Debate contribution: Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Fishing Industry: Capital Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4237531
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Probably unlike a lot of Members in the House — maybe I am in the wrong place to say that — I live 3 miles from Portavogie harbour. When I was growing up, my summers were spent in Isobel Piper's prawn factory, peeling prawns. The fishing industry is local to my heart and local to the Ards peninsula. To be honest, apart from tourism, fishing is the key industry on the peninsula. We have lost a lot of construction workers, who have disappeared off around the world, but our fishing industry remains, and the boats come back in every day. If it were not for our fishing industry, we would not have the New Quays, Bestie's cafe or many of the other businesses in Portavogie. As the previous Member to speak said, 1,500 jobs come out of the fishing industry. Many of them are in my constituency of Strangford. I take the opportunity to thank the Minister for prioritising the fishing industry in his first few weeks as Minister. I greatly appreciate the fact that he met members of the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority (NIFHA) and local fishermen during his recent visit to Portavogie harbour, as well as his meeting the Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation (NIFF). During his visit to Portavogie, the Minister congratulated NIFHA on securing an offer from the UK Seafood Fund of 75% of the £3·6 million cost of an upgrade to the current slipway facilities at Portavogie, confirming that DAERA has already provided financial assistance towards the development costs associated with the UK Seafood Fund application by providing the 25% match funding that is required to complete the investment by 31 March 2025. That investment provides a huge opportunity for Portavogie and will potentially enable the delivery of work that will complement fishing, such as realigning and securing the existing crane rails along the length of the existing slipway, which would ensure the smooth running of a boat cradle that can slip large vessels of up to 400 tons in weight. What complementary options do we have? At a meeting in Portavogie with a prospective offshore wind farm group, its representatives explained that there was potential for the local fishing fleet to transport wind turbine blades and other equipment to their proposed site. Having that additional weight of crane to lift equipment makes such a difference to the harbour's potential. I listened to the proposer of the motion, my fellow Strangford MLA Michelle McIlveen, discuss the need for capital investment in order to bring in larger vehicles. Like the Minister, many in the fishing industry and all Members, I want to see improvements to the fishing fleet also meet environmental targets.
I note with more than a passing interest the progressive actions being taken in Iceland, where the Minister of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries is incentivising investment in new and modified boats that run on electricity. Tests on an all-electric longline handling system are providing very interesting and positive findings. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to outline some of the solutions that he aims to bring forward in order to assist our fishing industry and my constituents, working out of Portavogie, to move forward with their environmental targets.
Sadly, the Minister's job will be made ever more difficult due to the outworkings of Brexit, limited access to funds and Northern Ireland's Budget situation. I will not speak for much longer. Following the motion, what positive words can the Minister provide to the House and to our local fishing industry on how he will be able to help the industry in the time ahead?
601 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 (0.90).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.26 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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.