Member's statement: A5: Judgement
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- A5: Judgement
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5042698
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Before I start, I declare an interest by saying that my husband's family are landowners along the route of the A5. Today is one week since the A5 court ruling. That means that it has been one week with no plan on the way forward from the Infrastructure Minister and no public apology from Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin on why they voted for net zero targets that sound a death knell for the projects that we all want. It is down to those parties to answer why they did not heed the warnings of the DUP in 2022 but called for stricter targets. It is also incumbent on the Infrastructure, AERA, Economy and Finance Ministers to come to the Chamber and outline how they plan to rectify the situation, given the cross-departmental ramifications of the judgement. There is still major uncertainty. I ask the Infrastructure Department these questions: who is responsible for giving the go-ahead for works to continue at risk during the High Court challenge? How will land be reinstated? What will the Department pay to affected landowners? Given the safety concerns and the chilling words of the judge that more lives would be lost on the A5 in the intervening period, how will the Minister make sure that safety measures are in place to stop that? To date, there has been no plan. There are also questions for the AERA Minister. My colleague, Community Minister Gordon Lyons, has written to Minister Muir, calling on him to deal with climate change legislation urgently. Minister Muir must act with urgency. He must also, with urgency, support landowners. Their land has been ripped up and, in some cases, will be unable to be farmed. To date, there has been silence from DAERA on that, despite the fact that that Department is referenced heavily in the judgement for not providing information. I ask the Finance Minister this: what funding will be available from the public purse for compensation and the reinstatement of land? Lastly, the Economy Minister must show why she co-signed the amendment in 2022 that brought forward the stricter net zero targets.
The A5 is a key economic driver for the west. Companies are already talking about their disappointment that a key route for freight is not seeing infrastructural improvement. There is also a massive human cost: the loss of jobs and the potential skill drain as a result of last Monday's decision. Many people were in touch with me at the weekend to say that they or their family members have lost jobs as a result of the decision. The parties in the Chamber must face up to the realities of their decision-making. I call on Ministers to come to the Chamber and put forward their next steps, and I ask parties to reflect on the decisions that they took in the Chamber.
476 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: 0.12 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.91 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:57 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.