Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5123464

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, like others, I extend my sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones along the A5. A total of 50 people have lost their lives since the upgrade of the 58-mile stretch of road between Aughnacloy and New Buildings was first scheduled to begin. None of us in the Chamber will ever be able to empathise with the pain that those families have gone through, but our thoughts remain with them. The £1·7 billion project was given authorisation last October to proceed. It was then subject to judicial review. In June, a court found that the Minister's plans for the road did not comply with climate change targets. I intend to start with that judgement. The outcome of the proceedings has caused a level of turmoil for those who wish to see the A5 upgrade proceed and a level of uncertainty for landowners and farmers whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. The A5 scheme, regardless of whether Members think that it should happen, is now completely stalled and not because of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. He applied the law, which is his role. He applied the strictures of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was, in fact, a compromise position instead of having even more stringent targets, which, at the time, were supported by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party. It is worth highlighting aspects of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. At paragraph 200, he states:

"The DfI statement does not detail or contain any reference to any such evidence being provided by DAERA and, in contrast with the evidence provided by DfE at the hearing of this matter, nothing was forthcoming from DAERA to indicate that prior to the DfI making its decision, it had provided the DfI with any form of evidence or evidence-based assurance".

Frankly, that is astounding. While it remains clear to me that the Minister for Infrastructure must take ultimate responsibility, it seems to me that, while that Minister was drowning, the AERA Minister took a life jacket out of the cupboard but did not throw it into the water.

That is, frankly, a baffling lack of coordination between those two Departments, and, if I have time, I will come back to that point.

I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not party to that information. However, the point that I made still stands in that the judge was scathing about the lack of coordination between those two Departments and especially about the AERA Minister because of the lack of support that DFI had. Our amendment seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to amend net zero targets so that critical infrastructure can continue to be built in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it seeks to ensure that all landowners who are affected by the scheme are provided with appropriate compensation by the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that that stretch of road, notwithstanding whether the A5 is built — that is currently subject to appeal — is safe for road users and pedestrians alike. In the interim, while awaiting the appeal, the Infrastructure Minister must look at further road safety measures, such as average speed cameras and speed reduction measures. It is time for action on that, not delay. Work must be taken forward to prevent any further loss of life. It is not for us to answer some of the questions about the matter. Rather, it is for the parties that, in 2022, put those extraordinary climate change targets on the House. I have outlined, and people might take a different view on this, the reasons why the A5 is not proceeding. We have heard two reasons already this afternoon in the Chamber. As I read through this information, it was completely clear to me that the reason why the A5 is not proceeding is because Mr Justice McAlinden said that it could not proceed in its current form. Take a step back from that and ask this: why? It is for two reasons. One is the real lack of coordination between DAERA and DFI, and the second is the climate change targets that we have set ourselves. Whether it is DFI or DAERA, those climate change targets are now a significant problem for the Executive and for Northern Ireland.

I thank the Member for West Tyrone for his intervention. My understanding — I will take the Member at his word — was that there did not seem to be any offsetting or coordination between the two Departments on how the impact of the road's being built would be offset in terms of climate change. That is certainly my understanding. Will those parties now agree that a more realistic and pragmatic approach is needed to balance real environmental challenges with economic realities? I will quote directly from Mr Justice McAlinden's High Court judgement. He said that the climate change action plan, which is the responsibility of the AERA Minister, does not make any reference whatsoever to:

"this major infrastructure project in the context of the process of formulating and co-ordinating plans, strategies and policies that map out a realistic and achievable pathway for Northern Ireland to achieve net zero by 2050".

I hope that that, in part, answers the Member's last question.

Thank you very much. The Member and I will have to agree to disagree on that one, but I always welcome his comments. In summary, the project seems to be in disarray politically, strategically and financially. As I said when opening my contribution, I do not believe, if I am honest, that it is by any stretch the sole responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. I criticised her and pointed out where the failings are, but others who placed on the Assembly the targets that will be so problematic to this project and further infrastructure projects must bear some responsibility for that. Do I get another minute, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Just 10 minutes? I had better get my skates on. The Infrastructure Minister stated:

"I ... reiterate in the strongest possible terms my commitment to the delivery of that long-awaited project."— [Official Report (Hansard), 13 May 2025, p70, col 2].

Will she bear that statement in mind as she answers some of my questions this afternoon? Will she commit now to supporting revised climate change targets to ensure that that project and other future major infrastructure projects are not failed or stalled? Will she explain what the adding of DAERA to the appeal case seeks to achieve and what conversations she has had with the AERA Minister regarding that? If the appeal is lost, what is her plan B for ensuring safety on the A5? Finally, how will she compensate those landowners who continue to be in limbo regarding the scheme? I commend our amendment to the House.

1,152 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:11 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.

Challenge this classification