resolve the issue. That, however, seems to have been forgotten about in today's debate. I hope that parties will continue to push for that, because it benefits all our Departments and every service that we deliver on a daily basis.

The motion and the amendments raise important issues around the impact of austerity funding on a vital public service. I am committed to working to find solutions — whether or not others agree with those approaches — within my Department's overall policy framework and the Executive's policy for funding NI Water from the public purse. It must be recognised that, because NI Water is majority funded from the public purse, it is classified as an organisation within central government and subject to government accounting rules, as I said, as defined in 'Managing Public Money NI'. All NI Water's expenditure must come from within the public expenditure envelope that is provided to my Department.

In 2024-25, NI Water was provided with nearly £500 million of public money, representing almost 40% of the non-ring-fenced funding budget that was provided to my Department. It is necessary to remember that NI Water's spending also includes borrowing from my Department. As a public-sector organisation, regardless of the source of borrowed funds, whether private or public, all expenditure must be within the allocated budget. The Assembly previously debated a review of NI Water and discussed alternative company structures such as mutualisation, which we have heard about today. The simple fact remains, however, that changing NI Water's status will require a change to how it receives its revenue. I do not need to remind Members that I will not oversee the imposition of water charges on people and families who are already struggling in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. The ideas that have been proposed in this debate, in previous debates, in questions for written answer and in questions for oral answer all lead to one thing: water charges.

I will focus on some of the issues that Members have raised during the debate. It is important to go back to Patsy McGlone's opening comments about successive Sinn Féin Infrastructure Ministers. I remind Members that Sinn Féin has held the Infrastructure portfolio for less than two of the past three years. Previous to that, there was an SDLP Infrastructure Minister. That seems to have been forgotten. The challenges have not just arisen in the past two years. Successive British Governments have continually underfunded us. The cost of delivering on the issues has almost doubled in the time since the latest price control period started.

Thanks very much for giving way. Minister, as I mentioned, I sat on the Public Accounts Committee a number of years ago with your colleague and one of your predecessors Conor Murphy. I just do not want you to make all the mistakes again that were made at that time. We had

[Inaudible]

at that time. That is why I highlighted a lot of the problems today.

I appreciate the Member's comments, but the point that I am making is that this is not an issue that has just arisen. Rather, it is an issue that has come about as a result of chronic underinvestment, and I think that we are all in agreement on that point. If the solution were as easy as Members have today made it out to be, we would be using that solution, but it is not. The SDLP said yesterday and today that it is on the same page as me in not wanting to introduce water charges, but I am yet to hear what the other options are.

Will the Minister give way?

I need to get through this. My time is limited, Matthew.

I said what the options are.

You did not mention any new options, however. What we have heard to date is mutualisation, privatisation and nothing else. I have put my approach on the record, and I will continue my work.

I will return to your comment, Matthew, about borrowing and getting first call. We had first call on reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) borrowing this year. Unfortunately, it is capped by Treasury. This year, we got £105 million, which has gone to NI Water from the Executive, so that is an indication of how important that is, not just to me as the Minister and my predecessor but to the Executive as a whole.

I will turn to the comments from Alliance and DUP Members. We have talked about mutualisation. One has just to look at Welsh Water. I met the Utility Regulator earlier this afternoon, and I look forward to continuing that engagement with the Utility Regulator and with NI Water, because, collaboratively, we can achieve progress on the issues. Welsh Water is an example of how mutualisation is not working. People in Wales are seeing, I think, a 27% rise in their bills in this financial year. Is that what we are proposing today?

On the comments about developer contributions, I have said, at every stage at which I have discussed them, that I do not believe that they are a silver bullet. Rather, they are part of a broader solution, and we have to consider all the options. This is about looking at what is available to us. What have we got in our armoury that can make a change? It is then about working together to make that change. The only other option that I am hearing today is to introduce more charges, meaning more bills for hard-pressed families, and that is something that I am not prepared to do. Perhaps others are, but, if they subsequently take the Ministry, so be it, and they can consider introducing them in the time ahead.

In that vein, I will focus on the positive outcomes that can be achieved from the funding envelope that is available. I mentioned the three-pronged approach, and we have seen some of its successes. I think that it was you, Keith, who outlined the unlocking of capacity through the £19 million funding received from monitoring rounds. That has to be recognised. As well as that, Andrew McMurray talked about the natural drainage legislation, and I have been speaking to some stakeholders about that. There have been quite positive sounds made about what that legislation will potentially bring about. Let us therefore try those things and test them out rather than automatically default to adding more charges to households.

I recently asked my officials to reassess a range of governance models, with reference to three specific tests, to which Members have alluded, to determine whether those models can secure large-scale investment, access and service debt and provide assurance about controlling the cost burden on the public. Ultimately, the funding and governance model for NI Water, as a non-departmental public body, must operate within the Executive's policy framework for the funding and delivery of water and sewerage services.

As I have said previously, it must comply with the requirements of 'Managing Public Money NI' (MPMNI) and, specifically, regularity, propriety and value for money.

I fully recognise the risks and issues affecting the environment, the economy and housing as a consequence of the funding challenges. I am committed to doing everything possible to ensure that my Department contributes to achieving the Programme for Government outcomes, which infrastructure — particularly, our waste water infrastructure — underpins across the board. We have talked about how we have seen some of the work that has progressed to date with the £19·5 million. As well as that, it is important to say that my Department is working collaboratively with colleagues in the Department for Communities, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Housing Executive and NI Water to identify further key projects that can unlock waste water capacity to enable more housing connection in the future. We are also working collaboratively with other Departments in relation to Lough Neagh.

We had a lot of talk today about reviews: "We do not want a review, but we do want a review". The Committee has asked for the six reviews that have already taken place. The Department has extensively reviewed the funding model and has analysed the opportunities for NI Water to raise additional revenue, to operate more efficiently, for additional borrowing, using additional public expenditure funding and governance change. My recent announcement about the appointment of a forensic accountant ties in with all that work. It is important that I, as Minister, the Department and the Assembly as a whole understand how that budget is currently being spent. Is there room for improvement, or, essentially, is there no more room for flexibility?

I remain open to alternative solutions; however, they must be compliant with Executive policy on how water and waste water services are funded and comply with the requirement to increase investment, to control borrowing debt and to remain affordable, most importantly, for people and for families.

Will the Minister give way?

I do not have time at this point; sorry.

As we have seen in the first three years of the price control, the current funding model works when it is funded. I doubt that there is a single Member in the Assembly who would suggest that we ask households and families to pay more in respect of water charges.

The approach that I have taken is a sensible one that can achieve solutions. I welcome additional suggestions other than the implementation of water charges. If Members feel that there is scope out there that I have not looked at, feel free to share that. I have a meeting today with representatives from the NI Chamber and other sectors, and planning and waste water infrastructure will be part of those discussions. I am working with all key stakeholders across the North to ensure that we can find solutions that will not have a negative impact on the people whom we all serve.

I call Cathal Boylan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. I advise you that you have five minutes.

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

[Translation: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I also welcome the motion's being brought to the Assembly, as it is a very important issue that deserves our focus. Debates such as these are also an opportunity for Members and parties to set out their stall on their plans and vision for NIW. The position of Sinn Féin should by now be clear for all to see, and our amendment reinforces that position. We are not supportive of changes to the funding model for NIW that would lead to mutualisation or privatisation. Those approaches, as taken by Thames Water and Welsh Water, have been a disaster. Those approaches would also lead to domestic water charges being placed on already hard-pressed families across the North. That is unacceptable.

I ask Members to support our amendment and recognise the ongoing work by the Minister in carrying out the forensic audit of NIW's 2024-25 accounts. That is evidence that the Minister is serious about supporting NIW to deliver on improving and maintaining our waste water network as best she can. Therefore, it will be a better use of the Minister's finite resources in the Department to continue with the three-pronged approach that she has continually set out: to seek additional funding for NIW from the Executive; to consult on developer contributions; and to legislate to promote the use of sustainable drainage systems. I ask Members to support Sinn Féin's amendment.

I call Peter McReynolds to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Peter, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions today. As I have said in the Chamber before, when I studied human rights law back in 2011, I met MLAs for the first time to discuss water management and the creation of Northern Ireland Water in 2007. Back then, the Assembly had to grapple with how to manage and provide water infrastructure to residents and businesses across Northern Ireland. Today, we can all agree or disagree on policy and have different opinions. However, my party colleagues and I consider it vital that we have the bravery to discuss how we manage water — it is a resource that is financially intensive and that does not just fall from the sky in a safe-to-drink state — and that we do so in a way that is transparent, clear and factual.

Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have raised the issue on several occasions. We hear regularly from the Minister that we have looked at the matter time and time again. I am aware of six internal reports that have never been made public to allow an informed discussion and debate to take place, looking at the key facts and collectively deciding from there. Upon asking the Minister and the permanent secretary at a recent Committee meeting to publish those reports, I was told that they were already public and accessible. Further written clarification established that that was not the case. We were then given six unnamed reports alongside two Research and Information Service (RaISe) documents that spanned roughly a decade.

As a Committee, we recently had the Audit Office before us. It carried out excellent work to establish an objective and clear way forward in its March 2024 report to address major issues and cracks that are starting to appear in Northern Ireland Water. We have tens of thousands of homeless people in Northern Ireland, but we cannot build homes. We cannot build businesses or create the jobs needed to facilitate them because network connections cannot be made, as we have heard today.

The conclusion in the Audit Office report was as follows:

"we encourage the Department and NI Water to complete a comprehensive review of the alternative funding and governance arrangements, led by suitably qualified experts."

However, as with the earlier debate on the establishment of an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission and as with the 2023 Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman's report titled 'Strengthening Our Roots' , a theme emerges: we are no further on with implementing any of those recommendations in 2025. They are crucial to addressing major and fundamental issues with Northern Ireland Water and engaging the work of experts to understand what needs to happen.

What we currently have is not working. It is not replicated anywhere across the world that I am aware of. Our funding model and annual budgets to fund the treatment of water to make it safe to drink is not the best way in which to achieve that goal. That is precisely why we have human waste in Belfast lough, which is fast on its way to becoming the next Lough Neagh; human waste 200 metres from my parents' house in north Belfast, which was revealed in a 'Spotlight' programme just last year; an artificially created beach of sewage because the system cannot cope with the sheer volume of rubbish; and a burst storm overflow drain that flowed with toilet water for around three days in north Belfast last summer. That is the system that is being allowed to barely function because it is out of sight and out of mind.

What are our options? We could sit back, do nothing and hope for the best, and then, next summer, the outrage will begin, and we will be shocked at how that could happen in 2025 on our front doorsteps. We could push back against water charges, ignoring the fact that we already pay for water in the most inefficient and wasteful way possible. We could shout, "Privatisation" but, in the same breath, praise the work of housing associations, which can operate in a more flexible way — a way that we are asking to explore.

The make-up of and issues in Northern Ireland Water come up consistently, as the Minister said today, but things are getting worse, and the problems are not going away. I encourage the Minister to take this matter of public health seriously, implement the recommendations of the Audit Office, conduct a publicly accessible review as a matter of urgency and put the matter to bed. Internal reviews that none of us is able to see are not achieving the goal of supporting Northern Ireland Water.

I call Mark Durkan to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the debate on the motion. Mark, you have 10 minutes.

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

[Translation: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker.]

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.

I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I share his view on England and Wales. Does he agree that it needs to be included in the debate that, just down the road, when the Irish Government considered introducing separate water charges, there was a huge uprising of people power there? People decided that they would not pay and came out in huge numbers. People should be cognisant of that if they are advocating a separate charge for water.

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.

Will the Member give way?

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

[Laughter.]

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.

Time is up, Mark.

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

Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and negatived.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly regrets the state of our waste water network; opposes the introduction of water charges on already hard-pressed workers and families; acknowledges the need to ensure that NI Water is responsible in its management of public funds; welcomes the Minister for Infrastructure’s decision to appoint a forensic auditor to investigate how NI Water is managing its budget in light of its projected overspend; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to publish the findings of the audit when it concludes.

Order, please. As you were advised earlier, we were notified that the proposer of the Adjournment debate will not be speaking on that topic, and it has been removed from the Order Paper today.

Adjourned at 4.05 pm.