Motion or amendment: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 3
Motion or amendment by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 September 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme”
- Heading
- A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 3
- Assembly identifier
- Document 449977
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 3
Leave out all after ‘Minister for Infrastructure’ and insert: ‘failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 Western Transport Corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully and to put in place other road safety measures and better public-transport options for the North West if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon-budget limits required by law.’
121 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:
Divisions on this item
- 22 September 2025: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 3 – The Amendment Was Therefore Agreed
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:12 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.