Debate contribution: All-island Rail Network
Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- All-island Rail Network
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4237724
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendment. We will support both. Our rail network has been the victim of chronic underinvestment over many years in terms of the existing infrastructure and diversification away from a carbon-emitting fleet but particularly in terms of a lack of network in the west of the Province. To be clear, the Ulster Unionist Party is fully supportive of the ambitious plans set out in the all-island strategic rail review, particularly on how the rail network can be developed sustainably to improve connectivity between major cities and towns, enhance regional accessibility, including to the north-west, enhance transport integration, reduce carbon emissions and support balanced economic growth and development. If delivered, the recommendations will help to achieve a greener economy, including a modal shift towards public and sustainable forms of transport. They will support decarbonisation of the rail network here, including a gradual shift to electrification of the network and the use of hydrogen-powered trains. I note that Northern Ireland is the only part of Europe without any form of electrification of its rail lines. That is something that we definitely need to look at. Further, the recommendations have the ability to deliver an accessible, efficient, safe and sustainable transport system that supports communities, households and businesses here. The proposals for additional stations throughout the country, particularly in the west, could be a game changer for connectivity, tourism and economic development, as would the long-term proposals for a 125 mph line between Newry and Lisburn and the one-hourly service between Belfast and Dublin. As has been said, ultimately, were the proposals to be followed through, up to 700,000 people across Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic would live within 5 kilometres of a railway station. The expansion, as I have said, would need to include access to our airports. The cost of airport car parking is significant and prohibitive, and a monopoly has been established because of the lack of connectivity, particularly to Belfast International Airport but also to Belfast City Airport. As part of the Union connectivity review, we might see additional routes to mainland UK. There might also be an all-island tourism benefit from that if people are able to travel up from Dublin and fly out from Belfast to further afield. That could be a game changer. I want to touch on a few of the issues. Mrs Erskine talked about the cost of the proposals and how prohibitive that would be. At this stage, the assessment of the cost stands at £31 billion, with a contribution of upwards of 25% from the Executive. It is essential that the proposals are properly costed in order to assess their overall viability, particularly in light of the additional costs that were highlighted today by the Audit Office in relation to how infrastructure projects are run. I would also welcome input, as has already been said, regarding the Union connectivity review and input from His Majesty's Government, which has a key role to play. Secondly, it is about deliverability. The entire project is likely to span in excess of 25 years, and, in order to do that, we need to see a commitment that extends over five mandates and at least five Ministers from several parties. We therefore need to see a maturity of government that we have struggled to find in the past, if we are to see truly transformative services. That is the same across all Departments. Whether it is the transformation of care in Health or the massive infrastructure projects, there needs to be a grown-up approach to how we do this over a series of years.
Absolutely.
Thank you for that promotion, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will take the pay cheque as well, if I can have it.
I am not quite there yet. I absolutely agree with the Member. Sustainability is key. Whatever we are looking at, but particularly the massive infrastructure projects over a number of years, we will undoubtedly need consistency and continuity of government, and that will be vital in achieving that. Thirdly, as already mentioned, the absence of Fermanagh from the all-island rail review is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected. The extension of a rail line to Fermanagh is imperative for sustained economic growth and connectivity and will be vital in alleviating congestion on Fermanagh roads, allowing fabricators and manufacturers to use rail freight instead of roads to aid in transportation. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister on that issue. Finally, the motion — we agree with this — calls for an update on phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine feasibility study. We have no problem with that, and that will be vital in securing faster, more reliable journeys to the north-west. However, it would be remiss, as I pointed out, not to factor in the serious and concerning revelations from a recent assessment and report carried out for Translink. It says that seven areas, including the Carrickfergus to Larne line in my constituency and the Londonderry line, will, by 2040, be under water as a result of rising sea levels and coastal change. I hope that all Members in the House and the Minister will agree that that will happen within the lifetime of this proposed strategic review, and it is vital that we look at how we will assess that impact on our infrastructure network so that we can tackle that. The last thing that we want to see is those key services — as in, we need to hold what we have — going under water without a strategic plan to address that.
936 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.85 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.12 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:40 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.