Debate contribution: Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 29 September 2025.

MLA: Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 29 September 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5139619

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies for missing the start of the debate. I assure you that I was watching it on television in my room. It has been a good debate and very good-natured. There were a few pokes made at the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, but I will poke Members back. I will get to that in a minute or two. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is an important debate, because Northern Ireland has a proud aviation history, which began with pioneers such as Harry Ferguson and Lilian Bland putting us firmly on the map. If Members have not been to the aviation museum at the Maze/Long Kesh, please go. It is probably the most under-visited and underappreciated yet excellent display that we have on this island. Please go and have a look at it. Later, we had Short Brothers and the considerable use of our airfields and factories during the Second World War to defeat the Nazis. I have heard Members across the Chamber tonight, not from this side but from the other side, say that we are such a small place — we are just a small place — but we have to think big, guys. Some Members in here have shown that they are incapable of seeing the big picture. In Lagan Valley, we have Maghaberry and the Maze airfields, of which the Member for Lagan Valley who spoke earlier is well aware. We have a proud history, but it is sad to reflect on the disconnect between our Executive and that vital industry. As our amendment outlines and as has been said during the debate, we should be able to capitalise on our leadership and history in this space and on our ability to deliver, which is second to none. We have a competitive geographical and now geopolitical position. We should be able, at relatively little fiscal or environmental cost, to grow the industry. I make no apology for being ambitious about creating jobs and economic opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland, whether at Belfast City Airport, City of Derry Airport or Belfast International Airport. That ambition will always come first. Having more airlines flying out of NI to more destinations in fuel-efficient aircraft should be a win. Making simple changes, such as our being granted access to US pre-clearance facilities, would transform things, but I did not hear anybody pick up on that part of the amendment during the debate. Members obviously do not have that ambition. Furthermore, why should we continue to export our jobs, revenue and tourism business accessibility to an airport hours down the road? Interestingly, in her contribution, Sinéad did not apply the same rules to the City of Derry Airport as she did to Belfast International Airport. Apparently, it is OK to drive to Dublin, because it has American pre-clearance, but it is not OK for the people of Londonderry to drive to Belfast. I agree, by the way, that they should not have to jump in a car and drive to Belfast, but you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. You cannot have the argument both ways. Bizarrely, we pay two thirds of Tourism Ireland's budget without getting a third of its promotion. That really is not fair. Several Members —.
Sorry?
We pay a third. Sorry. We do not get a third of the output, however, and that is the point. We certainly do not get it in and around our airports. Several Members said that we have been given a unique advantage through the Windsor framework. Hopefully, they will recognise that, equally, the UK-US trade relationship, because of tariffs, gives us a further advantage over the South. We have to utilise everything that is at our disposal and do so to our advantage, so why does our Department for the Economy not take the opportunity to capitalise on that specific angle? I have a suspicion that we may not get the votes for the amendment to succeed, but I ask Members to review and reflect on some of the points that have been made. Mr Honeyford spoke with absolute passion. I enjoy listening to my Lagan Valley colleague speak on the issue, but this is not a constitutional debate. It is not about pitting North against South. It is not a green and orange issue. Rather, it is about jobs for our constituents. It is about improving prosperity and outcomes for the people who live in Northern Ireland. That is the point of the amendment. It is certainly not a constitutional amendment.
No, I will not, because I will not get an extra minute. I have already made my point about the SDLP's contribution. Sinéad, you cannot have the argument both ways about two airports that are only 60 or 70 miles apart.
A Sinn Féin contribution gave me a wee chuckle, because you said that you were surprised to see the SDLP and Alliance agree with Sinn Féin on something. Nobody on this side of the House is surprised by that.
Absolutely, yes.
I heard it differently. We will agree to differ. I ask Members to reflect on my absolutely winning arguments and support the amendment. Thank you.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.20 (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 (0.79).
The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.50).
Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.10	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.09	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.31	No
Controversy escalation	0.25	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.79	Yes
Overall judgement	0.20	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.45
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)	0.50
Adopts it	0.03

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.57
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.42
No identity-related subject	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	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.

Challenge this classification