Liz Kimmins
Newry and Armagh · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“I do not know how it will have affected North Antrim specifically unless the Member is referring to something in particular. We all have a responsibility in climate change and what we do to try to mitigate its impacts.”
“As the Member rightly said, removal of the zero-detriment policy is for the AERA Minister, and I have engaged with the Minister on that, as well as on the removal of the statement of regulatory principles and intent. I recognise that removing that would have detrimental impact on future development.”
“In response, we recently developed and introduced new appraisal guidance, which represents a significant and deliberate shift in approach. Under the previous arrangements, schemes were largely determined by a monetised cost-benefit ratio threshold where, typically, projects that fell below a ratio of one did not progress.”
“A number of significant issues have led to that scenario. I assume that the Member is referring to waste water capacity. I have said that NI Water has suggested that it needs between £3·5 billion to £3·6 billion for the next price control period.”
“Recruitment is a key challenge faced by all Departments. In questions to the Minister of Health, my colleague from Newry and Armagh referred to the recruitment issue that recently impacted on Daisy Hill. The challenge is not unique to DFI. I want to put a focus on ensuring that we build our internal capacity and improve staffing levels.”
“The Executive and the Assembly agree that the Executive's Budget is not adequate, which is why we are in that negotiation. When it comes to the capital budget, we have to factor in a timeline for the legal challenge that we are going through. It is unlikely that we will get a decision from the court on this side of the summer recess.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,530 lines we hold for Liz Kimmins, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 22 of 51.
“I completely empathise with those people. It is something that every Member of the House has had experience of. It is a huge issue. However, it is like many cases where we cannot just go in and start taking on issues that have been caused by a private developer. The updated guidance that I have recently announced goes some way to address it. <BR /> <BR />We have to balance that against how much we can do with the funding envelope that is available to the Department. If we start to deal with all the issues that have been caused by private developers, it will take a significant chunk out of a budget that is already constrained. That is notwithstanding the fact that I recognise that it is hugely challenging for all the people affected. However, the onus in those cases is on a private developer.”
“That is similar to the issue in the question asked by the previous Member. The bonds release will impact on all those schemes within two years. <BR /> <BR />I am familiar with that issue. If the Member writes in with specifics on that case — it is a very unfortunate case with unforeseen circumstances — I will provide a fuller response on what we can do on that.”
“I have tried to make the best use of the funding available to me to ensure that we make an impact, and I take on board and acknowledge the significant challenges that many of the homeowners face. I appreciate that not everyone will benefit from this, but I hope that the Member understands that we try to do as much as we can with what we have.”
“<BR /> <BR />What I have done here is within my remit and within the serious financial constraints that I face.”
“As I said in my previous answer, I recognise that people will be disappointed. That is unfortunate, but the responsibility lies with the developer. We are trying to work out some way in which to deal with the issues as best we can. As I said and as you reflected in your question, the new guidance uses the two-year initiation of enforcement action and the increased funding retained in the bond to complete enforcement action using external staffing resource, should it be required. Many of the developments that were started prior to January 2024 have been completed or have already received bond reductions in line with the old developer's information. That means that a greater proportion of the bond has been released, significantly reducing the funding necessary to engage that external research.”
“The developer is now required to complete all works that were previously within the 70% threshold in order to release 50% of the bond; in other words, my Department now holds more funding to complete potentially less work. That will greatly reduce the risk of new developments lacking the funds to complete the roads infrastructure. The 90% threshold requires the developer to have completed all roads infrastructure works, with the remaining 10% released following a one-year maintenance period.”
“Yes. I appreciate the Member's comments. I know that it is an issue that has a huge impact, particularly on residents who are greatly affected by unadopted roads. Many have been for many years, and I hope that, in some way, the new guidance will give them comfort that efforts are being made. I know that the guidance will not address all the outstanding issues for the many people affected, but it will hopefully make a real difference. <BR /> <BR />The bond release thresholds specify the volume of work that the developer needs to complete before part of the bond is released, and the historical bond release thresholds were 50%, 70% and 90%. We have now changed those thresholds. There will be only two thresholds, which are 50% and 90%.”
“The new guidance, implemented alongside the changes to the bond release thresholds, will protect homeowners by greatly reducing the risk of new developments remaining unadopted.”
“Earlier this year, I gave a commitment to the House to provide updated private streets enforcement guidance to staff in an effort to reduce the risk of developments entering the Department's backlog of unadopted private street sites. On 25 September this year, I announced the introduction of the new private streets enforcement guidance. The guidance establishes a threshold for the initiation of enforcement action of two years, following 80% occupation of houses in the development. My Department also published new developer information that amends the bond release thresholds. That change will ensure that my Department has the funds to bring new development roads infrastructure up to an adoptable standard should enforcement action be necessary.”
“I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has previously asked questions on the subject. The A4 Enniskillen bypass, which is a £36 million project, will provide a new transport link to the southern side of the town and improve the connection for the A4 Dublin Road and the A4 Sligo Road. As the Member may be aware, the scheme is at the tender assessment stage, and I am taking the opportunity, as I do with all such schemes, to consider appropriately the impact of the A5 ruling on it before determining the next steps, because I want to be assured that we can move forward with the scheme with no further delays.”
“Such measures would be disproportionate when compared with the land that is required to construct the A5. Such an approach would be neither practical nor reasonable, and it would be unrealistic to achieve. <BR /> <BR />Section 7.3 of the departmental statement, "Carbon Management Process", has been developed in line with PAS 2080:2023, which is the industry standard for managing whole-life carbon in buildings and infrastructure. It sets out the requirements for the contractors, designer and asset owner, with the aim of achieving carbon reduction. That process aims to minimise the carbons associated with the scheme.”
“Those procedures instructed the assessment and reporting of climate-related impacts in the environmental documentation for public consultation and the identification of proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. However, on the basis of the size and nature of the scheme, it is expected that the construction and operational phases will generate emissions, as reported in the GHG assessments prepared by my Department. <BR /> <BR />To mitigate the impacts further in order to achieve full carbon neutrality through balancing the emissions from the construction, operation and use of the road by removing a corresponding amount of GHGs from the atmosphere would require extensive mitigations, such as vesting significant areas of additional land for planting etc.”
“I am aware of the comments from the Mineral Products Association, which I met recently. I acknowledge the views expressed by the regional director, but, respectfully, I would like to offer a different perspective. I have covered some of this in previous discussions in the Chamber and in response to questions for written answer. <BR /> <BR />Since its inception, the A5 scheme has adhered to appropriate procedures on carbon management and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments. Those procedures have consistently reflected the application of evolving relevant standards, best practice guidance and legislation. However, that did not conclude in a carbon-neutral dual carriageway.”
“I appreciate the Member's comments. As I said, as the appeal remains live, that is the ultimate focus of my officials at present. I want to ensure that we submit an extremely robust case for that appeal to maximise our ability to succeed, get it over the line and get the road built at the earliest possible stage. However, I am mindful that nothing is guaranteed, so it is important that we have a contingency plan, which we are also working on.”
“My Department's major project portfolio is complex, with a range of projects at various stages of development and delivery. Every project will have specific considerations, but, in common with all Departments, I am very mindful at present of the impact of the judgement on the A5 western transport corridor, which was extremely disappointing and against which I recently lodged an appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the judgement in detail while the appeal remains live. As my officials work extremely hard to prepare for the hearing, I will take the necessary time to consider carefully the potential impact of the judgement on other projects as they move through the next stages of their delivery.”
“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 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?”
“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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />As Members will know, I have lodged an appeal against the recent judgement.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />Given the ongoing appeal and despite Members asking numerous questions about what the appeal will look like, I cannot get into the specifics.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“His decision and the associated orders were subsequently quashed following a High Court challenge based on environmental grounds. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said earlier, we are considering the feasibility study for the reopening of the Knockmore line. We hope to publish the main outcomes of the study in the autumn, so I will be able to provide Members with further updates then. I continue to look forward to working with everyone on this. I recognise the significant importance of the Knockmore line not just to the people who represent the area but for wider connectivity across our island to ensure that all our regions are well served by a fully functioning rail network. That would achieve everything that we have set out to do, be that meeting our climate change targets, supporting our communities or achieving economic growth. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for the tone of the debate. Hopefully, we will see progress made in the near future.”
“We are continually looking at how we can invest more. It is important to note that we have given Translink a capital budget of £1 billion over the past four years. While that may still not be enough, it is a significant part of my overall budget, and I hope that that shows my commitment to delivering and to working with Translink and others to do so. The other important thing that is relevant to the debate is that I have ring-fenced £1 million of my budget for this year to build on the momentum that was achieved in the feasibility studies for the all-island strategic rail review, which will include work on the Knockmore line. We have talked about the multi-year Budget. Future Budget decisions will be critical as we plan for bigger rail infrastructure projects.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the scale of interventions and the magnitude of the transformation that is involved — we have talked about the Knockmore line being relatively simple to do, which is why it is one of the proposed short-term interventions — there will be significant challenges with and pressure on the overall finances. We need to explore all funding avenues. I will continue to do that by seeking support from Executive colleagues and by working with other jurisdictions, whether through the Shared Island Fund, the Union connectivity fund or whatever else is available to us. <BR /> <BR />Members referred to the budgets that have been set. There is no doubt that Translink could do so much more if we were able to give it more budget. This year, I gave 33% of my overall capital budget to Translink, which is 86% of what it asked for.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. <BR /> <BR />My officials are working closely with Translink. It undertook several feasibility studies, which were submitted to my Department in July. As I said, those additional studies were funded by the Union connectivity fund and include the Portadown to Armagh line, a new line from Portadown to Derry and the electrification of the line from Belfast to the border. As I said, I am considering Translink's recommendations, and I intend to publish a summary report later in the autumn.”
“I hope to publish that project prioritisation strategy later in the year.”
“While the recommendations provide an evidence-based framework to inform future investment in railways across the island, more work is needed to test the feasibility and affordability — the latter will be key — of the recommendations and to secure the necessary funding to take projects forward, taking into consideration wider infrastructure priorities. As Members know, the feasibility studies were funded out of the Union connectivity fund. I continue to work with the Department for Transport, Translink, Irish Rail and the National Transport Authority to consider the recommendations. That work included the preparation of a project prioritisation strategy that identified the rail interventions that could be well advanced or delivered over the next decade, up until 2035.”
“The delivery of the recommendations is divided into three broad time horizons: short term to 2030; medium term between 2030 and 2040; and longer-term goals between 2040 and 2050. The proposal to reinstate the railway between Lisburn and Antrim, enabling Belfast International Airport to be connected, has been classified as a short-term intervention by the review. That will certainly be welcomed by Members, particularly given tonight's debate.”
“We will not always agree on everything, but the point I am making is that, even when it comes to subsidising the public transport network, they can do so much more in the South because they are not hamstrung by some of the Budgets that we have in the North. <BR /> <BR />I have digressed a little from the all-island rail review, which was published in July last year. It set out 32 recommendations to improve inter-urban and regional rural rail systems for passengers and communities across the island up to 2050, which will not be long in coming in. It is important to say that, given that we talked about 2007 for the Knockmore line. It looks at aligning with net zero goals in the North and South of the island.”
“Very quickly, because I will never get through this.”
“In all seriousness, the investment piece is key to all of this, and it is an example of what can be achieved when we have access to healthier budgets and our own —.”
“Well, if it is in front of my face, I cannot ignore it.”
“Feel free to write in. <BR /> <BR />In relation to all that we have discussed here this evening, I think that everyone here has commended the all-island strategic rail review and shown great support for it. It sought to provide a strategic vision for rail across Ireland. I welcome the comments from David Honeyford about what is happening in Dublin and having an all-island vision. It makes sense. Our railway lines do not stop at the border, in the same way as our roads and many other things do not. It makes sense for us to look at that holistically. Also, by mentioning some of the work that is happening in Dublin, you are feeding into my argument for Irish unity. Look at what the South can achieve with the budgets that it has access to in terms of having —.”
“I thank the Member for that point. I am not overly familiar with Ballymartin, so I probably need to get a bit more information on that, but, ideally —.”