Member's statement: A5 Upgrade
Member's statement by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 March 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- A5 Upgrade
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4860236
Read the official Assembly record
Text
This morning, the judicial review on the A5 is before the High Court, and I had the pleasure of standing with the families and the campaign groups outside the court this morning, along with colleagues from the Assembly. People today are united in their fight for the A5. Indeed, that road, although it has been a symbol of devastation and pain, unites us in our drive to get its upgrade fully delivered. For the past number of years — for decades, in fact — that road has claimed countless lives. It does not discriminate. It has taken the lives of people from all age groups and all backgrounds: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, grandparents, neighbours and friends. Daily, all who travel on that road are at risk for a very simple reason: it is, in my view, the most dangerous road on these islands. That is what justifies the need for its immediate and absolute upgrade. The road upgrade has been fraught with delays, difficulties and many challenges over the past number of years, and a small number of individuals are adamant about seeing out their objection. They have their right to do that before the court, however the value of human life is paramount. In fact, it is above all else. I understand some of the arguments that are being made. There are concerns about the environment and land, but none of that should trump the value of a single human life. It is important today that a unanimous and clear message comes from all politicians across the House that the upgrade of the A5 is essential to ensure that we save human lives, that we protect human lives and that we ensure the safety of the people travelling there. That is before we even get to the economic arguments about the benefits that that road will bring to that part of the island. For people who have the luxury of living on the doorstep of trains and good public transport links, people in Tyrone do not enjoy those benefits. We are forced onto that road on a daily basis.
Every town and village in my constituency leads to the A5. We have only one mode of transport should we want to get anywhere in a timely fashion: in a car or another vehicle. Every day, through no fault of our own, our lives are therefore at risk.
My message this morning is simple. Enough of the delays, enough of the challenges and enough of the deaths. It is time for the A5 to be delivered in its entirety so that we can fulfil the promise that was made to the people in the west of the island and ensure that no one else loses their life travelling to work, travelling back to their family or making a daily journey.
470 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: 0.05 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.82 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:08 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.