Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Stephen Dunne on .

MLA
Mr Stephen Dunne
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 5123517

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I speak in support of the amendment that we, as a party, have tabled to the motion on this very important issue. As others have said, we cannot lose sight of the human cost behind the debate. The A5 has been the scene of far too many tragedies. Families across Tyrone and Northern Ireland and beyond have been left truly devastated by the loss of lives, young and old, that were tragically cut short on this very dangerous section of road. Our thoughts and prayers must always remain with the people who have lost loved ones, bearing in mind the impact on those families and communities who live daily with the consequences of the real risks on that road. Having recently met a family in my constituency who lost a loved one in a road tragedy, I know that it is horrific and that the pain does not just go away. That should be first and foremost in all our minds. The A5 upgrade has been promised for almost 20 years, having been first mooted in 2007, yet, time and time again, all we have seen is false dawns. There have been repeated delays, and, most recently, the High Court ruling has stalled progress once again. My colleague the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee highlighted how clear — black and white — the High Court verdict was. All that has been delivered by this Minister and her predecessor's Department to date is confusion and yet more uncertainty. That is simply not good enough. The most recent High Court ruling has caused considerable distress and further uncertainty for landowners and farming families, whose livelihoods have been left in limbo for well over a decade. The Infrastructure Committee, in joint meetings with the AERA Committee, has heard that directly a number of times from landowners and groups such as the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has tried to support farmers and their families throughout what can only be described as the shambolic handling of the scheme by the Department, certainly in recent years. Land has been vested and then is not vested. Preparatory work has started, been halted and then started again. Significant disruption has occurred while legal proceedings have dragged on. Farmers have had their land dug up, with some of it rendered unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The impact of that has been nothing short of devastating, and lessons about the handling of the case should have been learned much earlier, given the impact that it has had on so many families. Our amendment recognises a hard truth, which is that unless we address the barriers that have been created by the current legislative framework, major infrastructure projects will continue to be tied up in legal wrangling rather than being delivered on the ground. We have yet to hear from the Minister how the appeal will address Mr Justice McAlinden's clear reference in his ruling to climate targets that were supported by Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others. Some of those parties continue to live in denial about the impact of those climate targets on so many areas of life in Northern Ireland, not just in relation to the A5 but on a whole range of vital infrastructure projects and other key flagship projects.

No, I will not. That is why it is right to call on the AERA Minister to bring forward proposals to amend aspirational yet unachievable net zero targets. Targets must be realistic, affordable and balanced with the urgent need for investment in infrastructure that saves lives and strengthens our community and connectivity. I mentioned the burden of uncertainty on landowners and farmers and the disruption that that has caused to businesses. Our amendment rightly calls on the Minister of Finance to look at fairly compensating those who have been impacted on, not only for the value of their land but for the ongoing loss of income and the cost of reinstatement amid the confusion. That is a matter of basic fairness and respect. Given the very serious and ongoing road safety concerns, the High Court judgement has only added to the urgent need for action. As others have said, now is the time to seriously consider the necessary practical steps towards improving road safety. There are simple, practical steps that have been seen to work and be effective in other areas, including my constituency, such as better signage, better junction layouts, average speed cameras and targeted enforcement. Those measures could make a real difference and, ultimately, save lives in the short to medium term. Given the road safety concerns, there is a duty on the Minister for Infrastructure to deliver action urgently and not at some distant point in the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that she will take the opportunity to take action and that the clock will not be run down while she is in office. I commend our amendment as a balanced and constructive way forward, and I ask the House to support it.

838 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.07 (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 (0.94).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.09No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.07At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.96
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.02
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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