Debate contribution: Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5139521
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the Minister for making herself available for today's debate. I know and appreciate that she had to rearrange a number of engagements, and I know the importance that she places on the issue. For me, it is a simple but vital point that, without a proper air connectivity policy, Northern Ireland will never achieve its full economic potential. For more than a year, the Department for the Economy has had in its ownership the York Aviation report on air connectivity in Northern Ireland. The report made it clear that Northern Ireland has fewer direct international services than comparable regions, and its failure is costing us jobs, investment and tourists. The Department needs to come forward, because the economy is paying a price.
Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is the fundamental foundation on which we attract foreign direct investment (FDI); it is the way in which we ensure that our world-class manufacturing, engineering and service firms can access export markets; and it is central to growing our continually expanding tourism sector, which benefits communities in every corner of Northern Ireland. Yet Northern Ireland remains the only region of the UK without a direct air link to the United States of America. That is an extraordinary position for us to be in, given the scale of our economic, cultural and tourism ties with the United States. Over 200,000 American tourists visit Northern Ireland every year, but 87% of them fly into Dublin. That is business that we are losing day after day. The York Aviation report recommended urgent intervention. It highlighted the need for new and additional routes not only to North America but to Paris, Frankfurt and Copenhagen. It called for the creation of a route development fund to support those services, and it pressed for a clear aviation policy that sets out priorities and, more important, gives certainty to our airports. Yet, instead of grasping that opportunity, the Department has held round-table discussions but has not advanced a full-scale policy at this stage. Let me be clear: for me and my party, this is not about one airport over another. Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport (CoDA) all have a vital role to play in Northern Ireland. They should see the benefits of increased connectivity. An aviation strategy, however, must treat all airports fairly and equitably, recognising their importance for regional balance and for ensuring that growth reaches every corner of Northern Ireland. What we have instead is no strategy to date, no policy intention to date and, unfortunately, delay from the Department in publishing a plan for Northern Ireland. That has led to ad hoc approaches being taken by different airports. Members from across the Chamber attended the launch of the master plan for Belfast City Airport last week. Over the last number of years, Belfast International Airport has made huge private investment, and the Department has supported the City of Derry Airport, but we have no joined-up overall approach that can ensure that those three airports, rather than competing with one another, can complement one another to ensure that they work together. The consequences of that are real. The Northern Ireland Export Forum has set an ambition to increase external sales from 45% to 60% of GDP by 2030. That is achievable, but only if we modernise our aviation policy and secure better global connectivity. Our teams in Invest Northern Ireland work hard daily. They have supported more first-time exporters, secured millions in contracts abroad and attracted new inward investment. However, their efforts are being undermined, if we cannot even offer a direct flight to the very markets that we are trying to attract business from. It is about ambition. It is about whether Northern Ireland wants to compete on the global stage, which is where we need to be. We need a comprehensive aviation strategy within the next three months. We need measurable targets for external sales, and we need a properly funded route development fund to secure the direct links to North America, Germany, France and Scandinavia that our businesses and our tourism sector need. Our airports are ambitious; our businesses are ambitious; and I hope that the Minister can set out her ambitious targets and plans for this important sector. Without improved air connectivity, our economy risks falling behind. That is why our motion today is important. While I have some sympathy for a number of issues raised in the UUP amendment, particularly around a focus on North America and the ongoing campaign for pre-clearance in Northern Ireland, the removal of the route development fund and measurable targets would make our motion weaker. Therefore, I encourage Members to support the motion as it stands.
802 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: 0.02 (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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 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 13:18 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.