Member's statement: St John's Point Lighthouse
Member's statement by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- St John's Point Lighthouse
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5295522
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak about a treasure of the Lecale coastline; a sentinel that has watched over generations and guided countless fishermen and sailors safely home: St John's lighthouse. It is the tallest lighthouse on the island of Ireland and one of the last to maintain that beautiful and iconic sweeping beam. It is a piece of engineering heritage that still performs its duty every night and is seen for miles around. At its heart is the Bourdelles rotation system, which rests on mercury-based bearings that are designed to allow the lens to glide with frictionless precision. That system has stood the test of time: it is remarkably efficient and remains in working order. Yet plans are now in place from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to remove that system and replace it with metal-on-metal roller bearings, despite the planners rejecting such a proposal in 2018.
The proposal is fundamentally flawed. It may be called modernisation, but it is a step backwards in engineering. It introduces friction, noise and wear into a mechanism that is currently smooth, silent and reliable. I will be clear: a noisy, mechanical system being introduced into a quiet coastal environment will be disruptive to local wildlife, particularly marine and nocturnal species.
As if that were not enough, the proposal includes replacing the current lamp with a static LED. That is not progress; it is the removal of the lighthouse's character, identity and purpose. LED systems are prone to faults. They alter the visual signature that mariners depend on, and they carry well-documented ecological impacts that have been disastrously overlooked by the historic environment division during the planning process. What we have at present works and works safely. The sweeping beam is one of the last of its kind and is a living link to our maritime history. To extinguish it now would be an act of professional cultural vandalism. Instead of recognising the enormous potential of St John's Point lighthouse as a world-class tourist attraction, we face plans that would diminish it. I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Lecale Lightkeepers community campaign group — some of them are here today — which stands in defence of the sweeping beam. We owe it to the Lecale Lightkeepers, to our fishing community, to our heritage and to the generations yet to come to ensure that St John's Point lighthouse remains what it has always been: a true beacon. Once the beam has gone, it will be gone forever. We will never get another chance to protect it.
420 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: 0.05 (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 (0.76).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.34 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.28 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.76 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.16 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:07 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.