Debate contribution: Hospitality and Tourism: East Antrim
Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on .
- MLA
- Mr Stewart Dickson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Hospitality and Tourism: East Antrim
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4496134
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank Ms Brownlee for securing the debate. I have represented East Antrim in various guises, first as a local councillor in Carrickfergus for 25 years and then, since 2011, as a Member of the Assembly for the constituency. I am very proud to represent the region, not only because of the incredible people who live there but because of its unparalleled natural beauty. Do not take that just from me. Others have already referred to the fact that the Causeway coastal route has been rated by 'National Geographic' magazine as one of the most beautiful places in the world. Arguably, the best parts of it are in East Antrim, such as the panorama when standing at the Knockagh monument, looking out over Belfast lough, all the way up to Carrickfergus Castle. Arguably, some of the best parts of East Antrim start in Carrickfergus. The area is a testament to the unique charm and global appeal of East Antrim. As others have mentioned, our Gobbins path represents an excellent opportunity to attract more tourists, offering a truly unique experience. I am pleased that phase 2 of the project secured some £13 million from the Belfast region city deal for a purpose-built visitor centre in Islandmagee. Moreover, that deal allocated £43 million for town regeneration funds, which will include a new visitor centre at Carrickfergus Castle. That landmark would benefit from greater cooperation between the Department and the local authority, which is Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. The council understands the local issues, such as extending the castle's opening hours. My constituency office, like Ms Brownlee's, is only a few steps away from the castle. I witness buses arriving early in the morning and then leaving because they cannot get into the castle. They then go to other parts of East Antrim and beyond to explore the tourist take. As others have said, the town of Carrickfergus is ripe for regeneration. We have, however, already spent a lot of money on regenerating Carrickfergus. In 2014, we spent a lot of money on a new public realm scheme, but much of it has since fallen into disrepair or has failed to be looked after by either the local authority or those who were responsible for it in the first place. I was appalled when some of the stones in the pedestrian area were removed for some essential works — water or electricity — and replaced by tarmac. As a local councillor, I remember being told that we had an additional store of the appropriate stone to put back down. It took months to find it and put it back down. It is really disappointing to come into a town that has a lovely paved area only to be met with tarmacked areas. Progress has been made through our townscape heritage initiative, which has brought apartments to above shops in Carrickfergus, but much more needs to be done to capitalise on the town's potential. Our council has increasingly capitalised on East Antrim's tourism offerings, but it is imperative that it continue to engage fully with the private sector and local stakeholders. Tourism Northern Ireland and Tourism Ireland need to step up their efforts to promote East Antrim's potential. Whether it is from our shores or our glens, East Antrim has so much to offer. Massive investment in our infrastructure, such as the A2 and A8 public transport improvements, have been transformative for East Antrim, making it accessible from Belfast and Dublin. Train timetables remain problematic, however. Despite an increase in passenger demand, the dualling of the single track across the Lagan on the Dargan Bridge still has not come to fruition. Increasing the frequency of transport services is necessary to match the efficient services that tourists expect. They get them everywhere else in Europe, but they do not get them here. I fear that the recent fare increases will deter passengers even more. Moreover, support is needed for the Whitehead Railway Museum. It is operated by the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland, which is a major contributor to that niche area of tourism. It is, however, so bogged down in rules and regulations that it cannot provide drivers to get steam trains out on to the main line. It is disgraceful to think that one of the major refurbished steam engines from Whitehead is currently operating in the Republic of Ireland. It is coming to the end of its licence and needs its boiler replaced. The only way to get it back to Whitehead, which is the only place on the island of Ireland where it can be repaired, is to put it on a low-loader and bring it back. That is disgraceful. Departments need to get energetic and get those sorts of issues resolved as quickly as possible. A Carrickfergus city deal regeneration meeting will be held in Carrickfergus town hall on Wednesday 26 June. I encourage anyone, including all the Members who are here, to come along to that session and see what we can do together to give our support to the town of Carrickfergus, the local authority and the traders and businesses in the town that are crying out for help from the Assembly and their local authority. Finally, I place on record my thanks to all those who work in the hospitality trade across East Antrim.
889 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: 0.02 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:47 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.