Debate contribution: Roads: Mid Ulster
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 8 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Roads: Mid Ulster
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5674695
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Minister and Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will give me some latitude when speaking on the issue because, albeit that I am a Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA, I represent an area that Mid Ulster District Council falls into, and Dungannon and places such as that would be seen as mid-Ulster. The issue that we are discussing is one that every one of us hears about every day. The question that I want to ask, however, is simple: when will people see the difference on the ground? Our constituents do not drive on strategies, press releases or digital surveys; they drive on our roads, and they are not seeing the impact of the investment that is talked about in those press releases. Far too many roads are in an absolutely disgraceful condition, and nowhere is that more prevalent than in our rural communities. Rural roads are competing in a system where roads carrying the greatest volume of traffic will naturally attract priority. However, I am finding it difficult to get even urban roads fixed. We have heard about technology being used to identify where roads are deteriorating and about the car that is supposed to travel around Northern Ireland imaging our roads, but where is that car? How much is being spent on it and how much on technology? People do not need another photograph taken of a pothole; they need the pothole fixed. We cannot become world leaders in identifying potholes while remaining incapable of fixing them. Minister, I want to turn to road safety. Road safety cannot simply mean telling people to be more careful. Road safety means government taking responsibility for the infrastructure that it controls. Let me take you to Dungannon. I have lobbied and shouted for five years for the road at Moygashel to be resurfaced. The condition of the road through that village is completely ridiculous. At present, there is a sinkhole at a junction that has a temporary repair. There are cones around it, and my colleagues and I have been told that it will take weeks to repair. That is a road hazard. That is a busy junction, and the number of near misses already is shocking. Why is that not a priority? Furthermore, utility work is taking place in Dungannon, and a diversion was put in place via Milltown. I had to fight for weeks to get white lines sorted in that area beforehand, as drivers were being diverted through an unfamiliar place for them. They would not have seen the road markings at a mini roundabout. It was going to cause problems, so I do not understand why such things are not being prioritised. We then come to the issue of claims. Claims caused by poor road surfaces are now in the region of £1 million per year. That should concern us because every pound spent in compensation is money that could have been spent on preventing the damage in the first place. Minister, I know what you will say today. I accept that budgets are constrained and that the scale of the problem is enormous, but accepting the problem is not solving it. After the announcements and all the strategies, surveys and press statements, people are entitled to ask, "Where is the delivery?". We need proper resurfacing rather than endless temporary patching. I am sick, sore and tired of going to the portal to report a pothole, and then, literally within days or weeks, the pothole emerges again. People get very frustrated about that. The test is whether people can leave their homes in the morning and travel safely on a road that is fit for purpose, and right now that is simply not happening for many rural communities, so my plea, Minister, is this: fix the roads and give rural communities the dedicated investment and priority that they deserve.
643 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.97).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.90 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.