Member's statement: Roads: Funding for Repair
Member's statement by Mr Jonathan Buckley on .
- MLA
- Mr Jonathan Buckley
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Roads: Funding for Repair
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5000990
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In politics come priorities, and, in light of tomorrow's comprehensive spending review announcement, many examples of priorities have been cited in this place. We can all smell the burning rubber as the Chancellor makes a handbrake turn on many of the taxes that she imposed on the people of the United Kingdom last year. Who would have thought that punishing pensioners, farmers and small businesses would be so unpopular? The Chancellor, however, has to live in the real world. I was once taught that, in anything in life, you must get the basics right. It is one of those basics that I want to talk about today: the condition of our roads. I do not believe that, in my time as an elected representative, I have ever been more concerned about the condition of our roads across Northern Ireland. Potholes are left gaping wide, sometimes for months on end. Roads are unpassable. Cars are diverting around potholes into the flow of other vehicles. The dangers are unending. Like many representatives in this place, I imagine, I have reported them many times and been told that they would be fixed, only to be met with the statutory response, "We will get to it when the budget allows". I call on this place to be sensible with any additional funding that it receives from the spending review. We must get the basics right. In 2023-24, the system noted that there were 103,746 surface defects on our roads. That was only scratching the surface: those were only the faults that Members and others outside the Chamber reported. That figure did not take into account the vast number of defects that went unreported or disappeared off the system day in, day out. It is not acceptable for DFI Roads to be told that we could be facing increases in road deaths only to be met, again, with silence. I call for a targeted plan that allows us all to ensure adequate road safety. What is the point of drivers paying road tax for their vehicles only to be met with roads that are substandard and, in fact, in many cases, third-world standard? I call on the Infrastructure Minister, along with her Executive colleagues, to ensure that we can make our roads fit for purpose.
380 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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | 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 | 0.87 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.12 |
| 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 12:41 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.