Debate contribution: All-island Rail Network

Debate contribution by Mr Keith Buchanan on .

MLA
Mr Keith Buchanan
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
27 February 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
All-island Rail Network
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4238101

Text

I think that I have written too many notes, so, if I omit anybody, I apologise in advance. I will cover Members' comments broadly. Mark Durkan referred to the SDLP's commitment to all-island rail, the decarbonisation of public transport and the north-west — of Ireland, Northern Ireland, or whatever — being isolated. I appreciate that. He also referred to the year-on-year increase in journeys to Londonderry. Obviously, the number of people taking public transport increased, year-on-year. He said that train travel is the environmentally friendly option. Deborah Erskine made several points. She asked whether the expertise is there to deliver the project. She also referred to the report that should be out in the late spring. She said that there are 30 recommendations in the report, one of which is the connection to Belfast International Airport and other airports. She and several other Members — I will touch on them individually — made the point about Fermanagh and the regional imbalance when it comes to the west or south-west of Northern Ireland. She asked why it is not part of the 32 counties. As we all know, 26 and six is 32. Why is it not there? She also referred to the Northern Ireland Audit Office report and the issues with delivery and costs that are associated with such infrastructure projects. Cathal Boylan referred to frequent, reliable travel by train, and to underinvestment and neglect over the years. He welcomed the recent funding from the Irish Government for additional North/South travel. He also talked about unlocking opportunities. Peter McReynolds referred to stimulating economic growth. There were a few differences of opinion in respect of journeys, but he referred to broadly 70% of journeys being by car. He also talked about the climate change threat and the low-emissions transport network. John Stewart referred to the lack of transport in the west of the Province, which, again, is the point about Fermanagh. He mentioned hydrogen-powered trains etc, and airport access, as others did. He talked about costing the project and referenced the timeline: 25 years to complete over five mandates, which will involve several different Ministers. He also mentioned some issues with rail lines in his area and asked whether, in future, they would be under water, which, obviously, is a big issue. Pádraig Delargy referred to the Union connectivity review report. He said that, in it, the east was strengthened while the west was neglected. He referred to the committed Minister whom we have in front of us.

Stephen Dunne referred to the airport connections and, more broadly, to the fiscal challenges that exist. He mentioned the demand that exists for rail travel and the increasing numbers on the Bangor to Belfast service. Patrick Brown said that every £1 spent generates £2·50 in income. He mentioned the electrification of new and existing lines. He also mentioned the Fermanagh issue, to which we referred. He said that there is no statutory protection for unused rail tracks. He also mentioned the importance of heritage railways. Áine Murphy mentioned the tourism potential of Fermanagh. She referred to the traffic in Enniskillen town centre and the reduction in that that will occur if the planned bypass is built. She also referred to the climate emergency. Gary Middleton referred to the suffering caused by historical underinvestment and the available Executive allocations for the project. He also referred to the positive changes made in the past 10 years in the city that he represents. Colm Gildernew referred to the lack of connections in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, now and for the future. David Honeyford referred to renewing and reshaping the economy through having good infrastructure and building on current tourism. He said that public transport is a driver of change. He talked about the Glider and about connecting its route to train stations and industry. I think that that was the point. I do not think that there has been mention of a Glider for Fermanagh at this stage, Tom. Alan Robinson referred to those who use the SmartPass to travel on public transport. He said that 82% of workers travel by car to work. He mentioned wanting a new railway halt in the north-west near the airport. Matthew O'Toole said, "Build it, and they will come." He also referred to the movement of people and goods. That was a good point. It is about not just people but goods across these islands. He mentioned the £31 billion investment and said that it is inspirational. Justin McNulty said that the review is a "once-in-a-generation opportunity". He mentioned rail connectivity to Armagh city. He said that we are individually responsible for the environment. He also said that the Minister must grasp this opportunity.

I will finish with the Minister. Sorry, Gerry. He said that he is keen to support the rail network, which will stimulate development and jobs. He said that the debate has now opened up and that the conversation can start at this point.

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

Assessment

Not qualifying

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: 0.04 (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).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.97).
  • 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

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 framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.59No
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-qualifying threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.97
Reports or questions it0.03
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.77
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.20
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:42 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.

Challenge this classification