Debate contribution: Road Infrastructure: Craigavon Area Hospital
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 25 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Road Infrastructure: Craigavon Area Hospital
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4867027
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I thank Mr Beattie for securing this important debate on concerns about the road infrastructure leading to Craigavon Area Hospital. The issue is important to me, as a Newry and Armagh MLA and a former member of the Health Committee. I listened intently to Members as they commented and raised issues, and I have heard their concerns, particularly about the inner road network in Craigavon. The area is similar to others in the North, but, having been at the hospital in a personal capacity and for meetings and other things, I am aware of the surrounding road network. I am not familiar with all the names, but, in my mind, I can see it. It has been useful to get a real insight into it, and I thank Mr Beattie and other Members for Upper Bann for the information that they gave. It goes without saying that investment in new roads and in maintaining roads is critical to ensuring the safe movement of people and goods, allowing the growth of our economy and ensuring good health outcomes. I stress that the North can have whatever quality of road network that it wants; it just needs to be funded. Without such funding, roads will continue to deteriorate and pose a safety risk and will impede safe movement. My Department, like other Departments, has operated in a difficult financial environment for a number of years due to the chronic underfunding that we are all aware of, with the austerity of successive British Governments. That creates significant challenges to our ability to maintain the road network in a safe condition.
I thank the Member for raising that point. Given that it is a significant route, my assessment is that it would be prioritised, but I can get further information from officials on the specific area. The topic of the debate is broad, so I do not have the specifics here, but I am happy to come back to him on that later. I am well aware of the frustration and, at times, inconvenience that is caused. People and communities in the area rely on the road network to do business, go to work and school, connect with one another and, more important to this debate, access critical health services. Officials have worked hard to maintain the road network; they have nonetheless been forced to concentrate on only the highest-priority road repairs. We have all seen the continued deterioration in infrastructure over the past 10 years as a result, as the Member outlined, with a large number of potholes, some of which beggar belief, and other defects developing across the road network. The weather has also played a critical part, particularly in recent times. The estimated value of the difference — this encapsulates the scope of the shortfall in funding — between what was needed to maintain the network and what was available to spend between 2014 and 2024 is approximately £1 billion. That clearly identifies where the challenges lie and makes apparent the difference in quality that should be expected when such a significant shortfall in maintenance spending occurs.
It is also important to say that, at this time, my Department is considering a new road maintenance strategy. I hope to be able to provide the Assembly with more information about that in the time ahead, because we have to look at whether we can do things differently. The Executive agreed the 2024-25 Budget, and best use has been made of that funding, by my predecessor and, in the short number of weeks that I have been in post, by me, to target road resurfacing. In this financial year, £104 million has been allocated to capital structural maintenance, which includes resurfacing. That figure includes £12·5 million of the £19 million that my colleague the former Minister for Infrastructure secured for essential road maintenance and street-lighting work from the October 2024 monitoring round. Regrettably, the resource funding position is equally challenging. It will mean having to continue with a limited service for road maintenance that targets the highest-priority defects in order to protect public safety until such a time as we have increased funding or find a better way forward. I continue to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that the appropriate investment is made to improve the quality of our road network and to contribute to the delivery of priorities in the agreed Programme for Government. Local traffic congestion has been the key theme of the debate. I am aware that traffic can build up in some parts of the Craigavon area, including the Northway, as Members mentioned, and the A27 Lurgan Road, at peak times in particular. That is consistent with traffic patterns and conditions across many of our towns and cities. It is important to recognise, however, the potential impact that the congestion may be having on access to Craigavon Area Hospital. My Department's transport strategy and its suite of transport plans will set priorities for the future development of our road and rail network up until 2035. Mr Tennyson's comments about some of the plans that were in place previously and whether we will have to start over will feed into setting those priorities, because the strategy is working to address the challenges that we currently face. There are a growing number of cars on the roads, so, yes, it is about congestion, but we must also consider the climate emergency and transport safety, which are key priorities. A number of Members talked about active travel. As Members will know, I am keen to promote and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling and public transport as an alternative to the private car. Officials are reviewing submissions received as part of the public consultation stage of my Department's draft active travel delivery plan. The consultation concluded on 28 February. I thank everyone who took the time to respond to it. The consultation will lead to my finalising the delivery plan.
I will indeed.
I thank the Member for his intervention, because it leads me on to the next few points that I was going to make. Officials continue to take forward active travel projects in local areas, including Craigavon. There is a proposal to upgrade and improve the links to Craigavon Area Hospital on Mandeville Road from Parkmore towards the hospital. Earlier in the year, work was undertaken to upgrade the existing segregated cycle tracks and footpaths along the Black Paths between the underpass at South Lake leisure centre and Drumgor youth centre. As the Member said, doing that will hopefully help improve active travel connections to local schools and other amenities and, importantly, improve the connections for residents in the surrounding area. Associated with that work is the awarding of the contract to build the replacement footbridge at Moylinn in Craigavon, which will connect the local community. The Black Paths also form part of the national cycle network, providing access to the local leisure centre and shopping facilities. It is my intention that further projects will be delivered in the Craigavon area that encourage and enable safe, active and sustainable travel choices. A number of Members raised the issue of having a secondary access route to Craigavon Area Hospital. As some pointed out, in partnership with the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and a local developer, officials have explored the potential of a new secondary access route to the hospital coming from Lisnisky Lane. I take on board the concerns that have been raised, which form an important part of any planning or development process. To date, the Department has taken the lead and engaged with the health trust and with the adjacent housing developer and landowners to develop a solution, and planning approval was received. As has been pointed out, the major benefactor of that access route would be the health trust. Therefore, it was agreed that the health trust and the Department would be responsible for a lot of the funding and would be required to make it available. Officials continue to engage with the trust on that. At this stage, we are unable to commit to taking forward the project until funding is secured. However, I take on board the concerns that have been raised in relation to residents. When funding looks more likely, we will, hopefully, be able to engage in consultations. I will quickly recap on some of the other points that were made. My colleagues in Newry and Armagh raised connectivity for people coming from Newry, south Armagh and, indeed, South Down, who, for various reasons, may have to go to Craigavon Area Hospital instead of Daisy Hill. That is a point that we have consistently raised. We recognise that, on the whole, our hospital network is changing with the transformation of health services, but we have to ensure that hospitals are easily accessible to all. That is an issue that I am acutely aware of. I hope that any future transport plans are made in tandem with the transformation work of the Health Minister and his Department.
I thank the Member for coming back to that point. I intended to come back to you on it, because I know that you raised traffic light failure. I will ask officials to look into it, specifically for the routes that you mentioned. I thank Doug Beattie for bringing the matter to the House, and I thank the Members who contributed. It has been a very important and useful debate. I reiterate that the value of our infrastructure cannot be overstated. We see that more and more every day. Long-term underinvestment in our roads is impacting on their integrity not only where the quality of road surfaces is concerned but in how we connect with our communities. I am keen to see that addressed as much as possible in my tenure. It is not what I, the public or my Department want to see. We want to see it improved. I continue to work vigorously alongside Executive colleagues to secure the investment that is needed to maintain and improve the quality of our road network for the people of the North and, indeed, further afield. I also take this opportunity to remind everyone that we all have personal responsibility when driving on our roads. My predecessor made the very important point, which has been brought back to me by many members of the public, that, when we are in the traffic, we are the traffic, so I ask that we do something to change the situation and help to address some of the issues that have been outlined today.
1,776 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.62 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.37 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:11 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.