Debate contribution: A5: Delivery
Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 5 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- A5: Delivery
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4252993
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am glad that we are having this debate this evening. It is great to have the Minister and, indeed, the Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure here. I welcome her comments and the comments of others that have been made so far in the debate. It goes without saying that I heartily support the call for the construction of the new A5 dual carriageway. Last June, I participated in and sat through a public inquiry. I have to say that the most harrowing and compelling evidence for that new road was the stories from the loved ones — parents, sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews — of all the people who have lost their life on that road. Far too many lives have been lost on that road; which is the most dangerous road in the country. We must bring that to an end. I pay tribute to the families. Despite their grief and hardship, they keep the campaign going. It is the families that have really brought home to us what is needed: we need the A5 dual carriageway, and it must be a dual carriageway. In November 2022, I submitted an FOI request to the PSNI for figures on road deaths. Before the A4 was dualled, between 1998 and 2010, there were, sadly, 40 deaths on that road. In the following 12 years, on the A4 dual carriageway, there were, sadly, two deaths. Two deaths is two too many, but we can see the huge differential in the rate of carnage. I am certain that many people are still alive who would not have been had that A4 dual carriageway not been constructed. Just as Maolíosa McHugh said earlier, I am 100% certain that we will see a safer route and more lives saved on the new A5 dual carriageway. I will go back to my point that the dual carriageway is the only option. I know that the Alternative A5 Alliance talks about online options. It is important to point out that 1,300 individual lanes and little roads are connected to the existing A5 dual carriageway. As was said at a public meeting some years ago, every single one of those 1,300 roads and lanes is an accident waiting to happen. There is that deadly interface between the strategic traffic that is commuting between, say, Dublin and Derry or Donegal and local people who are dropping off their children at playgroup or going to school, mass or whatever. It is that deadly interface that causes so many accidents. The offline dual carriageway is also much safer to construct. It has been pointed out strongly that an offline dual carriageway is much safer and more durable in the long term. A new offline road that is properly built would have more integrity. The current A5 is crumbling, so good tar would be being put down on top of bad tar, and the road would continue to crumble. A new road would be much safer for those constructing it. A new offline dual carriageway would result in eight properties being demolished, but any alternatives that have been put forward suggest that at least 34 properties would need to be demolished. In short, there would be a bigger footprint from trying to develop an alternative solution to the A5 dual carriageway. Lanes and local roads would also have to be blocked and traffic diverted, so the footprint would be bigger. Road consistency is another important factor. I recently drove 140 miles from Dublin to Limerick along the M7 and the M8.
However, if you drive 140 miles north-west from Dublin, you have the M1, single carriageway, two plus one, a bypass, the N2 and the notorious A5.
It makes more sense. There will be less land take for a proper dual carriageway, fewer properties demolished, reduced journey times, increased economic development and, most importantly, more lives will be saved by the construction of a new A5 dual carriageway. I welcome the debate.
662 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.