To ask the Minister for Infrastructure to outline why her Department changed its definition of active travel spend between February 2024 and June 2025 and reclassified £37 million of existing expenditure as active travel spend.

Ms Kimmins

Section 22 of the Climate Change Act 2022 states that my Department:

My Department has not changed what it considers to be active travel, which is travelling by physically active means, such as walking, wheeling or cycling. What has changed is that, for the first time, there is a need to capture and report the overall spend on active travel funded from overall transport budgets across my Department in line with section 22 of the Act, rather than just reporting the new active travel projects being delivered and the spend on those fantastic projects, such as the cycling proficiency scheme and the Active School Travel programme. As, I am sure, Members will agree, active travel is not single, discrete activity in my Department. Many different sections routinely carry out work that greatly benefits pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the provisional out-turn for 2024-25 shows that almost £12 million has been spent on maintaining existing assets, whether that is fixing trip hazards, cutting back vegetation or resurfacing old, uneven footways, all of which play a part in ensuring that we have accessible and usable active travel routes. Similarly, while I recognise the role that street lighting plays in road safety for motorists, its primary purpose is as a safety amenity for pedestrians. The majority of street lights are in built-up areas, and they clearly play a significant role in making people feel more comfortable and secure if they are walking or cycling at night. That being the case, we have attributed 50% of the overall cost of street lighting towards our calculation of active travel spend. Let us not forget, however, about investment in new infrastructure for active travel. I want more people to feel comfortable and safe when walking, wheeling or cycling, and that is why I am increasing capital investment to develop our active travel networks. I want to emphasise that active travel is not as straightforward as building a new footpath or cycle lane. We have to ensure that they are safe and accessible for everyone, and that forms part of that overall spend.

Ms Kimmins

I reiterate that it is not a change to the definition. I am now required to calculate that overall spend and report how it is made up. That is all that has changed. I am required to do that. We cannot say that we are spending x, y and z on active travel while excluding the maintenance of the new infrastructure elements or the existing infrastructure that is important in allowing an active travel route to be used. I need to be clear about that. We are not fixing street lights and saying that that is active travel; we are doing that on specific active travel routes to ensure that we capture the facts and what is required.

If we do not ensure that those routes are up to standard, people will not be able use them in the way that they were designed to be used. We talk about ending violence against women and girls. There is no point putting footpaths and other infrastructure in place if women do not feel safe to use them.

There may be a little bit of a grey area here in that it is not a change in the definition; it is just what I am required to do given my responsibility to outline what is included in that spend. That is part of active travel infrastructure. If you are developing any piece of infrastructure, that spend would be included for the new road or whatever it may be.

Mr McHugh

Minister, can you provide an update on the active travel delivery plan?

Ms Kimmins

Public consultation on the draft active travel delivery plan closed on 28 February this year. I am pleased with the level of engagement on the plan, with over 330 responses having been received. My officials are reviewing all the responses and preparing a final plan, which they aim to present to me for consideration in the coming months. I hope to be in a position to publish the final plan before the end of this year. Once complete, the active travel delivery plan will complement the Belfast cycling network delivery plan and the strategic plan for greenways to provide a firm basis for the prioritisation and delivery of active travel infrastructure for the next 10 years and beyond.

Mr K Buchanan

Minister, active travel schemes are obviously to be welcomed. How will you get the balance with new schemes and keeping existing footpaths clear? There are loads of footpaths in my constituency that people cannot even walk on, yet I see new ones being built to nowhere — literally nowhere. How will you get that balance right?

Ms Kimmins

We had this conversation in Committee as well. We have to recognise the importance of adequately maintaining our existing network. That means looking at the overall budget and how we allocate it. There will always be difficult decisions to be made around prioritisation. Like I have said in response to other questions here today, including the question that your colleague asked regarding pedestrian crossings, decisions are made based on the prioritisation of those schemes. That question could apply to any aspect of the work that I do in my Department or that the Health or Education Ministers do in theirs. We have to prioritise things on how adequate they are and the needs that they present. The same applies to existing infrastructure and how we ensure that the worst issues are dealt with and worked through as soon as possible.

Mr Stewart

Minister, out of this year's active travel budget, over half a million pounds of taxpayers' money has been squandered on a six-foot fence along the Loughshore and Whiteabbey promenade, one of the lovely coastal views that we have in East Antrim. Nobody wants it. It is totally excessive. I have raised the matter with you and your officials. Will you undertake to review that and try to sort it out for the local residents?

Ms Kimmins

As I said before, we have reviewed it, as the Member is aware. The bottom line is that there is a standard that we have to meet. The Alliance MLA for the area has also met me on the matter. I have a responsibility to meet the standards that are set — not by me but for me. The alternative that we offered was to remove part of the fencing: that was as far as we could go given those standards. I accept that it is not what people want, but, at the same time, if someone is hurt or injured as a result of our not meeting the policy, that falls to me. We were keen to find a balance so that we addressed our responsibilities and took into account the views of the local community.