Member's statement: A5 Upgrade: Re-vesting of Land
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 October 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- A5 Upgrade: Re-vesting of Land
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5785810
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Last week, the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, told the Assembly that landowners would know in a matter of days when their land would be re-vested, who would own it and who would have access to it. We are approaching a week from that statement, and landowners are still waiting for answers. The way in which they have been treated throughout the process has been nothing short of disgraceful. They have endured years of uncertainty and disruption to their land and farming businesses. They have had to reclaim their land, carry out work to restore it and try to get their businesses back on track, only to be faced with the prospect of having to hand back the land to the Department once again.
What are they told about compensation? They are told that compensation will be based on 2024 land market values. Let us put that into perspective. Imagine that the Department was trying to buy your house in 2024 and you were told to put things on hold and wait until the Department came back to you. Two years later, in 2026, the Department returns to complete the purchase. You know that your house has increased in value and that you could achieve a better price on the open market. Would you accept an offer based on 2024 prices? Of course you would question it, yet that is the prospect facing approximately 400 landowners along the A5 route. Why should they be expected to accept a valuation that may not reflect the current market, particularly after years of uncertainty and disruption? Let me be clear: I recognise the importance of the A5. Improved connectivity in the west is vital, and the road has the potential to bring real benefits to our communities and our economy. We need to deliver major road projects in Northern Ireland, but supporting the A5 does not mean accepting that landowners should be treated unfairly. The farmers and families whose land, livelihoods and businesses are directly affected deserve to be treated as partners in the project, not as an afterthought. Last Tuesday evening, Minister Kimmins attended a meeting at Tyrone GAA, where the decision to proceed was welcomed. It will be a safer route, and I understand the news being welcomed. However, I have to ask this: why was the Minister not sitting down on Tuesday night with landowners, working through their concerns and helping them to understand the next steps? That should have been a priority. Landowners need clarity on investment. They need ownership, and they need understanding. We can build the A5 and still treat people fairly. We can deliver progress without leaving families to carry the burden of uncertainty. Landowners deserve answers, fair compensation and respect, which should come with any —
— major public infrastructure project.
The Minister needs to provide clarity now.
472 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: 0.04 (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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.42 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:43 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.