Member's statement: A5: Legal Action
Member's statement by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 November 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- A5: Legal Action
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4655649
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In recent weeks, the Minister for Infrastructure rightly made a positive announcement about the A5 upgrade. Unfortunately at the end of last week, news emerged, which the Minister has confirmed publicly, that pre-action correspondence of a potential legal challenge has been received against the upgrade. Rightly, that has caused a huge amount of frustration and anger in my constituency and beyond and a huge amount of concern over the implications of any action taken against the project. There have been countless delays to the A5 upgrade, and, as a result, we have seen far too many deaths on the road. Almost 60 people are dead, and every single day of delay means that further lives in my constituency and in neighbouring ones are put at risk from that deathtrap of a road. There is no day on which I am on that road that I do not witness a potential accident or an accident occur. People have been seriously injured, and some have been left with life-changing injuries that they have had to live with and that they will have to live with for the rest of their life. The people of my constituency are traumatised by that road but are forced on to it because we have no alternative means of travel. Public transport is weak and largely inaccessible in rural constituencies, and in parts of my constituency in particular. We have no rail options. We have only the A5, which runs through the very heart of West Tyrone. That is why business owners and people right across the constituency are united in their frustration. Those who are against the road upgrade may believe that they have due cause for objection, and they have a right to go through the objection process. They do not, however, have a right to continue down that path against the will of the majority of people whom I represent and, indeed, for whom the parties in the Assembly have been voicing concern. We need to see the road upgrade go ahead. Any delays are entirely unacceptable, and I consider any form of action to be an attempt to derail any form of progress being made with the A5. The fact is that the A5 upgrade will go ahead, because it is an Executive flagship project. It is recognised across this island as being a critical piece of infrastructure for saving lives and protecting people, but it will also create economic opportunities for a part of the island that has been entirely cut off. My message therefore to the objectors is this: please back off. Any action taken against the A5 upgrade literally costs lives, so I ask them today to withdraw any legal challenge and not to bring one again in the future.
460 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: 0.07 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.21 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 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.