• The A5 is a major route west of the Bann that has seen over 50 deaths in road traffic accidents in the past two decades.
  • Redevelopment of the road is a flagship infrastructure project for Stormont, but was blocked in court rulings, with the judge citing provisions of the Climate Change Act that meant construction should not proceed.
  • Both the DUP and UUP support redevelopment of the road and have suggested revising climate legislation as a solution to the impasse.
  • The TUV does not support the A5 project but has consistently opposed the Climate Change Act as well.

On 26 April in a post on social media, newspaper columnist Newton Emerson said:

This claim that redevelopment of the A5 was stopped by the Climate Change Act and that every unionist party has in response indicated support for amending the Act came in response to comments from Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald TD.

One day earlier at the most recent Sinn Féin’s Ard Fheis, Ms McDonald addressed “Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist” people, saying:

“Divisive, rejectionist, sectarian politics must be consigned to history. It has no place in our future. Casement Park will be built. The diggers are on-site. The A5 will save lives. Stopping this road is not acceptable.”

Is Mr Emerson correct? There are two aspects to his claim:

  1. Did the Climate Change Act stop redevelopment of the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme ?
  2. Has every unionist party said it supports amending the act in response?

Both these claims are supported by evidence.

Redevelopment of the A5 was halted by a court judgement in 2025 that cited the Climate Change Act as a central reason the project could not proceed. This ruling was affirmed earlier this year on appeal.

Politicians from both the DUP and UUP have spoken in support of the A5 scheme, saying that the Climate Change Act should not stand in its way, and that revising the Act should be considered as a solution.

The TUV is against redevelopment of the A5 but has consistently opposed the Climate Change Act in its current form.

For more information, read on.

  • Source

FactCheckNI contacted Mr Emerson about his claim. He responded by pointing us to various comments from unionist politicians in the wake of court rulings around the A5 proposals and Climate Change Act, including:

  • DUP MLA Deborah Erskine stating that “if climate change legislation is an obstacle for delivering major infrastructure schemes then this will have to be looked at as a matter of priority.”
  • Then UUP Deputy Leader Robbie Butler MLA saying there is a need to be “realistic and pragmatic” and that revision of targets in the Act should be considered.
  • TUV Leader Jim Allister MP calling provisions of the Act a “folly” and Timothy Gaston MLA roundly dismissing the Act and its consequences.
  • The A5

The A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme is a proposed 85km dual carriageway running from Derry/Londonderry in the north to Aughnacloy on the border with the Republic of Ireland in the south, passing through Strabane, Newtownstewart, Omagh and Ballygawley. It would replace the existing single carriageway A5, which is one of the main arterial routes through the west of Northern Ireland.

Figure 1 – source: Department for Infrastructure

One of the major reasons forwarded for the construction of the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme has been the dangers associated with the current road. Since 2006, there have been over 50 deaths on the current route.

Debates and commentary  about apparent lack of infrastructure investment in the nationalist/republican west of NI, compared with that in the more unionist east, has long been a point of political local political contention in Northern Ireland (see here, here and here) with blame for the situation being pinned variously on recent Belfast-centrism, sectarianism or just the logic of overall population distribution.

  • Redevelopment and the Climate Change Act

Since its inception in 2007, the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme project has been through multiple planning inquiries, legal challenges and funding crises. In November 2011 the Republic announced it could not make its original £400 million contribution to the project, which effectively stalled it for years. When Irish government funding was restored and recommitted in 2024, the Executive moved to proceed with a 55km section between south of Strabane and Ballygawley. 

That decision was then challenged in court (for the third time) by the AA5A (the Alternative A5 Alliance, a group of affected landowners and residents).

Presiding judge Mr Justice McAlinden sided with AA5A, citing Section 52(1) of the Climate Change Act (NI) 2022 to justify the decision (source: Judiciary NI Files, 2025). Section 52 sets out three broad duties for departments:

  • To act consistently with emissions targets, including those for 2050.
  • To co-operate with other departments on meeting targets.
  • To create and implement appropriate plans, policies and strategies.

The decision was not made because the road would necessarily breach carbon targets, but because the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) made its decision without adequate evidence that it would not. 

Mr Justice McAlinden stated that the Climate Change Act (NI) 2022 did not require DfI to wait for a finalised Climate Action Plan (CAP) before proceeding or require proof that every carbon target would be met.

What it required was evidence demonstrating genuine planning, synchronisation and co-ordination between all NI government departments, illustrating how the project fits into a realistic and achievable pathway to net zero by 2050, meeting the interim targets and staying within the carbon budgets. 

In response to the 2025 ruling, the DfI appealed. The Court of Appeal returned one issue back to Mr Justice McAlinden: what are DAERA’s responsibilities under section 52(1) of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and how do they relate to the DfI’s function? 

New arguments from the department were considered – and heavily criticised, given their apparent inconsistency with arguments put forward in the original hearing. The judge even accused DfI and DAERA of “gaslighting”. The original ruling was reinstated.

All this makes clear that the reason the A5 Western TRansport Corridor Scheme was delayed is due to the Climate Change Act.

  • Unionist response

How have local unionist parties responded to these delays to redevelopment?

Given the context, this article focuses on unionist parties that hold seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly: the DUP, UUP and TUV.

As well as the comments sent to us by Mr Emerson, there are further instances of each of the three parties speaking out against the current status quo of the Climate Change Act.

  • DUP

As mentioned above Deborah Erskine MLA made comments about the possibility of addressing existing legislation in the aftermath of the initial ruling. Following the failed appeal, she reaffirmed this position.

In the Assembly Chamber on 27 April this year:

  • Michelle McIlveen MLA said net zero in Northern Ireland is unachievable and unjustified at a time of profound upheaval for businesses and households across the Province.
  • Jonathan Buckley MLA characterised the continued embedding of a climate-driven legislative approach as ruling out entire sectors regardless of need.
  • David Brooks MLA said climate change legislation should not stand in the way of or delay large infrastructure projects across NI.
  • UUP

Following the 2025 court ruling against the A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme, three UUP MLAs (Robbie Butler, Diana Armstrong, and John Stewart) forwarded an amendment in the NI Assembly to agree on four key things: 

  • First, that the Minister for Infrastructure had failed to take the necessary actions to ensure the A5 scheme could withstand legal challenge. This accuses the DfI as incompetent, presenting ministerial failure as a reason for Judge’s decision
  • Second, saving lives on the A5 should be made the absolute priority
  • Third, that landowners should be treated fairly and respectfully, and that alternative road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west should be put in place if the A5 faces further delays
  • Fourth, commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme should begin as soon as possible, and that the Minister should set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law.

On 14 April this year in a debate on a cost/benefit analysis of net zero, Ms Armstrong said that the blockage of the A5 redevelopment, amongst other issues, means that targets need to be reconsidered.

  • TUV

As far back as 2017, the TUV opposed redevelopment of the A5. In response to the 2025 court ruling blocking the redevelopment, party leader Jim Allister MP said that “there are many farmers in West Tyrone who will be breathing a sigh of relief.”

However, he also criticised the Climate Change Act and its targets “that were never grounded in reality, but in virtue-signalling and ideological zeal”, adding that:

“Quite apart from the merits or otherwise of the A5 project, Northern Ireland is being strangled by the net zero obsession.”

The party opposed the Act at the time it passed and continues to oppose it now. Despite not being in favour of the A5 project (reaffirmed at their March 2026 conference), this still qualifies as being open to amending the Climate Change Act.

  • Conclusion

Based on all the above, it is clear that all unionist parties in the Assembly are open to amending the Climate Change Act.