Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Twenty-ninth Plenary Meeting
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- North/South Ministerial Council: Twenty-ninth Plenary Meeting
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5042853
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The reality is that we are actually in an Executive that can do something about it. The reality is that we are absolutely committed to delivering the A5. The reality is that Liz Kimmins, as the Infrastructure Minister, is doing absolutely everything that she can to work through the legalities of the outworking of the legal judgement last week. Of course, we are all disappointed. We are absolutely disappointed and rightly so. Everybody I have spoken to feels that. What the wider public want to hear is that we will do everything that we can to ensure that the project gets delivered as a matter of urgency. It has been going on for far too long. The court ruling last week is a setback, but we are working our way through it as we speak. We are seeking all the legal advice that is required, and all options are on the table, but I want the public to understand and hear clearly that the project is something that we are absolutely committed to ensuring is delivered.
I spoke about that earlier in response to a question from another Member. It is not always the case that, just by legislating, the picture will be improved. Sheila Nunan produced an independent report for the Irish Government, and they were disappointed that very few institutions paid, even though they had legislated for that. I do not have a closed mind to doing that: if it would deliver what we need it to deliver, we have to explore it. Experience from elsewhere, however, tells us that that is not the answer to this question: how do we ensure that the institutions pay up and pay their share? We will, however, explore the issue further as the legislation passes through the House.
I have covered the question of the A5. I have said it before and will say it again for the Member that, with every ounce of my being, I want to see the A5 project delivered. We will do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case. We are urgently working our way through the judgement. All options are on the table for what the next step looks like. It needs to be something that stops the legal challenge and gets the project on the ground. Working with the Minister for Infrastructure and other Ministers, I will do everything that I can. In a separate but related point, the implications for major capital projects is something that the entire Executive have to turn their mind to. We have to deliver on our climate obligations and provide a safe future for future generations, but we also have to undertake major capital projects, so I want us to work our way through the judgment. We touched on the matter at our Executive meeting this morning, and we will continue to work our way through what it means legally.
I assure you that Sinn Féin has advanced the A5 project at every turn, particularly in the Department for Infrastructure. I can also assure you of this: sound bites will not build the A5.
Sound bites will not build the A5. A Minister who is absolutely committed to the project and to getting it over the line will build the A5. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that that is the case.
558 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: 0.05 (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 (0.68).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.89 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:58 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.