Member's statement: A5 Project
Member's statement by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 September 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- A5 Project
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5142854
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The A5 has been the subject of much debate in the House in recent weeks and months, and it bears mentioning again today. The ongoing delay as we await the outcome of the appeal by the Minister and her Department against the court judgement is causing uncertainty for farm businesses and much concern for the families who have lost loved ones on the road. We can never mention the A5 without, first and foremost, thinking of the families who, today, have a silent voice and an empty chair in their home. Every day, as we travel that road, we are reminded of the devastation caused to many families, and our sympathies are with them today. However, there is a second set of victims who are so often overlooked, and that is the farming community. The livelihoods of landowners and farm families have been placed in limbo for well over a decade, with third- and fourth-generation farming families facing great uncertainty for their future business. Their lands were vested and groundwork undertaken, which saw land left in such a state that it is unable to be farmed and disruption above measure caused to many of those businesses. Driving through the constituency of West Tyrone, it is devastating to see the hundreds of acres of farmland that has been left in such a deplorable condition. No one can deny that the A5 project is a key economic driver for the west, bringing with it regional balance, better connectivity and employment. However, our farmers, our businesses, our victims and our local people need clarity on the future of the project. Millions of pounds have already been spent, and all that we see for it is the devastation to hundreds of acres of farmland.
That is not good enough and is totally unacceptable. It has to be recognised that the handling of the scheme by the Minister and her Department has been deeply flawed, and seeking information from the Department that will provide clarity for the farming community is like trying to take blood from a stone. That is totally unacceptable. The Minister must come to the House, step up to the plate and provide clarity on the issue.
Of course, we also have the Agriculture Minister, and there has been little engagement by him with farm businesses. He has been so keen to set net zero targets, supported by Sinn Féin and the SDLP, that the project has been brought to a halt. When will they come back to the House with proposals to reduce those targets so that such projects can proceed? If it happened in any other business —
— or any other political jurisdiction, heads would roll.
447 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: 0.10 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.75 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.18 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:16 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.