Debate contribution: Road Maintenance
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Road Maintenance
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5391880
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber. I support the motion. It highlights the serious and worsening issue of potholes — an issue that disproportionately affects those living in rural areas like mine. While road maintenance is a concern across Northern Ireland, the impact is most acute on rural roads. Those roads already contend with poor visibility, limited or no street lighting and inadequate markings. As we have heard today, potholes pose substantial risks to cyclists and, indeed, anyone using our rural road network. Today, I wish to call out the imbalance in investment in rural roads. For instance, from 2022 until the present, £3·8 million has been spent on resurfacing a road that stretches 2 miles in Belfast, compared with £1·6 million spent on the A4 from Enniskillen to Ballygawley. The A32 Cornamuck upgrade scheme, which is a blue-light road, has been paused. The Enniskillen A4 southern bypass scheme has also been paused. The recently resurfaced Lough Shore Road outside Enniskillen — that resurfacing cost £414,000 — has now seen the collapse of the same road. That reinforces what Mr Harvey said about poor materials and how we need to make sure that, once road resurfacing is done, it remains in place. Those rural roads all need urgent attention. I will turn to potholes. There is one particular stretch of road in Fermanagh and South Tyrone that I wish to draw attention to: the Cavan Road, which links the hamlet of Bush to Killyman in Dungannon. My office has received numerous reports of extensive potholes and recurring surface defects along that route. They are not minor surface blemishes; they are deep, persistent and, in some cases, unavoidable due to the width of the carriageway. Constituents have described swerving to avoid damage only to risk meeting oncoming traffic on what is an already tight stretch of road. The damage being caused to vehicles is deeply concerning. A constituent contacted our office to report seeing several cars pulled in with hazard lights on after sustaining damaged wheels and tyres on that stretch of road. What is particularly frustrating for residents is that it is not a new problem and is not exclusive to the Cavan Road. Temporary patching is carried out, but the same defects appear year after year, and that suggests a structural weakness in the road surface. There must be a thorough assessment of persistent problem areas on our road network, especially when potholes re-emerge repeatedly. We require a long-term strategic approach that invests in the proper resurfacing and strengthening of rural roads so that they can withstand the volume and weight of traffic that they now carry. Traffic levels have increased, agricultural machinery is heavier and rural routes are often used as through roads. The infrastructure must reflect that reality. For many in rural communities, there is no viable alternative to private transport. Public transport is not readily accessible, and, in parts of the west of the Province, there has been little meaningful expansion in recent years. People rely on their cars for work, education, healthcare and daily life, and they are entitled to expect roads in rural areas to be safe and fit for purpose. Mr Dunne mentioned poor-quality road repairs, and we also need reassurance that repairs will be inspected and signed off. There is one pothole that I drive past that, since being repaired, is like a humpback bridge. While I welcome the £7·85 million funding to address road surfaces, the Department for Infrastructure must bring forward a clear, balanced and workable strategy. The current reactive approach is not delivering for rural communities. We need prioritisation based on long-term durability, not short-term patch work. Rural ratepayers and taxpayers deserve the same standard of infrastructure and safety as those in our towns and cities.
630 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:56 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.