Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor: Impact on Local Communities
Debate contribution by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 13 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- A5 Western Transport Corridor: Impact on Local Communities
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4948307
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Tom Buchanan for securing this important Adjournment debate. As has been stated repeatedly this evening, the project was agreed in 2006, nearly 20 years ago. Sadly, since then, more than 50 lives have been lost on the road. I cannot imagine what it is like for someone to have a child, a relative or a friend killed on the road. I live in the area and have two teenage children who are out on the road, and my heart does be in my mouth. You dread getting that call late at night. I cannot imagine what it is like for families who are in that situation. Too many lives have been lost. The road is not fit for purpose. Daniel hit on it: the road has something like 1,200 entrances and exits. I remember being at a public meeting at which it was said that every single one of those entrances and exits is an accident waiting to happen. That really dangerous interface between local traffic, with people going to the shops, taking their kids to school, going to Mass or travelling to a farm or whatever, and strategic traffic that is passing through is a recipe for disaster that has, unfortunately, resulted in a lot of deaths on that road. Last September, I hosted guests from St Ciaran's College in the Building. Kamile, a former pupil of the college, and her friend Jamie had been killed on the road earlier in that year. It was the day of the school's retreat to Ballintoy, but the pupils decided to spend the day here in order to lobby the Infrastructure Minister about the road upgrade. Anyone who was here that day and saw those young people in the Great Hall holding crosses that bore the names of the people who have been killed on the road over the past 20 years knows that it was a very profound and sad sight. It was a wake-up call for anyone who might have been uncertain about whether the road upgrade was important. It is also important that people who are affected by the upgrade have their voices heard. I and other Members attended a meeting in Omagh last October, at which we heard some very strong representations from people who are affected by the road upgrade. It is right that they should have their voices heard and, no doubt, the Minister will address that in her remarks. It is not just about DFI, however: I am Sinn Féin's agriculture spokesperson, and the AERA and Infrastructure Committees jointly hosted a session in the Senate Chamber to give a voice to people who have concerns. On the agriculture side of things, farmers have questions about the future of their entitlements, the impact of the ammonia action plan not being published and on their ability to replace buildings and herds that are being closed down by bovine TB. There is no doubt that those questions deserve to be answered, but the serial blocking of the A5 scheme through legal challenges needs to stop. Too many lives have been lost and too much is at stake.
521 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: 0.04 (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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.49 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.34 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.06 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:37 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.