Debate contribution: A5: Delivery
Debate contribution by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- A5: Delivery
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252991
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for West Tyrone Nicola Brogan for bringing this Adjournment debate on the A5 to the House. We can all agree that the construction of the A5 is much needed. It is not just about a road for better connectivity; it is about safety for people who travel on that road. We are all cognisant of that fact in the Chamber. Sadly, across the nearly 60 miles of the A5, there have been many fatalities, countless people severely injured and so many more near misses. Homes have been broken and shattered with grief. In July 2007, the Executive agreed to move forward with a plan for the A5. Since then, there have been a number of consultations, legal challenges and reports. I understand the right to challenge proposals. I recognise that we need to ensure that some people, particularly farmers, are properly compensated for the land they own. It is important to recognise that. However, it is equally important that we collectively sympathise with and pay tribute to all those who have lost their life. I cannot begin to imagine the grief of the families who are suffering. I drive the road. Aughnacloy to Ballygawley is a well-known part of the road for me. It is situated in my constituency, and it is an extremely dangerous part of the road. We have to acknowledge that there are drivers who take chances. I was glad that the Infrastructure Minister, during Question Time today, referred to the need to ensure road safety. People take chances, and that is not acceptable. We have to tackle the ignorant driving that happens on our roads. Whilst we cannot put a price on someone's life, we have to consider the cost of the project. That is a matter of discussion. Money that came recently from the Irish Government was very welcome. The funding announcement was a promise that was first made in June 2007 to the Northern Ireland Executive, which was then led by Dr Ian Paisley. Whilst the overall cost of the cross-border project has significantly increased over the years, I welcome the decision taken by the Irish Government to restore their funding commitment, which they could not honour until now due to the financial crash in the Republic of Ireland. Whilst we welcome that support for genuine cross-border projects, we must demonstrate the mutual benefit to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is not just the responsibility of the Republic of Ireland's Government to provide financial support for provision of the public services; it is incumbent on our Executive to work with the UK Government to ensure that we have proper money for infrastructure. Whilst, as I have pointed out, the costs of the project have been increasing, with any new road infrastructure, it is critical that we ensure that there is a high degree of collaboration. We look forward to seeing the report and to reading the views of local landowners, communities and businesses that were fed into the public consultation. That having been said, I hope that we can move forward, because, when I drive on that road, I am literally praying behind the steering wheel. That should not be the case. It should not be for anyone who drives on that road to be concerned for their safety. It should not be that we worry about near misses happening. Parts of that road are extremely dangerous to drive on. I thank the Member again for securing the Adjournment debate. The A5 is a vital part of the infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Although the new dual carriageway will provide better connectivity, most importantly, I hope that it will deliver a safer way in which to travel for the people who drive on it.
626 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:50 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.