Debate resumed on amendments to motion:

That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate. — [Mr McCrossan.]

Which amendments were:

No 1: Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert: "acknowledges that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues worked together to address the recommendations following the Planning Appeals Commission A5 inquiry ; welcomes the Department for Infrastructure's serving a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement; further welcomes the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that his Department intends to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal; recognises the steadfast commitment of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign and the many families tragically bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate." — [Miss Brogan.]

No 2: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to present proposals to the Executive to amend aspirational net zero targets, ensuring that major infrastructure projects are not stymied and construction of an agreed A5 scheme begins as soon as possible; further calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently commit to providing fair compensation to affected landowners for loss of income and costs of reinstatement; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure, notwithstanding the notice of appeal against the A5 judgement, to implement fresh road safety measures on the A5 in order to prevent further loss of life." — [Mr Martin.]

No 3: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law." — [Mr Butler.]

Communities and families across the north-west have been told time and again that the A5 scheme will be delivered, that it will transform connectivity, that it will unlock economic potential and, crucially, that it will make a dangerous stretch of road safer for all who use it, yet here we are, years on, with not a sod having been turned and more families left to grieve loved ones whose lives have tragically been lost on that treacherous road. My heart goes out to every grieving family.

The truth is that communities in the north-west have waited far too long. They have faced delay after delay, legal challenge after legal challenge and excuse after excuse from Ministers and their Executive parties. The Public Accounts Committee warned years ago that the scheme needed to be legally watertight. Those warnings were ignored, and now, yet again, the project is stalled in the courts because Ministers failed to do the groundwork properly. That is unacceptable. It is about more than just bureaucratic incompetence; it has real, human consequences. Every delay risks more lives.

I pay tribute to the families who have lost loved ones along the road and to the A5 Enough is Enough campaign. Their determination, courage and dignity has kept the issue at the top of the political agenda. I say this to them: keep going. However, they should not have to beg for action year after year. Government should have delivered the project by now. Those people should not have had to bury more sons and daughters and mothers and fathers while Ministers passed the buck.

Sinn Féin's Amendment is about themselves alone and about clapping themselves on the back, really. It attempts to absolve them of responsibility and to rewrite history. However, we know the truth: Sinn Féin ignored the Planning Appeals Commission's recommendation. They left the scheme legally vulnerable, and their responsibility for the scheme's collapse has been denied. The amendment is a whitewash, and, therefore, we oppose it.

The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law but Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design and procurement of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 project would still have collapsed because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Sinn Féin Ministers. Is it true that there was no accommodation or requirement in the tender process or tender documents for recycled materials to be included in the A5 construction project? Who is responsible for that oversight? The people of the north-west can and must be safe and have modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is a diversion, and we will oppose it.

The Ulster Unionist Party's amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgency of road safety, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be: the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers and their Executive. For that reason, we will oppose it as well.

We should not have been in this position in the first place. If Ministers had acted on the warnings that were given to them and ensured that the scheme was legally sound, we would not be here debating yet another delay. We in the Assembly have a duty to the people whom we represent. The Executive must finally make good on their long-overdue promises. Communities in the west deserve the same level of infrastructure investment as has been taken for granted elsewhere. The message today must be clear: no more excuses or prevarication. The A5 scheme must begin construction before the end of the mandate. Lives literally depend on it.

People in the north-west have waited too long. Families have endured too much heartache. Businesses have been disadvantaged for too many years. It is not just about a road; it is about fairness. It is about safety and delivering on commitments that should have been honoured long ago. It is time for the Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive to stop dithering and failing and to finally deliver the A5 western transport corridor (WTC). Enough is enough.

My thoughts are with the families and those who have lost loved ones. They continue to be let down by the political fallout from net zero, which now puts all future infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland at risk.

The A5 motion is a strange one for the "constructive Opposition" to table on its first Opposition day of the new term. The motion exposes the hypocrisy of the mad environmental zealots by delivering to them a good dose of reality. The SDLP has tabled a motion complaining about the fallout from the very climate change legislation that it so enthusiastically endorsed at every stage in the Assembly.

Let us roll the clock back a few years. The record shows that the SDLP repeatedly argued that there was urgent need for a climate change Bill. One Member even attacked others in the House by claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus supported the SDLP's position. Now, however, as the Climate Change Act drags the A5 project below the waterline, the SDLP is the first out of the traps to propose a non-binding motion to demand that construction begin before the end of the mandate.

Justice McAlinden did not invent section 52; the SDLP and its climate change mates made sure that it was enshrined in law. The High Court did not block the A5 for fun but enforced the very provisions that the SDLP supported. Where is the honesty from the SDLP and, indeed, Sinn Féin and Alliance? A few years ago, they were tripping over themselves to pass that legislation.

Will the Member give way?

I am happy to give way.

The Member is living in a parallel universe. We explained clearly that it did not matter whether it had been an 82% reduction in carbon emissions or 100% net zero; the fact is that, typically, the Departments did not consult each other or follow due process. Does the Member even know where west of the Bann is? He does not reference it too often in a positive light.

You have an extra minute, Mr Gaston.

Thank you very much, Mr McCrossan. Yes, I know where west of the Bann is. Following the next election, hopefully, it will have better representation from this side of the Chamber from people who will actually stand up for the people there.

My goodness, the Member talks about net zero, and he mentioned figures. The problem is with net zero and the climate change fanatics. Let us look at it. Why did the project fail to withstand legal challenge? It failed because of section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. If one takes the time to read the judgement, one will see that Justice McAlinden reproduced that entire section in his decision. In contrast, the TUV has always been clear that the Climate Change Act's emissions targets are not practical. They are detrimental not just to Northern Ireland's infrastructure but, importantly, to its agriculture industry.

I will not support the motion, and I see no reason why the A5 project alone should be exempted from an Act that, as my party warned at the time, set the Province on the wrong path. It is the height of hypocrisy to cheer that into law and then to come here and complain when the very law that they championed rightly dispels the A5.

It is a product of the made-in-Stormont mess, and the SDLP cannot wash its hands of it. I ask myself when we will see that happen, as it inevitably will. First, we have the A5, and, next, the Act will begin to bite on farming. Will the SDLP come back to the House to look for special treatment for farmers, or is it only the A5, Mr McCrossan?

It is the A5 all the way, Mr Gaston.

Members.

I think not. Judging by the SDLP's support for the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals in the House a number of weeks ago, it wants to decimate the agriculture industry. Is it only when the West Tyrone farmers dare to use the SDLP's own legislation against it that it suddenly gets exercised about the A5?

The motion should not be about seeking special treatment for the A5. It should recognise the folly —

Will the Member give way?

— of the Climate Change Act in relation to all future infrastructure projects —

Will the Member give way?

— and the impact that it will have on farming. I am happy to give way.

It is a bit insulting for the Member to suggest that the delivery of the A5 represents special treatment. What about the 57 people who have been killed on the road and those who travel on it daily to take their kids to school and to go to work? It is an absolute insult and spells out exactly why the Member's party will not grow or survive west of the Bann.

I am sorry, Mr McCrossan, but I started my contribution by saying that my heart goes out to the families of every victim of the A5. Let me tell you, Mr McCrossan, that this is not the only infrastructure safety upgrade that will fall because of your climate madness. You could not wait to get through the Lobbies and bring it into force, and now, when it has come back to bite you in your own backyard, you are saying, "We should set it aside for the A5." All lives matter, and the A5 should not be prioritised over other future upgrades —

Mr Gaston, your time is up.

— that will ultimately fall because of your climate madness.

Your time is up.

I thank Members for speaking in the debate. I now call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

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.

I thank the Minister for giving way. As part of that suite of improvements, will the Department consider a speed reduction on certain parts of the road?

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.

Minister, thank you for your response. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on Amendment No 3. You have up to five minutes.

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.

I call Gary Middleton to wind on Amendment No 2. Gary, you also have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been disappointing, particularly the opening contribution. Today's party political point-scoring has been no different from the SDLP posters that have appeared along the route. People see through that type of political posturing. People want to see progress and solutions. Anybody who believes that the motion that the Opposition has tabled will bring about solutions will be bitterly disappointed.

In fairness to Members across the Chamber, I acknowledge that a number of common themes have been raised. The first has been the issue of families and those who have been bereaved. I add my sympathies not only to those who have lost loved ones on the road but to those who have been seriously injured along the route. The outcome of the judgement and the A5 scheme delay has understandably caused great upset to those families and to the campaigners who have long championed the project in the name of road safety. That is deeply disappointing, and it was a difficult ruling for them. Of course, those of us who are involved with bereavement charities that support families who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic collisions hear from them daily, and the last thing that they want to hear is the sort of cheap, party political point-scoring that we have heard from some across the Chamber today.

Another theme was the benefits of the A5. We all recognise that there are economic benefits, including jobs and prosperity for the north-west region. That those benefits are valued goes without saying.

The judgement has also caused significant distress and uncertainty for landowners and farming families whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. They still seek clarity and guidance on their future. Farmers have had their land ripped up, and, in some cases, it will be unable to be farmed again. That has caused a lot of devastation. Local people are crying out for clarity on the future of the project and where it is going.

Once again, the project has been brought to a grinding halt. The judgement was based on climate legislation. My party warned against the kind of damaging consequences that could come out of that. We warned about the unrealistic targets that are in the legislation. It was pushed through by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. We warned that it would tie the Department's hands in the future. The very politicians who championed that legislation are now lamenting its impact. It is a stunning display of political virtue-signalling coming home to roost. Those politicians celebrated the passing of the climate change legislation believing that they could have not only their headline-grabbing climate change targets but their major infrastructure projects. Of course, they were proven wrong.

This is not just about the A5, as important as it is. The ruling also sets a dangerous precedent for other major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, not least phase 2 of the A6 project, which could be impacted on in the future. The time for empty rhetoric and point-scoring is over. We need clarity and leadership, particularly from the Department. In the interim, I ask that the Minister continue to look at road safety measures and at what we can do in the meantime to prevent further deaths and incidents on the road. We also have to send out the message that we need people to drive carefully on the roads and to be mindful of the fact that, when we are behind the wheel of a vehicle, we all have a responsibility to ensure safety.

In the main, this was a fairly productive debate, albeit some disappointing remarks came from the usual sidelines.

I call Colm Gildernew to make the winding-up speech on Amendment No 1. You also have five minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. From the outset, I set out the fact that my thoughts and feelings are with all those, including clubmates and family friends of mine, who have lost loved ones on that road over so many years and at a very young age. Every single one of those tragedies is an individual disaster for those families, that community and their friends. That has been well endorsed by everyone in the Chamber and should be central to everything that we do.

I want to focus some of my remarks, however, on the fact that the lack of an adequate, modern road in that part of the country — I mean up through Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry, connecting to Donegal and Monaghan and right on down to Dublin — impacts completely on key economic, health, social and strategic imperatives. First, on the economy, our businesses in the mid-Ulster and south Tyrone area are world-leading in engineering, food production and other forms of manufacturing and innovation. They deserve good connectivity to the rest of the world. They contribute massively to the economy here. They deserve a road that is sufficient to get their goods, workers and customers in and out — all that. Our people in that part of the country deserve to have roads that are as good as they are anywhere else. At this point in time, we do not have them.

I thank the Member for taking an Intervention. Given that Mid Ulster has the highest rate of GDP outside of Belfast city centre, does he agree that businesses there have been able to achieve that not because of but in spite of a lack of infrastructure and that that is another reason why that project is vital?

The Member has an extra minute.

Absolutely. Within 15 miles of where I live, there are businesses operating that are equivalent to five Bombardiers. They send materials all over the world, put in their own generators and build their own sheds. They do all that. They are entitled to have such a road.

Secondly, I want to touch on health. Do not doubt this for a second, but it will be impossible to deliver health transformation without delivering proper infrastructure. You simply cannot deliver health services to a rural geography without addressing the main way in which you move people around in an emergency and the timing of that. The A5 is critical for health transformation and access to health for all our people day and daily, and that includes emergency health and healthcare.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the social and community element. I thank the Minister, who came up to Aughnacloy over the summer months to look at the impact that the A5 is having on that town. Essentially, you cannot cross the main street in Aughnacloy at any time of the day or a large part of the night without the traffic on one of the main roads in Ireland having to stop in both directions to let you across. That is the impact. It cuts like a knife through the town of Aughnacloy and through Garvaghy and Glenchuil, dividing those communities. When the road was built, it served and was usable by the community. The traffic volumes that have built, with more strategic traffic on the road, are now a barrier to people crossing the road. Either they take the risk, literally risking their life, or simply put off their visit and do not bother.

That is why — I am touching on the UUP Amendment and Robbie's remarks — it is important to remember that the community needs a decent road. The single carriageway road that exists now should be for community use. The road has two purposes: strategic traffic and local traffic. Both need to be facilitated, and they have different needs. Community traffic needs exits off the road all along the way, and the strategic traffic needs to be able to continue. The danger and the cause of a lot of the accidents on the A5 are in the fact that there are so many turn-offs, including roads, lanes and gates, in every one of which is a potential hazard and a potential fatal accident. That is why a new dual carriageway has to be built offline.

The road is also important in the day-to-day delivery of social healthcare. Rather than cross the road, agency staff sometimes travel miles just to use a roundabout in order to come back.

My fourth point is a strategic one.

May I check whether I have an extra minute for the Intervention?

Yes.

Thank you. Not that I will need it — not half.

[Laughter.]

Will the Member give way?

Quickly, Robbie.

I will be quick. I just caution that, even when the road is upgraded, there will be inherent dangers, as with any road, to do with things such as speed. It would be wrong to send a message that delivery of the road absolves anybody of the responsibility to drive appropriately.

Absolutely. People's driving should be in keeping with the road conditions; that is another factor that we need to consider.

In strategic terms, we need to develop the western economic corridor into the equivalent of what runs from Dublin to Belfast to allow businesses not only west of the Bann, as we say, but in the west of Ireland the equal opportunity that they need to trade and thrive in the way that we all want to see. We will not develop or deliver regional balance in the North unless we crack that nut and provide good roads.

The A5 project rightly remains an Executive priority, and there is massive social licence for it, for all the reasons that we have talked about today. No one should put that in jeopardy by playing politics for perceived short-term gain. I am proud to have sat beside my colleague today as she set out the reality of the situation and what she is going to do about it through a series of solutions and actions. Let us understand that what we need are solutions and not sound bites. Sin é.

[Translation: That is it.]

I call Patsy McGlone to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech. Mr McGlone, you have up to 10 minutes.

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

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.

Will the Member take an Intervention?

OK.

Does the Member agree that it would be a good idea to read the entire judgement? He would then see everything in context.

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.

Will the Member give way?

Well, OK, Minister.

I wanted to clarify the point about Tully Bog. The court found that we were compliant in relation to that. I reiterate the point that the then Minister took on board all those recommendations and addressed them.

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.

I thank the Member for giving way. It is really important because, no matter how many times I say this, it does not seem to be landing. If the departmental statement that was published by my predecessor had been read in full, you would have seen that all the Planning Appeals Commission recommendations were indeed addressed and acknowledged as part of that ongoing work. Will the Member now agree with me that DAERA was consulted on that engagement, as happened throughout the process?

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.

Just on that point, rather than seeming not to answer it, obviously a legal case is under way at present and, as part of that appeal, as much evidence as possible will be provided to show the work that has gone into it, especially now that DAERA has joined the case. That is an opportunity to look at all of that in the round.

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.

Before I put the Question on Amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 38; Noes 38

AYES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Miss Brogan, Mr McHugh

NOES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Miss McIlveen, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Toole, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McCrossan, Ms McLaughlin

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.

Order. I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is an agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 22; Noes 46

AYES

Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Harvey, Mr Martin

NOES

Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Durkan, Ms McLaughlin

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That Amendment No 3 be made.

I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense —

[Interruption]

Order, order — with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division.

Members, I am going to make an appeal that, as we move through this process, the word "order" is followed by silence. It does not mean that you continue the chat that you were having, all of you at once, while I am trying to go through the process in the hope that the rest of the Chamber will hear me. Order.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 45; Noes 32

AYES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Egan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mrs Guy, Mr Harvey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mrs Long, Mr Lyons, Miss McAllister, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Martin, Mr Mathison, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Burrows, Mr Butler

NOES

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin

Tellers for the Noes: Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty

Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl.

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law.