Debate contribution: Roads: A1 Junctions Phase 2

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
24 March 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Adjournment
Heading
Roads: A1 Junctions Phase 2
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5463913

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to have this important debate. I thank Minister Kimmins for being here to respond to it and also colleagues from the Upper Bann constituency, from across all parties, for being here this evening. The A1 is one of the busiest arterial routes in Northern Ireland and a strategic transport corridor. Every day, 40,000 vehicles travel along it. Despite its importance, it remains one of the most dangerous roads in Northern Ireland and has been the scene of far too many tragedies and far too much heartbreak. In the past 17 years alone, more than 40 road users have lost their lives on the A1. I express my sympathies to all those who have suffered loss or bereavement as a result of accidents on that road. I pay particular tribute to Monica Heaney, who joins us in the Public Gallery. Members will know Monica's story. Her son, Karl, was just 27 when he was tragically killed in a collision near Banbridge in May 2018. In the depths of unimaginable grief, Monica and Ciara Sands, Karl's partner, channelled their loss into action through the campaign group A1: How Many Must Die?. No parent, partner or family should ever have to endure what Monica, Ciara and so many others have faced. Monica and Ciara have carried their grief with extraordinary courage, dignity and determination. The memory of their loved one has become a quiet but powerful force for change. Their advocacy, supported by people including Sinéad Lunny and my colleague Councillor Joy Ferguson, has ensured that critical safety improvements remain at the top of the agenda in the Assembly. We owe them our thanks and our respect but also our commitment finally to deliver the safety improvements for which they have fought so hard. The A1 phase 2 safety upgrade is not an optional luxury or an extra. Rather, it is essential for promoting road safety and saving lives. It is a priority for people in Upper Bann, as it is for people in other constituencies such as South Down and Lagan Valley and for everyone who travels along the Belfast to Dublin economic corridor. In Banbridge, it is an issue that I am asked about more than any other. Every household has a story of a near miss, of a frightening moment or of a loved one who narrowly escaped harm. We know why that is. It is because the gaps in the central reservation along the A1 are directly linked to the severity and frequency of collisions. A Department for Infrastructure submission to the 2020 public inquiry stated that 45% of collisions occurred adjacent to a central reservation gap: places where right turns, U-turns and slowing for private entrances are all possible but are deeply unsafe and dangerous actions. The proposed upgrades would close all the gaps on the carriageway through having a continuous central reservation barrier and provide four new grade-separated junctions. Those are not cosmetic changes but life-saving interventions. Plans to upgrade that section of the A1 have been under discussion, in one form or another, since at least 2007. A public inquiry, which began in March 2020, concluded that there is significant support for the proposed scheme across the community, including from public- and private-sector organisations. The inquiry noted that it did not receive a single submission objecting to the principle behind the scheme. Despite the urgency, cross-party support in the Chamber and clear demand for change from the public, progress has been painfully slow, however. In 2021, the then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, responded positively to the inquiry, accepting its findings and approving the scheme. Without funding being secured, however, the project continued to stall. Then came the collapse of the Assembly in early 2022 and, with it, further delay. In February 2024, my Alliance colleague Patrick Brown presented the Chamber with a petition that was started by Monica and Ciara. It had 12,738 signatures, which was a testament to the strength of public feeling and the determination of campaigners to deliver change. In July of that year, just ahead of the general election, the then Minister announced that the embargo on the phase-2 scheme had been lifted, raising hopes that change would finally be delivered. Procurement began in December, and we were told that construction would start in early 2026. However, here we are, Minister. We have been told that the project will be delayed again until 2027, pending the outcome of the A5 appeal. That means that completion is unlikely before 2030, which will be a full 23 years since plans were first touted. Those delays are happening in the absence of a multi-year capital Budget and without an overarching investment strategy to guide long-term infrastructure decisions. Those are systemic issues that must be addressed. Whilst many of them are beyond the control of the current Minister, the decision to pause progress on the A1 whilst awaiting the outcome of the A5 appeal is a decision of the Minister that is profoundly disappointing and unjustifiable. The A1 and A5 projects are not in any way comparable. The A5 is a new 58-mile road, costing £1·7 billion and requiring 800 hectares of land. The A1 scheme is an existing road's being upgraded over 13 miles, costing £120 million. I accept that proceeding ahead of the A5 appeal carries some risk, but so, too, does the delay to the project. That risk is much greater. Delay means higher costs, more uncertainty and more lives put at risk through inaction. This evening, I appeal to you directly, Minister, to use the authority of your office to proceed urgently with that vital safety project, even if that means proceeding at risk. Campaigners have played their part, as have bereaved families. Local residents have been unwavering in their demand for progress. The evidence is clear, the need is urgent, and the cost of inaction is far too high. We must treat the issue as the priority that it is, honour the courage of those who have campaigned, and, above all, ensure that no more families face the heartbreak that has been far too common in years gone by.

1,028 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: 0.02 (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 (0.97).
  • 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 framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.02No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.97Yes
Overall judgement0.02At 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 subject0.91
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.05
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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