Debate contribution: A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme

Debate contribution by Mr Peter McReynolds on .

MLA
Mr Peter McReynolds
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
22 September 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5123509

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I speak today as an Alliance Party spokesperson on infrastructure, as chair of the all-party group on road safety and as someone with family members who use the A5 daily. Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have met a number of families who have, sadly, lost loved ones on our roads. Each family still carries the pain of that loss. It is obvious that there were major failings in the Department's evidence to the High Court. That surprised me at the time, to be honest, given the delays that I was seeing across other DFI areas because, I was advised, all resources were being thrown at the A5 case to ensure a positive result. All the while, the question that colleagues and I have kept asking ourselves is this: since the announcement of the scheme 20-odd years ago, what major road safety improvements have there actually been along that stretch of road? To this day, sadly, we have lost over 50 lives, and I am not aware of any significant, tangible interim solutions having been introduced. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that point in her remarks later. Instead, we have waited on an upgrade that, 20 years later, has not happened. Just last week, during Question Time, I asked the Infrastructure about steps that her Department can take to improve road safety in general, but specific measures can also be taken along that particular road. As the chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am acutely aware of the dangers of the road. We regularly meet Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, who consistently highlights the fact that no road is a safe road, but that does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to make the A5 safer. Speed cameras, speed limits and road signage can make road users more aware of their driving, with the goal being to reduce injuries and fatalities overall. Those things may not fix every issue or prevent every tragedy, but they can contribute to reducing their numbers. We need to address the dangers of the A5 now, not wait another decade for it to be completed. Such a sensitive topic should not be used to unpick climate change legislation, given that, on two previous occasions, the A5 upgrade's being paused by a court ruling was not down to the Climate Change Act. Indeed, Judge McAlinden made clear in his judgement that the Climate Change Act does not prevent large infrastructure projects but requires evidence of their planning and coordination to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act. The way forward is not to go back on climate change law but to hold to account those who have not done their due diligence and ask why potential issues were not addressed in the first place.

I am just concluding. Sorry. The families deserve more than finger-pointing and the blame game. They deserve real solutions as we work towards a safer A5 and the positives that can come from that.

502 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.94).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.94Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it0.02
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.92
Another identity-related subject0.06
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:12 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.

Challenge this classification