Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 22 September 2025.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

22 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5124104

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. The theme throughout has been that those who have lost family members along the road are uppermost in our thoughts and prayers. That loss is deeply disturbing for them and an awful cross to carry through the rest of their lives. That should be uppermost in the debate. The motion was proposed by my colleague Daniel McCrossan, who referred to delays and mismanagement, the growth in the cost of the project, the need to deal with the condition of the road at the moment and the significant role of the Irish Government. I listened carefully to Mr Gildernew's comments about the requirement for the road to help to develop the west. Helping to address the regional imbalance is key, and the role of the Irish Government in that is pivotal. Nicola Brogan supported the Minister in her efforts on the scheme. Mr Martin referred to Mr Justice McAlinden's application of the law. I read one element of the judgement last night. It was a wee bit concerning that he said that the Department's approach could be construed as a case of, "Whatever you're having yourself". He referred, as many Members did, to additional measures for road safety along the route.

OK.

I can tell you that, in fact, I actually did. We will come to that later on. Criticism of climate change targets was a common theme among the issues that were raised, particularly by the DUP. Following on from that, I hope that those Members will not be climate change deniers. Climate change is happening all around us, and that would really not be the place to go. Speaking to his amendment, Mr Butler mentioned the legislative framework, the losses of families and the conflict between Departments, which I will return to in a moment or two. Mr McReynolds referred to the road safety issues and to Mr Justice McAlinden's ruling. Declan McAleer highlighted the importance of the appeal. Stephen Dunne mentioned the human costs, the impacts on families and the tragedy of that. Over the past 18 years, we have been suffering because the Executive have been grappling with the terms for the road project. Whether we are talking about investment in infrastructure, practical steps to improve road safety or whatever way you choose to dress it up, it needs to be done. Andrew McMurray spoke about the failure to deliver. He referred to the climate action plan and the need to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act. Justin McNulty talked about fairness, equality and people's safety. Timothy Gaston spoke about the issue as fallout from the Climate Change Act, but it was actually fallout from non-compliance with the law. The Minister talked about the ongoing legal proceedings and defended the calibre of the officials who are working on the case. She went through the chronology of events, including on the issues relating to landowners' compensation. Gary Middleton spoke about point-scoring and about the climate change targets. Again, I hope and trust that the DUP is not going in the direction of denying the climate change that is all around us. We tabled the motion because of the incompetent way in which the Executive have mishandled their approach to the necessary upgrade of the A5 western transport corridor. We share the justifiable concerns about the number of deaths that have occurred along the route. Communities along the route have waited too long and have faced delay after delay, while families continue to be devastated by serious and fatal accidents. We have also heard claims about why, in October 2024, the then Minister for Infrastructure announced that construction of the A5 upgrade would begin in early 2025. That was, to quote the then Minister:

"following careful consideration of Planning Appeals Commission reports and the environmental impacts of the scheme".

The Planning Appeals Commission had warned of "large adverse impact" on climate from the A5 scheme. It found that there was reasonable scientific doubt that damage could be avoided to the legally protected Tully Bog from increased traffic on the A5. It highlighted the fact that the Department's assessment relied too heavily on modelling without robust ecological evidence.

Well, OK, Minister.

I take that point, but all I am doing is quoting what the Planning Appeals Commission said. OK? Thank you. In October 2023, the public inquiry recommended deferring any decision until carbon budgets and a climate action plan were in place. The then Minister for Infrastructure, who now sits at the Executive table as Finance Minister, chose to ignore those recommendations. His decision has delayed further any attempt to make the A5 safer. That flawed decision to proceed, which was subsequently found to be unlawful, was set up to fail at the first legal challenge. Furthermore, as the High Court found this year, the Department for Infrastructure could not provide a convincing explanation for the decision to ignore the recommendations. It is now, unfortunately, the current Minister's problem to solve. Vesting orders for land have been quashed, and the Minister faces the prospect of further compensation payments to landowners. This is, however, also the Executive's problem. The A5 upgrade is, after all, an Executive flagship project. The project is intended to provide for critical infrastructure improvements, address regional imbalance, create jobs and benefit the economy, as well as, crucially, improve road safety. The Irish Government have contributed €600 million for the A5 western transport corridor through their Shared Island initiative. Failure to deliver the project will be another failure of the Executive. Following the High Court ruling this year, I asked the AERA Minister for details on the numbers of occasions on which DFI officials sought advice from DAERA in relation to the A5 project. It took two attempts for the Minister to provide an up-to-date, accurate answer. Between 9 August 2022 and 27 June 2024, there were 13 meetings between officials from those Departments on the A5 project. Those meetings were to assist DFI in preparing its response to the recommendations made by the Planning Appeals Commission. The AERA Minister stated in a letter to me:

"The nature of the DAERA engagement at that time was to articulate the factual and legal position around emission targets, carbon budgets and the Climate Action Plan."

It is not clear whether the DAERA advice was wrong or whether DFI ignored it as well. I make a suggestion to the Minister — maybe she will respond — can the minutes of those meetings please be placed on the public record? I am sure that they will be, under disclosure at the courts, anyway. However, it would be extremely helpful to those of us who want to come to a balanced judgement around it that the minutes of what happened at those 13 meetings be placed on the public record.

To be honest, like everyone else outside both Departments, I do not know what happened at those meetings. That is why I ask, Minister, that the minutes of the meetings be placed on the public record so that we can find out exactly what happened at them and whether the advice from DAERA was wrong or whether DFI chose to ignore it. I do not know.

I take it that that is a yes, and they will be placed on the public record so that the rest of us, who have a vested interest in the project, will be able to draw our own conclusions as to what did or did not happen. I have to say that other parties in the Executive should be angry at the way that this has been incompetently managed. Executive parties took credit for the ambitions of the Climate Change Act in 2022. Now, some appear to be prepared to abandon those ambitions because of the work required to achieve them. They have the opportunity now to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme can withstand further legal challenge. It is within their ability to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate. As Mr Justice McAlinden stated in the High Court ruling:

“... the decision to proceed with the scheme must be taken in accordance with the law ... the principle of the rule of law cannot be subverted, even if the motivation for doing so is to achieve what is deemed to constitute a clear societal benefit.”

The shortcomings and shortcuts in the decision-making highlighted in this judgement are capable of being remedied. We urge the Executive to do the work required this time to make that happen. We cannot have the risk of more lives being lost as a consequence of unnecessary delays.

1,459 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