Debate contribution: 10X Economy
Debate contribution by Mr Conor Murphy on .
- MLA
- Mr Conor Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 26 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- 10X Economy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4230759
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not that parochial, I have to say. I agree with the Member. We are looking at a separate tourism strategy, which has been out for consultation and which will no doubt come back to us for a further look. I have received many views on that, and I think that it can be improved. The ETA is already causing very serious concerns. I have no doubt that, for some of the projects that we are talking about, including the big competitions and other events that we bring here, it is a factor in the minds of the organisers, because they depend on international tourism. About 70% of international visitors to the North come through the South. Over a quarter of a million day visits every year are made by people who come up from the South, where they have been holidaying. That is a growing trade, and it is enormously important to not only our tourism but our broader economy. We intend to consult the Northern Ireland Tourism Alliance, because it has particularly strong views on the damage that the ETA can do. Our intention is to build up the evidence on the concerns on the ETA and to bring that to the Home Office in London in order to make a particular case for a relaxation of it for tourism. From what we have been speaking about in both the previous question and this one, tourism potential could be seriously undermined if we have a significant restriction on travel across the border.
255 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.19 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.10 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:41 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.