
Why is Sinn Féin so reluctant to amend climate legislation to improve the A5?
loyalty to
Stormont's
climate change
legislation is perplexing self-sabotage.
Liz Kimmins, the party's infrastructure minister,
has announced an appeal
against
June's ruling on the A5 dual-carriageway
from Aughnacloy to Derry.
The Northern Ireland High Court quashed the scheme, the largest single road-building project in the North's history, because it did not comply with emission reduction targets in the 2022 Climate Change Act.
These targets can supposedly be met by drawing up carbon offset plans but no serious attempt had been made to do so. Nor does compliance look feasible within the timeframe Stormont has set itself: net zero by 2050, with interim reductions of 48 per cent by 2030 and 77 per cent by 2040.
READ MORE
The judge in June's case, Mr Justice McAlinden, said it might be possible to make a plan for the A5 consistent with the Act. In theory, perhaps, but experience in Wales suggests otherwise. The Welsh government scrapped all major road-building in 2023, declaring this was the only way to meet its similar net-zero schedule.
The Scottish government took a more realistic approach last year when it repealed the interim targets in its climate change legislation, while retaining the aim of net zero by 2045. It did this largely to save a dual-carriageway upgrade from Inverness to Perth.
There has been no mention of any of this from Kimmins or her department. All statements on the appeal indicate it will be based on saving lives.
The current A5 has a horrendous safety record
, averaging one fatality every four months.
[
From the archive: 'Everyone who has lost a loved one on that road will be happy'
Opens in new window
]
This was addressed in June's ruling, however. Mr Justice McAlinden acknowledged lives will continue to be lost but the A5 can still only be built 'in accordance with the law'.
His comments reflected the extent to which the Climate Change Act had tied the court's hands. The Court of Appeal will hardly see it differently.
Kimmins also referred this week to the A5 as 'regionally significant'.
The project is often framed as correcting historic underinvestment in the west of Northern Ireland. If that is being considered as grounds for appeal, it is equally doomed: the Climate Change Act does not care on which side of the Bann carbon dioxide is emitted.
Of course, Stormont's hands are not tied by its own laws – it can amend, repeal or replace them. Sinn Féin's refusal to countenance this is bizarre, given how little the party had to do with the 2022 legislation and how important the A5 is to its constituents and supporters.
Delivering the project has been a key party promise since the 2006 St Andrews Agreement. Its safety and travel enhancements would be complemented by the symbolism of all-Ireland infrastructure:
the Irish government was to have co-funded it
to connect Dublin with Donegal.
Sinn Féin stepped up these promises last year, when it assumed the first minister's post at a restored Stormont. June's ruling has undermined the credibility of the party and of devolution itself among republican voters.
The Climate Change Act has eccentric provenance. It began life as a 2021 private member's bill from Clare Bailey, then leader of the Greens.
Sinn Féin supported it, as did the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP, with reservations.
The DUP opposed it, arguing Bailey's targets were unachievable.
So Edwin Poots, then the DUP environment minister, produced a rival bill. Both bills progressed together amid haggling over targets and several other issues, until Bailey was satisfied enough to let her bill lapse and the DUP's pass, with the support of every party except the TUV. Poots described his final legislation as 'a compromise'.
The DUP and TUV both oppose the 2040 deadline, required by the 2022 Act but set by a separate vote last December.
Why is Sinn Féin prepared to suffer any political pain to defend a DUP law that even the DUP only begrudgingly supports?
If Sinn Féin proposed repealing interim targets, as in Scotland, the DUP would agree. Alliance now holds the environment portfolio but the DUP and Sinn Féin have the numbers to put any change through the assembly.
Deborah Erskine, the DUP chair of Stormont's infrastructure committee, responded to June's ruling by saying the Climate Change Act 'will have to be looked at as a matter of priority'.
She noted this week that an appeal will take years. Even sluggish Stormont can amend laws quickly, when it wants.
Although tactical retreat on climate change would be briefly embarrassing, Sinn Féin has managed far greater reversals in the past. It is managing a trickier U-turn even now on transgender medicine.
One possible explanation for the party's behaviour is that it no longer believes the A5 will be built. The estimated cost has quadrupled since the project was proposed, rendering it increasingly implausible. If that is too embarrassing to admit, an appeal kicks the can down the road.
But this is speculation on my part, over a genuine mystery.
Sinn Féin really needs to explain itself.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Why is Sinn Féin so reluctant to amend climate legislation to improve the A5?
Sinn Féin's loyalty to Stormont's climate change legislation is perplexing self-sabotage. Liz Kimmins, the party's infrastructure minister, has announced an appeal against June's ruling on the A5 dual-carriageway from Aughnacloy to Derry. The Northern Ireland High Court quashed the scheme, the largest single road-building project in the North's history, because it did not comply with emission reduction targets in the 2022 Climate Change Act. These targets can supposedly be met by drawing up carbon offset plans but no serious attempt had been made to do so. Nor does compliance look feasible within the timeframe Stormont has set itself: net zero by 2050, with interim reductions of 48 per cent by 2030 and 77 per cent by 2040. READ MORE The judge in June's case, Mr Justice McAlinden, said it might be possible to make a plan for the A5 consistent with the Act. In theory, perhaps, but experience in Wales suggests otherwise. The Welsh government scrapped all major road-building in 2023, declaring this was the only way to meet its similar net-zero schedule. The Scottish government took a more realistic approach last year when it repealed the interim targets in its climate change legislation, while retaining the aim of net zero by 2045. It did this largely to save a dual-carriageway upgrade from Inverness to Perth. There has been no mention of any of this from Kimmins or her department. All statements on the appeal indicate it will be based on saving lives. The current A5 has a horrendous safety record , averaging one fatality every four months. [ From the archive: 'Everyone who has lost a loved one on that road will be happy' Opens in new window ] This was addressed in June's ruling, however. Mr Justice McAlinden acknowledged lives will continue to be lost but the A5 can still only be built 'in accordance with the law'. His comments reflected the extent to which the Climate Change Act had tied the court's hands. The Court of Appeal will hardly see it differently. Kimmins also referred this week to the A5 as 'regionally significant'. The project is often framed as correcting historic underinvestment in the west of Northern Ireland. If that is being considered as grounds for appeal, it is equally doomed: the Climate Change Act does not care on which side of the Bann carbon dioxide is emitted. Of course, Stormont's hands are not tied by its own laws – it can amend, repeal or replace them. Sinn Féin's refusal to countenance this is bizarre, given how little the party had to do with the 2022 legislation and how important the A5 is to its constituents and supporters. Delivering the project has been a key party promise since the 2006 St Andrews Agreement. Its safety and travel enhancements would be complemented by the symbolism of all-Ireland infrastructure: the Irish government was to have co-funded it to connect Dublin with Donegal. Sinn Féin stepped up these promises last year, when it assumed the first minister's post at a restored Stormont. June's ruling has undermined the credibility of the party and of devolution itself among republican voters. The Climate Change Act has eccentric provenance. It began life as a 2021 private member's bill from Clare Bailey, then leader of the Greens. Sinn Féin supported it, as did the SDLP, Alliance and the UUP, with reservations. The DUP opposed it, arguing Bailey's targets were unachievable. So Edwin Poots, then the DUP environment minister, produced a rival bill. Both bills progressed together amid haggling over targets and several other issues, until Bailey was satisfied enough to let her bill lapse and the DUP's pass, with the support of every party except the TUV. Poots described his final legislation as 'a compromise'. The DUP and TUV both oppose the 2040 deadline, required by the 2022 Act but set by a separate vote last December. Why is Sinn Féin prepared to suffer any political pain to defend a DUP law that even the DUP only begrudgingly supports? If Sinn Féin proposed repealing interim targets, as in Scotland, the DUP would agree. Alliance now holds the environment portfolio but the DUP and Sinn Féin have the numbers to put any change through the assembly. Deborah Erskine, the DUP chair of Stormont's infrastructure committee, responded to June's ruling by saying the Climate Change Act 'will have to be looked at as a matter of priority'. She noted this week that an appeal will take years. Even sluggish Stormont can amend laws quickly, when it wants. Although tactical retreat on climate change would be briefly embarrassing, Sinn Féin has managed far greater reversals in the past. It is managing a trickier U-turn even now on transgender medicine. One possible explanation for the party's behaviour is that it no longer believes the A5 will be built. The estimated cost has quadrupled since the project was proposed, rendering it increasingly implausible. If that is too embarrassing to admit, an appeal kicks the can down the road. But this is speculation on my part, over a genuine mystery. Sinn Féin really needs to explain itself.


Irish Independent
a day ago
- Irish Independent
No firm timeline for new building project at west Wicklow college
The school in west Wicklow received planning permission in 2024 for a project which would remove the existing temporary accommodation on the site and replace it with a new three-storey, 1,000 pupil secondary school. The facility is due to include a sports hall, special needs suite, toilet, general purpose hall, changing facilities, a social area and a library. The project was already pushed back from December 2024 to September 2025, and now that date will also be missed. The project, which has been devolved to the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board was expanded in 2023 to cater for 1,000 students and six special education needs classrooms. Campaigners have been insistent that the new school should accommodate 1,000 students in a completely new build, as the Department's initial plans were to include modular classrooms for up to 800 pupils. The proposal will also see the reconfiguration of the existing pedestrian and vehicular entrance to the site, including bicycle parking, car parking and set-down areas. The project is being delivered under the Department's ADAPT Programme, which uses an external project manager to co-ordinate and drive the project through the relevant stages of architectural planning, tender and construction. Following a parliamentary question from Sinn Fein TD for Wicklow John Brady, Education Minister Helen McEntee said the plans remain at the design stage. 'It is anticipated that the procurement process for this project will commence during 2026.' 'It is not possible to provide a timeframe for the progression of the project to tender and construction stages until such time as the necessary statutory approvals have been secured.' 'My Department will keep the school and patron body informed of the progression of this project through the stages of architectural planning.' she added.


Irish Times
a day ago
- Irish Times
What lessons does the Irish Boundary Commission hold for how borders are made – and unmade – in contested spaces?
In today's episode, Hugh is joined by historian Dr Cormac Moore to discuss one of the most consequential but little-known episodes in modern Irish history: the Irish Boundary Commission. Based on Moore's new book The Root of All Evil, the conversation explores the hopes, fraught negotiations, and ultimate anticlimax that defined the commission's work 100 years ago this year. How did a clause in the Anglo-Irish Treaty come to carry the weight of nationalist aspirations and unionist fears? Why did so many believe that the commission would redraw the map of Ireland in favour of the Free State – and how did those expectations unravel so completely? Was the commission's failure inevitable, or did political miscalculations and miscommunications seal its fate? Moore, historian-in-residence with Dublin City Council, brings a forensic eye to the detail and a deep sense of the human stakes involved. He unpacks the central roles played by figures such as David Lloyd George, James Craig and WT Cosgrave. What lessons does the Boundary Commission hold for how borders are made – and unmade – in contested spaces? And in a world where the political future of Northern Ireland is once again up for debate, is this century-old episode a cautionary tale of how not to manage competing nationalisms? READ MORE What happened in 1925 offers lessons for anyone interested in the deeper roots of partition, the evolution of identity on this island, and how historical decisions continue to cast long shadows. Produced by Declan Conlon with JJ Vernon on sound.