Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew McMurray

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5123523

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. As other Members have highlighted, the cost of the A5 project is staggering, from impeding economic growth in the north-west to causing long journey times and, tragically, preventable deaths. Nearly a decade on since the announcement, the road project has come to represent our failure to deliver critical infrastructure. People who use the road, along with those who have lost loved ones on it, are fully justified in their frustration at yet more delays following the court ruling. The setbacks are symptomatic of the instability that was caused by the collapse of our political institutions, first from 2017 to 2020 and again from 2022 to 2024. That stop-start governing has also delayed Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, which is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2022. Although Minister Muir's swift move to consultation is welcome, there remains an obvious absence of a finalised plan, as was highlighted in the recent judgement. Mr Justice McAlinden was clear that a climate action plan that takes into account the emissions that the A5 will generate can help provide a pathway not only to delivering the project but to meeting our carbon reduction targets. It is therefore right that the Assembly express its regret that the Department for Infrastructure did not take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 scheme was not vulnerable to predictable legal challenges, especially regarding compliance with the Climate Change Act. Let me be clear, however: the Climate Change Act is not an obstacle to the A5 scheme. The judgement unequivocally stated that major infrastructure projects can proceed if they are properly planned and are integrated with strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. As the ruling states, the Act does not prevent a major project proceeding but, rather, rules out construction in the absence of robust planning and coordination across Departments. We should not retreat from the climate commitments that were unanimously adopted in 2022. Rather, we must balance our need for infrastructure upgrades with our imperative to protect the ecosystem, restore biodiversity and improve our water quality. The main lesson to learn from the High Court ruling is that major projects across all Departments must be designed, assessed and justified according to our statutory climate commitments. There can be no shortcuts taken. That must be the standard practice for all future schemes. On amendment No 1, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his announcement that his Department intends to apply to the court to intervene in the appeal formally. Through its doing so, we can clarify the interpretation and enforcement of the Climate Change Act. That shows the Minister's commitment to his Department's climate change responsibilities. We cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold. Striking the right balance involves supporting infrastructure while fully delivering on our climate commitments, which place binding duties on all Departments. Every Department must meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and protect our natural environment. The ruling also exposes the ongoing issue of government silos that can delay progress. Greater cross-departmental collaboration is crucial, especially as climate considerations increasingly inform decisions. An integrated approach is therefore needed to prevent the kinds of delays that we see today.

That would be for the Minister to answer. The journey ahead for each and every Department will not be easy, but we should recognise the significant opportunities that climate change action presents: green jobs; lower energy bills; vibrant public spaces; and better health. The Alliance Party wants Northern Ireland to be a leader rather than a follower in the green industrial revolution. The ruling therefore ruling sets a clear precedent. Climate change legislation is not optional but, rather, a binding framework that impacts on every decision, including infrastructure development. How we respond to the A5 scheme will signal how seriously we take climate obligations and collaborative governance. To conclude, amendment Nos 1 and 3 can be supported in principle. The Alliance Party cannot, however, support amendment No 2, as it directly contradicts the climate commitments that the House has enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. By doing so, the amendment seeks to shift the burden on to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs rather than place it on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with our climate legislation and achieve better outcomes for road users and our natural environment. Furthermore, it removes the commitment that is outlined in amendment No 1 for the A5 scheme to start construction by the end of the Assembly mandate, which is a delay that we cannot afford. The Alliance Party remains open to constructive cooperation with other parties and Ministers in order to better protect our environment. I am confident that the Department for Infrastructure can now act with urgency, clarity and respect for the law, and, most importantly, for those affected, so that the A5 project can move forward in this mandate, thus setting the benchmark for responsible climate-conscious governance.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

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