Stormont Infrastructure Minister pressed over next steps after A5 setback
Mr Justice McAlinden said the proposed scheme breached elements of the Climate Change Act 2022.
There have been more than 50 deaths on the road, which links Londonderry with Aughnacloy in Co Tyrone, since 2006.
Liz Kimmins appeared at the Assembly for an urgent question on the situation on Tuesday afternoon.
She described to MLAs a 'hugely disappointing day' on Monday for her, as well as the families of those who have died on the road.
She said it had been a 'very detailed judgment' that her and her officials will 'take time to carefully consider in full, including any implications for the scheme and the department's next steps'.
'It was the first legal test for the Climate Change Act and for the Climate Action Plan, something that every department will now have to deal with the outworkings of,' she told MLAs.
'It's deeply regrettable that we have received this decision as we continue to see so many lives lost on this road, deaths that cause so much pain to families and tear our communities apart.
'It is undoubtedly the most dangerous road in Ireland, so my priority remains the safety and wellbeing of all road users, and I am determined that we will deliver the A5.
'Building the road will save lives, will create jobs, and will significantly reduce journey times between the north west and Dublin.
'So despite this setback, I'm determined to find a way forward that sees this road built to ensure that we save lives, and every single day of delay risks more avoidable heartbreak, and as infrastructure minister, I'm determined to ensure that a new A5 is delivered.'
Stormont Infrastructure Committee chairwoman Deborah Erskine put it to Ms Kimmins that the situation is an outworking of 'unrealistic and punitive climate targets'.
'Her party was joined by the SDLP and Alliance in imposing unrealistic and punitive climate targets despite the explicit warnings from the then agriculture and environment minister about the long-term impacts of those varied targets on other government departments, including the Department for Infrastructure,' the DUP MLA said.
'Will you now take responsibility for the real world impacts of virtue signalling that has led us to this point, and apologise for it and outline how you intend to solve this mess of which other parties and your party created here.'
Ms Kimmins responded saying it was 'not the time for point scoring'.
'Across the world people are taking action in terms of climate change and our responsibilities to deal with that,' she said.
'I think in the context of what we are talking about here today, I think it's important to remember the families who are impacted by this decision. This is not a time for point scoring, this is a time about looking for solutions. That's what I'm committed to doing, and that's what I'm determined to do.'
SDLP MLA Daniel McCrossan also criticised Ms Kimmins, contending she 'should have provided clarity on the immediate next steps for this life-saving project', instead of saying they will take time to consider the judgment in full.
'This is time she does not have, people's lives are at stake every day on the A5,' he said.
'The minister, her predecessor John O'Dowd, and the Department for Infrastructure must take responsibility for this latest delay.
'The SDLP Opposition has brought forward a proposal to amend the climate legislation to enable the A5 upgrade to proceed.
'We are willing to do whatever is necessary to make progress and get this road built. We now need to see the same urgency from the minister to deliver this project and save lives.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Solving the asylum question is suddenly even more urgent
What next? As ministers digest the High Court ruling on the use of a hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers, they have very limited options in front of them, none of them good ones. The High Court should not be attacked for making a ruling that takes no account of politics or even practicalities, for that is not its job. It has, though, made a bad situation very much worse. It is hardly helpful to anyone, in such circumstances, for Nigel Farage to exploit a delicate and sometimes combustible situation by calling for more peaceful protests. From bitter experience, we know how such demonstrations can degenerate into minor disorder, or worse. In fact, given the force of the High Court judgment, there is even less need for such protests now. Instead, Mr Farage and his deputy, Richard Tice, as usual, are playing on the fears of people and behaving in a way that is irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst. Mr Farage's interventions in the riots last year only added to the campaign of disinformation underway, and most recently was made to apologise for claiming that the Essex police had 'bussed in' counter-demonstrators in Epping. The Conservatives, mesmerised by the rise of Reform UK, are in a constant losing battle to out-Farage Farage, and they should know better than to propagate myths about asylum seekers living in 'offensively luxurious' conditions, which was today's unhelpful sideswipe from former Tory MP Damian Green. The shadow home secretary Chris Philp and the shadow communities secretary James Cleverly should bear their share of the blame for the mess the asylum system is in, and offer some constructive alternatives and call for calm. They will not recover as a serious alternative party of government until they too come up with a plan for the asylum system. The leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, often talks of such a thing, but it is yet to be seen. Meanwhile, her undeclared rival, Robert Jenrick, appears to be constantly dialling up tensions. The position is serious. Were the Bell Hotel the only place to be affected by the ruling, then it would not be such a challenge to relocate its 140 residents by the date set by the court of 12 September. However, the judgment also sets a clear precedent, albeit largely based in planning law, for the end of the use of hotels to provide emergency housing. It does so with near-immediate effect. That means some 32,000 individuals will need to be rehoused, at absurdly short notice. Already, local authorities controlled by Reform UK and the Conservatives are expected to bring their own cases, which, as the Home Office lawyers warned the High Court, will make the dilemma of finding shelter for them even more acute. In practice, too, it will encourage many more local protests and increase the pressure on police forces to maintain order. One other immediate effect will be to increase the pressure in areas where Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green councils may still try to stick to a 'refugees welcome' policy. This only creates a sense of unfairness that the task of finding shelter for the immigrants is not being properly shared across the country. And, in any case, all, including the refugees and other migrants affected, agree that using hotels is a far from ideal solution in any case. Contrary to some of the anti-refugee propaganda, these hotels, whatever their nominal star ratings, are unsuitable for long-term residence, and are not the lap of luxury. Concierge is not available. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, they are given shelter and a minimal allowance to stave off destitution, some medical attention and, courtesy of some councils, access to some recreational activities. They are not cosseted in the way some seem to imagine. There is talk of the migrants being placed in flats, which would be relatively expensive, student accommodation, and houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). These create their own problems, particularly because the tendency will be for the irregular immigrants to be moved in disproportionate numbers to parts of the country where rentals are relatively low. The effect there will be to push rents up for the locals, and create more friction in host communities. It may also prompt more action by some local councils to frustrate the strategy, such as using their powers to block the conversion of houses across large areas into HMOs under Article 4 of the town and country planning acts. Even where HMO accommodation is found for families or smaller groups of asylum seekers, they will be more vulnerable to any aggressive demonstrations organised by neighbours alarmed by extremist misinformation about them. Such incidents will be much harder for the police to control. It may be that some form of emergency legislation will be required to delay the implementation of such High Court orders, although that in itself may not be constitutional. The only course then open to government is to redouble its efforts to process the backlog bequeathed to them by the previous administration, speeding up the grant of leave to remain for genuine refugees, or issuing deportation orders in expedited fashion for rejected claimants. It will take too long to build vast detention centres, while the old army barracks that have been commandeered in the past have been found to be completely unsuitable. The High Court has listened to the representatives of the people of Epping Forest and made its decision, and it is right that the judges should do so. Citizens have a right to have their cases heard impartially and have their grievances aired. The courts will no doubt soon be issuing many similar orders. Yet there are other people with a stake in these cases. Perhaps the most lamentable aspect of this latest episode in the migration crisis is that the voices of the immigrants themselves have been so rarely heard, and their plight disregarded. They have their human rights, too, enforceable by law – though many would cheerfully seek to deny them that. Indeed, the tendency in the media has been to demonise these fellow human beings as malevolent monsters determined to wreak crime and havoc in whatever neighbourhood they find themselves bussed to. Whether refugee or economic migrant, they are entitled to be treated properly in a civilised society, and not portrayed, as cynical politicians pretend, as an 'invasion' of 'fighting-age' men. They are not an alien army, but individuals who want a better life. Many would have preferred to stay put, were it not for war, persecution, famine and poverty. In a land such as Britain, with severe labour shortages, they have much to contribute, as have previous waves of immigrants. They could help to fix the 'Broken Britain' we hear so much about, and do the jobs that need doing. Yet they are all too often regarded as terrorists, rapists and murderers. The police at the hotel demos fare hardly any better, berated as 'paedo-defenders' and verbally and physically abused for doing their duty and preserving the King's Peace. The wider challenge for ministers now is to persuade the public that they are doing all they can to restore order to the asylum system – and to rebuild confidence in it. That task just got a lot more urgent.
Channel 4
4 hours ago
- Channel 4
Asylum hotels targeted by more local authorities after Epping court ruling
More local authorities across England are considering legal challenges against asylum hotels after the High Court ruling ordering asylum seekers to be removed from The Bell Hotel in Epping. While the Reform leader Nigel Farage called for more protests outside other hotels, one government minister said the 'very worst politicians' were trying to drive people apart.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Is Labour really failing on immigration and asylum hotels?
Councils across England are weighing up legal challenges after the High Court's decision to block a hotel in Epping from accommodating asylum seekers. The ruling blocks asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town, and current residents must be removed by September 12. On Wednesday, several local authorities, including some run by the Labour Party, said they were considering their options to take similar action. The ruling has resulted in another wave of criticism directed at Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour government over immigration, with opposition parties repeatedly accusing the government of failing to adequately tackle the issue. Yet amid backlash and local council tensions, the figures show that Labour has already made significant steps to move away from the use of hotels. The multi-billion cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has dropped markedly from its peak in 2023. Last year (2024/5), the cost for hotel bills was at £2.1bn, down by a third from £3.1bn in the previous year. The smaller bill is a result of multiple factors, most notably the reduction in the asylum backlog. The average daily cost for housing each asylum seeker in a hotel has gone down from £176 to £170 per person. This still remains higher than previous years. The government has also made efforts to reduce the proportion of asylum seekers housed in hotels, moving them towards other types of accommodation. Figures from March show 32,345 asylum seekers out of over 100,000 were being accommodated in hotels, with the remainder housed in temporary accommodation including council-owned homes and a former airfield. Just 30 per cent are staying in hotels, which is meant as a contingency - or temporary - measure. Government accounts show that costs are likely to remain similar this year, with £2.2bn requested by the Home Office to asylum housing costs; suggesting that the number of asylum seekers is unlikely to fall significantly. In February, Home Office permanent secretary Sir Matthew Rycroft said the department was aiming to 'get to zero' asylum hotels by the end of this parliament in 2029. In 2022, the government began plans to use 'large sites' like cruise ships and ex-military bases to accommodate asylum seekers. Among these are the Bibby Stockholm barge, which was shut down last year, and former RAF airfield Wethersfield which now houses 588 people as of early 2025. But a review last year found that these sites cost more than hotels as a way to house asylum seekers. Nonetheless, hotels cost around six times more on average than other types of accommodation, according to analysis by the Migration Observatory; at £170 a day compared to £27 a day. Yet most of the time, the government is forced to place people in hotels due to a lack of capacity, with a shortage of accommodation and a substantial –albeit decreasing – asylum backlog. The asylum backlog stood at 78,745 cases at the end of March – a 13 per cent drop from December, and down 41 per cent from the mid-2023 peak. Yet the sizeable backlog, which is still higher than pre-2022 levels, represents a host of ongoing costs for the government as people wait for a decision on their asylum claims. Most asylum seekers are still waiting over six months for an initial decision on their claim, although waiting times have improved compared to the same time last year. The majority of people in the backlog are Afghan, Pakistani and Iranian nationals, according to the Migration Observatory. The UK's asylum backlog is the fifth largest in Europe. Where are asylum seekers staying in the UK? Now, over 8 in 10 local authorities host some asylum seekers, Home Office figures show. This is a significant rise over the last decade. Accommodation for asylum seekers varies by region. In the North East of England, just 5 per cent are housed in hotels, while in London hotels make up the majority of accommodation (65 per cent). Epping Forest council is within the East of England region, which has 41 per cent of migrants housed in hotels. However, being in Essex, the council is on the edge of London which has a higher concentration of asylum seekers than the rest of the UK. Around 140 migrants were being housed in The Bell Hotel in Epping, according to BBC reports, all of whom must now leave by September. Though the hotel has provided accommodation for the Home Office for several years, occupancy has fluctuated, with figures in March showing just 28 asylum seekers housed across Epping Forest hotels. Reform leader Nigel Farage has called on other councils to seek 'Epping-style injunctions' against the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, adding: 'It is high time that the outrageously expensive asylum hotel scheme, which nobody in Britain ever voted for, was brought down by popular demand.' The recent pushback has come amid record levels of small boat crossings to the UK. Labour's education minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has admitted that the high numbers are 'a problem that, up until this point, we haven't managed to tackle'. People coming on small boats make up an increasing proportion of asylum applications. Last year, a third of the UK's asylum claims came from small boat migrants. In 2025 so far, over 26,000 migrants have already crossed the English Channel, higher than summer levels in any year to date. In fact, figures at mid-August have nearly exceeded the entirety of 2023 (29,437). Meanwhile arrests of people smugglers who enable the crossings were down last year, according to National Crime Agency data obtained by The Independent. The shadow home secretary called Labour's failure to 'smash the gangs' an 'abject failure'. This suggests that small boats migration could be the highest on record over 2025, bringing with it a slew of new asylum claims; since almost all irregular migrants apply for asylum.
