Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Ms Liz Kimmins

Party at the time

Sinn Féin

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5124053

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I express once again my extreme disappointment at the decision that we received from the High Court on Monday 23 June. It is important to say that it was hugely disappointing not just for me but, in particular, for all the families and campaigners, including the Enough is Enough campaign, which I have engaged with frequently, and for all who have been extremely diligent and steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that the road is built. My thoughts are always with the families who are living with the unimaginable grief of losing a loved one and with those who are living with injuries as a result of collisions along the road. That is at the forefront of my mind in everything that I do and will continue to drive me to get the road built. As the House will know, the A5 is an Executive flagship project and, as such, cuts across the responsibilities of all Executive Ministers. Members will be aware that the A5 dualling has been in development since 2007 and has been the subject of successive public inquiries and legal challenges. It is important to clarify the timeline and who was involved and at what stage, because a very inaccurate timeline has been provided by the proposer of the motion. He insinuates that it was always Sinn Féin that held the brief when those decisions were taken or legal challenges were made. Despite his assurance that Conor Murphy failed to deliver the scheme, in fact, the first decision to proceed was made in 2012 by the Minister for what was then the Department for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, not Conor Murphy. His decision and the associated orders were subsequently quashed following a High Court challenge based on environmental grounds. In 2016, the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, published new environmental information, which led to a second public inquiry later that year. That informed the second formal decision to proceed with the scheme in 2017 in the absence of Ministers, and that decision was subsequently quashed by the High Court in 2018. In 2019, the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) was appointed to hold a third public inquiry, and, in 2021, following receipt of an interim report from the Planning Appeals Commission, the then Minister, Minister Mallon, announced her decision to update and consult on further environmental information. That updated environmental information was subject to scrutiny at the subsequent public inquiry in 2023, leading to the final Planning Appeals Commission report and its recommendations in October 2023. Responding to those recommendations formed the substantial basis for the formal decision of Minister O'Dowd in October 2024. I disagree that it sat on his desk for a year. Members will find that he was very diligent in the work that led to his decision. At the time of each decision to proceed, there was, as there will continue to be, new and emerging legislation, case laws and policy directives that must be considered by the decision maker in detail. Each decision is vulnerable to potential new legal challenges. For example, the judgement of 2012 related to the interpretation of the habitat regulations. That is now recognised case law and must be adhered to by all scheme promoters across Europe. With the latest challenge, the Climate Change Act has been under legal scrutiny for the first time. Unfortunately — a point that has been lost in the debate — a small minority group of individuals is opposed to the scheme. Those individuals have used every means possible to frustrate the efforts of the Executive and subsequent Ministers to deliver the scheme; in fact, at the most recent judgement, their legal representative said that it was a result of an 18-year crusade. That tells me all we need to know. Given the ongoing appeal and despite Members asking numerous questions about what the appeal will look like, I cannot get into the specifics. I do not know of too many court cases where you show your hand before you get into court. I can say that my Department worked extremely closely with experienced senior and junior counsel, one of whom is now a High Court judge.

The calibre of the people whom we have working on the case in itself demonstrates how seriously my predecessor and the Department have taken the case, particularly during the extensive development of my Department's detailed response to the PAC's recommendations, despite implications in the debate that they were ignored. They absolutely were not ignored. That advice was followed diligently by officials in my Department at all times. Officials also collaborated closely with other Departments in drafting those responses.

The barristers worked hand in hand with my officials in preparing the voluminous and complex documentation that was laid in front of my predecessor and all Ministers around the Executive table for consideration in taking the decision to proceed with the scheme in October 2024. That comprehensive documentation, thorough analysis and attention to detail involved in developing the project, including the environmental statement, reports to inform appropriate assessments and various other impact assessments, comprised many thousands of pages, exceeding by far the scope of any comparable scheme previously undertaken in the North. A number of SDLP speakers said that John O'Dowd ignored the PAC recommendations and that we did not take into consideration the use of other materials in the construction process to ensure that we reduced carbon emissions. If you had read the departmental statement of 2024, you would know that every one of those points was addressed. I ask Members to take the time to read it, because it is clear that it has not been read in full. Following Executive agreement, Minister O'Dowd made his decision to proceed with the section between Strabane and Ballygawley in October last year. The Department was served with legal proceedings challenging that authorisation in November, and the case, as you know, was heard at the High Court during March and April this year. The judgement provided on 23 June was extremely detailed and complex, and I cannot emphasise those points enough. We cannot pick and choose a single line here and there out of a judgement and use them as the solution. That is not reality. The court upheld the Department's position on four of the seven grounds of challenge. In essence, though, the court did not accept that the Department had demonstrated sufficient certainty in fulfilling the duties under section 52 of the Climate Change Act, considering the human rights implications of the rejection of the PAC's recommendation that the order should be time-limited to reduce the impact of uncertainty on local people and ensuring that the methodology and calculated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of induced traffic were subject to consultation. At the time of Minister O'Dowd's decision, uncertainty surrounded when the first three carbon budgets would be set, and the climate action plan was not at an advanced stage of development. Assumptions about the increased carbon emissions associated with the A5 WTC project had been shared with DAERA and the Department for the Economy as part of the engagement undertaken by my Department. In recognition of the absence of a cap, my Department provided the Executive with a suite of documents and information for their consideration in the summer of last year. That included hundreds of pages of scientific and environmental evidence of mitigations. It included assessments of the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the construction and operation of the A5 — the first time that that was done for any project of this nature in the North. The work was carried out on a cross-departmental basis with DAERA and Department for the Economy. That rationale was accepted by the Executive, and, on that basis, the Minister was assured that, in the absence of a cap, the Executive were aware that there would need to be carbon trade-offs to facilitate the building of this Executive flagship project and reach net zero by 2050. In light of all of that extensive engagement and discussion, the Minister made his decision to proceed, because he was willing to stand up and ensure that the project was delivered. Following the court order to quash the decision and orders on 27 June, the ownership of vested lands reverted to the original landowners with effect from that date. Once the appeal was served on 6 August, officials wrote to all landowners identifying the proposed next steps in the treatment of their lands that had been the subject of vesting. My Department is offering a payment for landowners to enter into a licence agreement to hold the land in its current state. Landowners will also receive payment for use and occupation of their lands between the making of orders on 25 November 2024 and 27 June 2025, when ownership of vested lands reverted to them. Officials are actively engaging with landowners and their agents to arrange on-site meetings to discuss and agree the landowners' preference in relation to the options available. A total of 14 meetings were completed last week, and additional meetings are planned for this week. My Department is absolutely committed to keeping landowners informed and to working constructively with them and their agents and will arrange meetings with landowners to discuss the next steps. It is important to note that there are over 300 landowners involved in the scheme. Members asked about the implementation of fresh road safety measures on the A5. The Department continually monitors safety across the road network, including the existing A5, to ensure that the current measures are appropriate. A review of additional potential safety improvements on the A5 is being carried out — it will include some of the issues that have been raised during the debate — to identify any further practical interventions that could ensure the safety of the road. In the last financial year, the Department undertook a series of targeted road safety enhancements along the existing A5 corridor aimed at improving visibility, driver awareness and surface performance, including refreshing white lines, replacing signs and catseyes and completing localised resurfacing. Further resurfacing work is programmed for this year.

As I have said, everything is being looked at to see whether we can improve the safety of the road. The most important point made by the court was the need for a new and safer A5 so that no name is added to the long list of people who have died on the existing road. That is my focus. Yes, we will look at everything in the interim, but that is my focus, because that is undeniably the solution to all of this. Despite the setback of the judgement, I am absolutely determined to find a way forward that sees the road built as soon as possible to ensure that we save lives and no more names are added to that list. As Members will know, I have lodged an appeal against the recent judgement. If I agreed with the motion and amendment Nos 2 and 3, I would not have lodged that appeal — I may as well have just conceded that we should not bother — but I am absolutely determined that we can win that appeal. We will throw everything at the appeal to ensure that we get this over the line, because not only is that considered necessary to get the road built and to save lives, but it will seek to resolve the important points of law that will affect all parties concerned. We have heard Members speak to that as part of the debate and as part of other discussions and debates in the Chamber on all infrastructure and capital projects. Whilst my immediate priority remains the preparation of a robust appeal, the ultimate aim is to ensure delivery of this flagship project, and I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that that happens. Over the past 18 years of the project, costs have risen substantially, but, more important, almost 60 people have lost their lives. That means 60 families have lost a loved one, and that is not even including those who have been left with life-changing injuries and long-term effects on their lives. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends, and some, I am sure, were friends and family members of my colleagues and other Members around the Chamber. That must never be forgotten, which is why I am determined to build the A5. I am not interested in sound bites; I am interested in solutions. I will join anybody across the House who wants to work with me and my officials to ensure that we see the A5 scheme delivered as soon as possible so that no more lives are lost.

2,129 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:13 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