Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 16 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5623636
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The potential successor to PEACE PLUS was discussed because, obviously, at the summit that was held between Dublin and London back in March, they agreed in principle to a new phase of the PEACE PLUS programme from 2028 onwards. We discussed that because it is important that we shape it right for the society in which we live in 2026. That will involve widening the scope, ensuring that we incorporate all our communities and ensuring that, when the new programme comes forward, it will be in line with our needs in 2028. We all have a bit of work to do to shape that. Certainly, we have had initial conversations with the SEUPB on what that might look like. In particular, there needs to be a focus on rural communities, as there was in the previous programme. More can be done there as well. We now need to continue the work around how to translate an agreement in principle into a tangible programme going forward. We will continue to discuss that issue. The Department of Finance is continuing to work with its counterpart in Dublin to develop the future programme. When it comes to longer-term intervention and what we need to do here, as I have said previously, we are looking at what we can do in the short term to deal with the crisis immediately, because some of the interventions that we put in place to deal with the aftermath of the Ballymena riots in 2025 were impactful and made a difference. We are actively looking at what else we can do in the here and now, working with all our partner agencies. We are also looking towards longer-term cohesion. Over recent months, our officials have done a lot of work on what that could look like in the medium and longer term. We will say more about that when we have a finalised programme.
As I have said, tourism is very much an all-Ireland sector. Tourism Ireland does an excellent job in marketing the island internationally. Due to recent global events, we have, unfortunately, seen a dip in international tourism after many, many years of substantial growth. That is disappointing to see. However, it has been more than offset by a 15% increase in visitors from the 26 Counties coming north. That is an interesting factor. Again, a lot of those things are interconnected, and whether they are due to more connectivity across the island making it easier to travel, they are all really positive developments. We can see how the all-island economy is thriving and helping to compensate for a very difficult international situation. Again, when it comes to tourism, its benefits are spread right across the island. They are not centralised in one area. There has been tourism growth in the Member's own backyard of Fermanagh, in particular. We have a lot of really exciting opportunities ahead of us. Whether it is the Fleadh Cheoil in Belfast or the Derry Halloween festival, a number of really huge events are happening across our island. Events such as those that we saw last week are so disheartening and saddening not only because of their impact on those who were targeted but because of the reputation and the world image of this place that they give us. I am sure that everyone in the House would concur that what we saw on our television screens last week does not reflect who we are as a people. We want to send that message very clearly.
As I said, we have an ambitious piece of work on the all-island strategic rail review, and the 25-year plan sets out clearly where we need to target our investment to make a real difference. We have already made huge, practical strides forward, not least the eight additional hourly train services that we announced recently and the fact that that service has been availed of in such significant numbers. The investment of £500 million is tangible and concrete and shows our commitment to rail. The next step in delivering the objectives of the rail review is to develop joined-up governance arrangements. Then, we, as a collective Executive, will need to target capital investment at the infrastructure projects that we want to see delivered. I certainly want to see the fulfilment of the all-island strategic rail review.
It was great to be in Fermanagh, where the deputy First Minister and I took the opportunity to engage with a range of hospitality businesses, even out on the lough. It was really heartening to see the positivity of those businesses, albeit that there are also big challenges, not least the fact that there is not a level playing field when it comes to VAT. We told the businesses that we had made the case directly to the British Government about creating a level playing field or at least giving us a pilot on VAT so that we can see what difference that would make. We want businesses in Fermanagh to thrive. We do not want them just to survive; we want them to thrive. Individual businesses have their big plans. It does not make any sense that the local hospitality sector is at a disadvantage compared with their neighbours. We continue to make that case. It is not credible that you have a one business sitting on a 9% VAT rate and a neighbouring business sitting on 20%. That is a competitive disadvantage. At a time when just the cost of doing business is really challenging, we need to create a better and more level playing field for businesses. We will continue to make that case. We assure you that we will not miss an opportunity. The Department of Finance and the Finance Minister continue to raise that issue with the Treasury as well.
966 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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.55).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.55 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.45 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.76 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.13 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.09 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.