Motion or amendment: All-Island Rail Network
Motion or amendment by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- All-Island Rail Network
- Assembly identifier
- Document 389303
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
All-Island Rail Network
That this Assembly recognises the transformative impact that expansion of an all-island rail network will have on communities across Ireland; welcomes the commitment to the All-Island Strategic Rail Review from the Executive and the Irish Government; acknowledges that the delivery of accessible, sustainable and modern rail infrastructure is a key driver of economic growth, enhances our tourism industry and will drive regionally balanced investment in left behind communities; further acknowledges that investing in high quality rail is critical to reaching net zero carbon emissions targets by 2050; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to provide an immediate update on the Phase 3 Derry to Coleraine Feasibility Study; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Irish Government to produce a costed implementation plan this year, to deliver rail options to every county in Ireland.
139 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.85 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:48 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.