To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (i) for an update on the commencement of Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997; and (ii) to detail any anticipated costs associated with this commencement.

I can confirm that I am committed to addressing concerns around contaminated land.

In April 2026 DAERA published a Summary Report produced by external consultants following an exercise commissioned on Identification of Land in Northern Ireland Potentially Contaminated with Mercury. The initial report was conducted by means of a desk-based review using the NIEA Historical Land Use Database and the DOE industry Profiles with no site visits of field work undertaken. That detail has been uploaded to DAERA Open Data to provide increased awareness.

However, it is also important to be responsible in how that information is presented and reported on. Therefore, to help allay an immediate concerns NIEA carried out a supplementary review of the 25 sites that were regarded as having the highest potential of mercury contamination. In all 25 cases NIEA found that either mercury contamination was unlikely or that risk of exposure to mercury was low.

I am strongly of the view that costs should be borne by those responsible for the contamination adhering to the “polluter pays” principle, which is reinforced by my department’s introduction of the NI Environmental Principles Policy Statement, which came into force on 2 September 2026.

In the absence of a specific contaminated land regime, many contamination issues are dealt with on an individual site basis through existing planning and environmental protection controls. The application process for development or change of land-use deals with historical contaminated land sites by attaching certain conditions as part of the redevelopment process.

In Northern Ireland, as in GB, any new incidents of land contamination are dealt with under Environmental Liability Regulations. The Environmental Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 place obligations on operators requiring them to take preventative action where there is an imminent threat of environmental damage and to remediate damage that has occurred.

It is positive that most land remediation occurs as part of planning consent where the cost is met by the landowner or developer. It is important that focus remains on those responsible for contamination, or those who benefit financially from the future use of the land, to ensure that they bear the costs instead of that falling to the public purse.

While the situation is likely to have improved due to this approach, there remains the potential that the introduction of the contaminated land regime may place significant costs on central government and local authorities. To provide a more robust evidence base to consider the potential impact on public finances, my Department launched a tender process to procure consultants with the necessary expertise to assess the costs associated with establishing and maintaining a contaminated land regime. Unfortunately, that process concluded without any tenders being received. Officials are currently engaging with industry to identify further options.

As set out above, while I am keen to see progress on this matter, I also have a responsibility to give due consideration to wider public finances. In early 2006 the, then, Department of the Environment received a report from Casella Stanger assessing the resources necessary to implement and enforce Part III of a Northern Ireland Contaminated Land Regime. This report determined the total Inspection and Remediation cost to be £329 million, which would equate to close to £600 million today. While many contaminated sites may have since been redeveloped, it nevertheless appears likely that the costs will still be significant.