Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5124067

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may not use my five minutes. A lot has been said during the debate, and, as I laid out when I moved the amendment, having three mutually exclusive amendments shows the amount of thought that all parties have put into it. The debate has shown that we are all singularly on one track and that we want to see the A5 delivered as expediently as possible in order to, as the Minister rightly pointed out, save lives. I thank the Minister for being explicit that saving lives is her primary commitment and for recognising that the road runs through land pertaining to around 300 individuals and that that has made it complex. I will turn to the amendments and demonstrate our voting intention. The Sinn Féin amendment probably does not go far enough. It acknowledges what Departments have done since the judgement, which is fine, although I am not sure that the whole House agrees on that, but that does not erase the fact that poor independent departmental working created the problem in the first place. It is fundamental that we learn from the mistakes not just of this Executive but of previous Governments here and of the silo mentality in Departments. That work is ongoing. Some Members, particularly those on the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, will understand that we are aware of that work and alive to it. The Sinn Féin amendment also welcomes the appeal, but appeals take time. We know that lawyers — solicitors and law firms — make a lot of money out of elongating their arguments. They can make compelling arguments in litigation. Unfortunately, that will not lead to delivery of the A5. We do not have the luxury of waiting until the legal process has concluded before the road is improved. It would be good, particularly for the relevant constituency Members, to note the improvements that will be made even in the short term, Minister. The DUP amendment veers off into reopening the debate on climate targets. Even if we were to accede to doing that — I know that many would want us to — the difficulty is that doing so would add possibly 10 years on to the delivery of the A5 scheme, because it would add a complex layer and a possible further barrier to delivering the road upgrade. It is a separate argument that may have merit, but it will not help deliver the scheme any sooner. The other thing is that, if we were to change the law every time that we come back here, we would never move forward. There is a time for reflection and a time for improvement. I ask Members to consider a few points to do with our amendment. It does not duck the hard questions. It insists that the A5 be built but that that be done legally, safely and respectfully. We are genuinely not here to win headlines but to save lives, and that is exactly what our amendment's first priority is. I will say again, however, that respect for landowners is not an optional extra. Without it, trust collapses, delays mount and legal challenges multiply. The scheme has to be delivered with fairness at its core. On a wider point, it is about public safety. Every week of delay is a week of increased risk. That is why we say, "Build the road, but, if there are delays, improve safety immediately, because families deserve nothing less". I will not critique or point out what Members have offered to the debate. Everybody has offered something of note, and I hope that, when we vote on the amendments and the motion, there is a collective response that the Ulster Unionist amendment offers the most clarity and certainty. I ask Members to support it.

635 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