Debate contribution: Regional Balance Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 8 September 2026.

MLA: Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 8 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Private Members' Business
Heading: Regional Balance Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5674633

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone for their contributions today. On the whole, the debate was widely positive, and I was really encouraged by many of the comments from across the Chamber. I want to address some of the recurring comments made by Members, because there are many issues that we have considered in detail throughout the progress of the legislation. No Bill that comes to Second Stage in the House does not get changed, amended or improved as it goes through the various stages. I welcome the comments from and support of those across the Chamber who are seeking to improve the Bill to make sure that it delivers what we want it to deliver. I am ambitious for the Bill, and I believe that others are ambitious for it as well. I will work with everybody in good faith. Mr Delargy and Mrs Middleton rightly recognised the progress that has been made by successive Ministers and Departments, including on regeneration in Derry. I agree with that. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill is intended to complement and strengthen that work and to put permanence and continuity right into the heart of it. As the previous Minister for the Economy told me directly, a Minister for the Economy cannot achieve economic balance alone; we need the whole of government to pull together. That is probably why I am standing here feeling a bit confused about the issue that has been raised about the Bill being Executive-driven.
I want to make good law, but I cannot do that if it is being said that the institutions are failing. Do we therefore have to make bad law because we have a bad Executive and a bad Assembly that cannot cope with good law? That concept is wrong from the very beginning.
I will indeed, in a moment. The golden thread is to have all Departments feed into the Bill, set out what they want to achieve, what their targets are, what they want to measure and what funding will be required, as well as for them to evaluate and review the Bill and make it fit for purpose. One Minister cannot do that. There has to be a commitment from the whole of government. Sometimes, that is a big ask in this place, where dysfunctionality takes centre stage. It does not, however, make any sense to keep on making law if we are bad at the job that we do.
I do not really know where to go with that. It does not make sense, and I cannot make it make sense. This is about having a whole-of-government responsibility. Regional imbalance is not created by one Department, but it can be solved by all Departments working collectively in order to close the gaps that are caused by the inequalities that, in one form or another, exist in all our communities. Those inequalities are not uniform, but they probably exist in every single constituency. There therefore has to be a whole-of-government responsibility, or else the legislation will not work. By its very nature, even if we say that one Department and not the whole Executive will drive it but that all other Departments are going to feed into it, that is a whole-of-government response. I do not know. Addressing regional imbalance will be pulled into the Executive in any case. There is an argument to be made for the transformation and reform of the institutions because of the dysfunction that there is at the heart of this place. The SDLP has been pushing constantly for reform of the institutions, but things such as progressive politics and policies that will turn people's lives around and change how we do business here should not be pushed back or vetoed by one party. That should be the ambition. The ambition should not be to keep something away from people because they are going to ruin it for you. We are all elected, and we all represent people in our areas. The Bill applies to everybody. I therefore want that to be central to everybody's thoughts. As I said, the responsibility for policies that help shape economic development sits across government. Every Department should be alive to the role that it can play in narrowing the gaps between places. Mr Brett made an important point about Belfast and its wider catchment area. The story of Northern Ireland is not that Belfast has uniformly thrived whilst everywhere else has stagnated. I am very alive to that conversation. When Mr Brett took us to his constituency, he very deliberately brought us to Impact Training, which is an organisation that is trying to change the lives of people who have been left behind because of poor educational outcomes. It offers training and apprenticeship programmes that equip individuals to excel and to avail themselves of opportunities that are strategically placed close to his constituency, but, even so, they still experience barriers. Julie Middleton referred to the fact that we can allow Belfast to succeed while at the same time addressing the challenges in and discovering the untapped potential of other places.
It is not an either/or. I am sick of the either/or argument. The Bill is especially but not exclusively for the north-west. Again, I make no apologies for some of the indices that I have mentioned. There is a natural direction of travel. We know that the north-west has experienced extreme inequalities in a number of areas, but the Bill is for every part of Northern Ireland that has felt left behind. Having said that, it is important to emphasise to Members that there is a case for economic development in the north-west that extends far beyond a desire to correct historical imbalances. Investing in city regions is a proven way of driving economic growth because of the benefits of agglomeration economies. I have studied some of the research papers that have come out of the OECD. We got an excellent paper from the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre and have commissioned many RaISe papers regarding where growth is and how to drive growth. It is about how we unleash and unlock the potential of places that can give back much more than the investment that they require to be put into them. Derry is one of those places. As our second city, it offers a unique opportunity, and we should keep championing it. Mr Delargy and Mr Honeyford mentioned the cross-border dimension of regional balance and the potential to strengthen that aspect of the Bill. I will welcome those discussions being had at Committee as well, because that is another untapped resource. We are doing good work in Derry. We have close working relationships with our counterparts in Donegal, but that could be strengthened. The Republic of Ireland has recognised our region in its economic development planning. We could strengthen on our side to make sure that we maximise that. I welcome those contributions and am very open to looking at that issue further as the Bill progresses through the Committee Stage. Mr Honeyford made an important point about understanding why regional imbalance happened in the first place, and I totally agree with him. The framework should help us understand not simply where disparities exist but the factors that have allowed them to develop and persist. But, please, folks: this is about the future. I want to look to the future. I want to learn from the past, look to the future and build the best places that we can build. How will harking back to the past help our children to get a good job here? It is about being innovative and looking at what we have on this island and across these islands and building on those mechanisms. Members across the board mentioned the performance of Invest NI. I am glad that others mentioned that, because I am sick of doing so. As someone who has invested a lot of time in campaigning to reform Invest NI from way back in, I suppose, about 2005, I am determined to see further changes. The Bill supports that ambition. We have to remember that the duty and the responsibilities of all Departments and their arm's-length bodies will be a factor in that. Our colleges also have a lot to give to that overarching, strategic framework. It is important to say that the Bill does not tell Invest NI where individual companies should locate but recognises that government has an enormous influence over the conditions in which those decisions are made. That is fundamental. I go back and forth to the chief executive of Invest NI, and I have a lot of sympathy for him. There is a lot that is outside his area of responsibility over which he has no control but government does. It may not be within the purview of the Economy Minister, but it could be within the purview of her colleague the Infrastructure Minister or of the Department for Communities or the Department of Health. Over 35% of citizens being economically inactive has an impact on the economy. It has an impact on foreign direct investment. It has an impact on people's ability to grow a business in the city that they want to grow it in. We need a set of conditions for investment in all parts of Northern Ireland. That means that everywhere should have the infrastructure, qualifications and health outcomes to succeed or have access to those jobs nearby. Regional balance is not about guaranteeing where investment will go but about making sure that every part of Northern Ireland has a genuine opportunity to attract it. I also recognise some of the concerns that the Minister and other Members have raised about how the Bill will operate in practice. I thank the Minister: she has been generous with her time. We have talked about the matter on many occasions, and she has been supportive of my Bill. Way back, I wanted the Economy Department to take the legislation forward, but, in the absence of that, I did it, because I strongly believe that the only way forward now is legislation. We need to make it permanent. A Minister or a policy can come and go, but the Bill will remain. It will be a statutory obligation that will have continuity and permanence throughout the mandate and beyond. Members raised points about the measurements. The measurements have been consulted on extensively, but they are not an exhaustive list, Gerry. Certainly, there is a lot of flexibility in the Bill, with the intention that we can grow, improve or change things, should there be a demand for that. Kate Nicholl made an important point about datasets. I am a bit of a nerd-head about the datasets and how we can properly account for our population. I have spoken to Claire Sugden about this because she has introduced a Bill on ageism. We really need to know our data, because it will tell us about the future, our future workforce and why we might be in a situation in which we need to bring in workers to hold up our systems and provide our public services. Data is fundamental to driving our economy, and we do not look at it enough. The framework asks every Department to feed in its data, so that we can see how to tackle regional imbalance together. We are already considering where population growth should be reflected more clearly in the measurements in the Bill. I am open to looking at that further. The Member is also right about the importance of data linkage. Sometimes, it is the small things that we get so wrong here. If we are to properly understand regional disparities and measure whether we are making progress, Departments need to be able to draw on the best available evidence. Mr Delargy and Ms Finnegan raised the possibility that the framework could be blocked at the Executive table. I think that I have gone through that point. It is a legitimate concern. We live with the dysfunctionality of this unreformed place every day, but I cannot think of how we might develop legislation, especially legislation that is as deep and meaningful as I wish the Bill to be, without considering a whole-of-government approach. If there are ways in which we can strengthen the Bill to address that concern, I am very open to examining them in Committee, but the whole-of-government approach has to take place, because the Bill will not work unless it does. I appreciate the feedback that we received from the Minister and the Department today, and I look forward to working constructively with the Minister. I think that we work well together. I look forward to working with the Department and the Committee to address those issues as the Bill develops. Some Members rightly highlighted the potential cost of the legislation. Nothing in government is cost-free. I always say, "If you want to make an omelette, you have to crack a few eggs". Nothing is cost-free, but a lot of the Bill is about analysing and bringing together data. All Departments do that statistical work; it is about bringing it together.
Obviously, the framework's ambition will have cost implications, but for some Departments, the ambition is already there — for example, the Department for Infrastructure's ambition will be to deliver the A5 — and will have an impact on closing those regional disparities. It is not about new money; it is about using resources effectively, which will have better outcomes for our communities and be more constructive in many ways. If you grow your economy, that pays for itself. That is the objective here. It is about making people healthier and wealthier, raising wages, closing the gaps between those who have and those who have not, and driving education and skills. That drives investment to areas and attracts growth to them as well.
In the consultation, the majority of respondents considered that the Bill would have a financial impact, but, as I said, that will be manageable. Only a small minority of respondents considered that it would be prohibitively expensive. Research prepared by RaISe indicated that the cost of the Bill likely depended on the ambition of the framework but noted the potential for economic benefit and that higher economic performance in some regions could increase economic activity and productivity in those places. Ms Middleton rightly mentioned the importance of accountability. I was acutely aware of that while developing the legislation, and the Bill is deliberately structured to be ironclad in that regard. Gerry Carroll asked what the punishment would be; I really struggled with that when developing the Bill. It is hard to give an answer to that. We struggled hard to get an answer. Lots of things happen in this place in relation to policy, and there seem to be no consequences at all. We are making it a statutory obligation for Departments to feed into this, and we in the Assembly, via evaluation and review, can then hold the Departments to account.
Probably, but I am not giving up yet. With accountability in mind, we included three provisions to ensure that the legislation has teeth and cannot be ignored, but, again, the punishment that the Member talked about is probably not there. First, under clause 1(3)(f), the framework must:
"include measurable targets to be achieved by specific dates",
and I included the baseline year so that progress can be tracked. That was the one that the Member mentioned. Secondly, under clause 3, the Departments must not just report on how they have met the duties but evaluate their progress so far. Thirdly, under clause 4(1)(c), the Department must not only report on activity but evaluate progress made. Mr Brett and Ms Finnegan raised the specific challenges facing rural populations. Some rural areas are exactly the regions that have been left behind by regional imbalance. Too often, they lack the infrastructure and connectivity that more urban areas can sometimes take for granted. I want and expect the Bill to deliver for those areas as well — their needs are different, obviously — by ensuring that the economic development reaches those regions, whether urban or rural, small towns or larger urban centres. The Rural Needs Act 2016 placed a duty on public authorities:
"to have due regard to rural needs",
but it did not contain a baseline, measurable outcomes or targets. That was the missing link, and they understand that now. Departments reported on the exercise of their functions; by contrast, this Bill has learned from those shortcomings, and we have included provision for a baseline so that we can track success or failure alongside measurable targets and outcomes. That is important if we are serious about ensuring that the legislation delivers for rural communities as well as towns and cities. I look forward to engagement and consultation with rural organisations and representatives from rural areas during the development of the Bill. I welcome Ms Armstrong's support for the Bill and particularly her point that our postcode should not determine our access to opportunity. That really goes to the heart of what I am trying to do. Before I finish, I want to recognise the contributions from my colleagues Matthew O'Toole, Mark Durkan, Cara Hunter and Colin McGrath. They have not only spoken in support of the Bill but have been strong champions of it throughout its development. I am really grateful for the support. As I said in my opening remarks, no Member takes a Member's Bill through here on their own; we get lots of support along the way, be it from our colleagues here in the Assembly or our parties. In conclusion, I hope that today offers another step forward for legislation that could rebalance our economy, provide a new way in which to make decisions and give everybody a fair opportunity. There are legitimate questions about some of the detail of the Bill. I have listened very carefully today to those points, and I am open to working through them and improving the legislation as it progresses. I hope that the legislation before you today will be even better when at its latter stages. Fingers crossed. There are issues for scrutiny and engagement as we move to Committee Stage, but they are not a reason for us not to progress the principle of the Bill today. People do not want the Government to hand them success, but they want a chance to earn it for themselves. We have a key role to play in this place to make that happen by ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland feel that they have a fair stake in our economy. That starts with paying attention to places that have been left behind and tilting the balance in their favour so that everyone can succeed. I look forward to working with the Minister, the Committee and Members across the House. I hope that the House will support this stage of the Regional Balance Bill.

3,178 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification