Motion or amendment: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Colm Gildernew on .
- MLA
- Mr Colm Gildernew
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- 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 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 449971
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘Assembly’ and insert: ‘acknowledges that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues worked together to address the recommendations following the Planning Appeals Commission A5 Inquiry; welcomes the Department for Infrastructure serving a Notice of Appeal against the A5 judgment; further welcomes the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that his department intends to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal; recognises the steadfast commitment of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign and the many families tragically bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of this Assembly mandate.’
124 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 1 – The Amendment Therefore Fell
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: 0.05 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.