Debate contribution: Flooding in South Down: Economic Recovery
Debate contribution by Mr John Stewart on .
- MLA
- Mr John Stewart
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 27 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Flooding in South Down: Economic Recovery
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4238171
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As you will be aware, I do not represent South Down, but I want to thank the Member for securing today's debate and all the Members for their passionate contributions on behalf of their constituents. I chair the all-party group on micro and small business. We had the privilege of being hosted at Down Business Centre in December, and I heard first-hand from the businesses there, the regeneration group and all those in the local enterprise agency about the amount of work that had been done by the community, councils, volunteers and elected representatives from across the parties who came together to react to the horrendous scenes that they had witnessed in the days and weeks leading up to that meeting. It was truly impactful. We stand here today addressing the Adjournment debate on South Down, but it could easily have been about constituents in East Antrim, the north-west or Belfast, who have all been affected before. Many business owners said, "There but for the grace of God go I", on this occasion. Mr McGrath talked about the reaction of businesses and how they would have felt totally abandoned in the absence of the individuals who turned out to support them. That is one thing that, hopefully, will come out of today. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here and the announcement of the funding, but there needs to be an automatic response that kicks in when such occasions happen. Yes, we can talk about cross-departmental resources and councils having their roles and responsibilities, but, when a crisis of this nature hits, whether it is in my constituency of East Antrim or the constituencies of South Down or East Belfast or in the north-west — wherever it may be — there needs to be an assurance for businesses, the next morning, when they go in and wipe away the tears from the impact that it has had on their livelihoods. These are businesses that have no reserves and cannot wait a week, never mind a month or three months, to get the money.
They do not have the reserves. They are not multinationals. They are the backbone of our economy in Northern Ireland. They had two or three days leading up to Christmas, and they do not have the money to absorb that time. Insurance has not paid out, because they cannot get insurance as they are in a flood area. They are totally abandoned.
Businesses need to know that, the next time that this happens, wherever they are in the country, somebody will be there for them. They need to know that the Executive will have their back; the council will have a statutory responsibility to kick in; rates will be automatically alleviated for the period that they are affected; and money will be in their account in the days following the incident. It cannot be the case that they have to hold their breath and pray, because it will happen again. Undoubtedly, it will happen again, and we know that, Minister. We have seen it time and time again over many years. Sadly, on this occasion, it was the business owners of South Down, but it will inevitably be business owners elsewhere. We also need to look at the criteria. When I spoke to affected businesses, they felt that, while the Civil Service and NIO identified a pot of money, some were not eligible for it, even though they had no insurance in place and could not tap into that type of funding. Quite frankly, they went under, because they did not have the resources and the financial backbone to get by. Like so many businesses in our economy, they are one-person or two-people bands. That is the type of business that they run. They run to stand still, and they often run on a deficit, but they are the backbone of our economy. They want to know that we have their back. I will touch on the block to insurance. Minister, can we look at tapping into the scheme that the UK Government are running? That is called Flood Re and is an initiative between the UK Government and insurers for flood cover in areas that are particularly affected. We need to look at that, because insurance companies make, effectively, billions of pounds of profit every year but will never insure an area where they think that there is the slightest risk. To me, that sounds quite stark. If you are hit and have insurance, it take months to get the payment, even after you have gone through the rigmarole of trying to get paid. We need to find a way to streamline that process so that affected businesses have easier access to insurance and to affordable insurance. That is my twopence worth. I again thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate, everyone for contributing and the Minister for coming today.
817 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.95 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:42 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.