Debate contribution: Intertrade UK
Debate contribution by Mr Conor Murphy on .
- MLA
- Mr Conor Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 29 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Intertrade UK
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4486199
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member has made his own commentary on 10X. We have a three-year mandate. If we were to go back to starting all these strategies from scratch and going out to consult on them, the mandate would be over by the time that that was complete. Therefore, we decided, with the agreement of the Department and of Invest NI, to put in place a strategic focus. One of the criticisms of Invest NI in the report was that there had not been sufficient strategic focus. On the all-Ireland economy, as the Member will know, at the North/South sectoral meeting last Friday, we agreed the increased headcount for InterTradeIreland to do more work in the area of North/South collaboration, the growing of clusters, exports and developing the North/South economy.
The economy, North to South, grew from just over £2 billion in 2015 to just over £10 billion by 2022. Organically, it has clearly been growing, even through the debates and the uncertainty around Brexit. We now have an opportunity to make a step change. As yet, we have not set a specific target, but I will certainly develop those discussions. Now that we have put InterTradeIreland on the footing that will allow it to do much more in that area, we will examine what can be done. We have already had useful and fruitful discussions with all the Departments in Dublin that we deal with on growing the economy.
238 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: 0.03 (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 (0.74).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.63 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.37 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:07 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.