Debate contribution: Knockmore Line to Belfast International Airport
Debate contribution by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Knockmore Line to Belfast International Airport
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5112027
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I remind the Member that it was not us who closed the line in the first place or who reduced the service. That part of Lagan Valley has not changed. The area between Ballinderry and Glenavy remain the same. We have waited too long for progress on this matter. It is two years since Translink's feasibility study came out, and that is too long. If this place is to start being seen as a place that delivers for people, this is exactly the kind of project that we can deliver and change that we can make for people's lives. It is about connecting communities and the benefits that that can bring to the villages right across the area that every Member here has named. One of the problems that we have had in Lagan Valley is that we have two or three main villages. We have overdeveloped Hillsborough and Moira to the point of absolute saturation such that you cannot move in either village at any point in time and the traffic is completely crazy. However, we have Ballinderry, or Ballinderry Upper, which we have not developed, and there is a train line there and main road infrastructure. Developing that area could ease the pressure on planning for housing, especially as we all need housing. However, if this railway line were to reopen, we would have the infrastructure in place before we started to develop housing, rather than putting the housing in place before matching it with infrastructure. That would start to ease the pressure on the M1, which mainly becomes a car park as you come into Belfast, and on the A26 to Antrim. If we created those other connections, we could start to offer sustainable transport and ways to deliver it. The benefit to the wider area would be substantial. The economic growth at the airport has been mentioned, and, as Trevor, John and Declan said, jobs would be needed there and must be filled, and people must be moved so that that can happen. That is key. The connectivity piece is really critical for tourism and to allow the business community to get inward investment and local companies to get their business out so that investment in this place can grow. It is part of the all-island rail review. I agree with Steve on that. That has to start to be delivered, and this is one of the low-hanging fruits, especially as the track is already there. If you look at other plans, you can see that, the week before last, Dublin launched plans for the Metro. Those are ambitious plans for an underground system that would connect Dublin Airport to the city. Belfast City Airport today announced its 2040 strategy, but my first question is this: why do we have to wait to 2040? Can we not bring that forward, do it much earlier and start delivering quickly for people?
Sure.
That is a new word: "ballast".
I completely agree that we need to look at this on an all-island basis. I talk all the time in here about a shared island and at looking at stuff strategically not as a political vision but as development that will help people. We cannot afford to be left behind with this, and it needs to be built into such strategies. I agree completely that the line should be upgraded and seen in its totality rather than as an individual part of the system. Net zero should also be considered, with fewer cars and lower emissions. The other element is the way that it will be used. The midnight train from Belfast to Lisburn never happened. We called for that for years. We were told that it could never happen and that it was too expensive and would never run. However, it was put on at Christmas and has continued to today. That happened because once people find that a service is good, reliable and connects them, they use it. That is the important part. We need a timeline from the Minister of where we go from here so that we can look at delivery. If we had a timeline, we could start to deliver. I appreciate that the Minister is here tonight, and I appreciate her work on it. She has been engaging on it over the past while since she has been in post. It is about that timeline for delivery of what we can do and when we can see it happening for people.
748 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| 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 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.