Debate contribution: Defence Industries
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Defence Industries
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4491231
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As the motion and the amendment make clear, this is an economic debate, and many Members have made that point. Moreover, as Mr Beattie and Ms Eastwood made clear, there is an ethical aspect to it. The ethics are separate from this debate, however. In opening the debate, Mr Buckley, if I heard him correctly, said that the defence sector is worth about £1 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. Mr Beattie is ambitious and thinks that we could get that up to £3 billion. Is that possible? The Ministry of Defence projects that spending on defence in this financial year, 2024-25, could hit £57·1 billion. How much of that could we reasonably expect to attract to Northern Ireland? In a simplistic way, a sort of Barnett consequential could be applied. According to the Assembly, we have 3·4% of England's population, so that would give us £1·94 billion — very nearly £2 billion — of the Ministry of Defence's spending. I do not think that the Barnett formula is the way in which to look at it, however. Is there a more appropriate argument? It may be more fitting to consider our expertise. As has been recorded, we have capacity and capability in shipbuilding, and we have Spirit AeroSystems. As the Minister says, we have about 100 companies involved in the sector. As the nature of warfare changes, and cyberattacks increasingly become an aggressor's weapon of choice, Belfast, based, to a large degree, on the Centre for Secure Information Technologies (CSIT) at Queen's University in Belfast, is a globally recognised cybersecurity centre of excellence.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I will leave his comments on the record. I acknowledge that this can be a difficult issue depending on one's political perspective, but, as I said, I understand that the motion and the amendment are focused on improving our economic conditions. There is one other issue, which Mr Beattie raised, and it is the fact that we have many geopolitical issues today. They are many and varied, but they have a common ability, in that they are dangerous and pose a threat to the United Kingdom, to Northern Ireland and to world peace. As the Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps, said not so long ago, we have moved from a post-war environment to a pre-war environment. Mr Beattie talked about escalating the capacity and capability of the RAF station at Aldergrove and about the importance of the Royal Navy's being based in the north-west. I know that that will not please every Member of the House, but, on hearing that, I am reminded of the late Gerry Anderson on Radio Ulster, with his whimsical reminiscences about sailors based in what he called "stroke city" during the Second World War. Geopolitics is important. Just over 30 years ago, the British Government said that they had:
"no selfish strategic ... interest in Northern Ireland."
Of course, that is different from having a strategic interest in the defence of Northern Ireland. We also have to figure in the fact that the Republic of Ireland is neutral on such matters. Thinking about that, I was reminded of something that I heard in Washington when the then Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, in referring to Ukraine, said:
"we know that an attack on the freedom of one is an attack on the freedom of all."
What is different between that and article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more ... shall be considered an attack against them all"?
Is the Republic considering joining NATO? I will leave that as an open question. I support the amendment.
616 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: 0.12 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.92).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.14 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.12 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.92 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.08 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.72 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.21 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:21 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.