Member's statement: City and Growth Deals
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- City and Growth Deals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4531740
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Like many in the Chamber on Friday, I was incandescent with anger at the Government's decision to pause city and growth deals in Northern Ireland, which were secured by the DUP in the confidence-and-supply agreement. The Government have acted in bad faith and have poured cold water on projects that provide a fire in the belly of our local economy. My council area falls under the Mid South West growth deal, which represents the largest investment outside Belfast, of £252 million across Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and Mid Ulster District Council. It is wrong to say that the growth deal was not at an advanced stage. I understand that those councils were due to sign the heads of terms on 16 October. What now for my area? The A4 Enniskillen southern bypass, talked about for 47 years, could be in jeopardy. That much-needed infrastructure project had just been announced to go to the second stage of the procurement process on 5 September. Other government infrastructure documents had the A4 bypass referenced in their plans. In an area that has been ruled out of other infrastructure plans, that is a real blow. Not only was that to be delivered, but tourism projects, such as £10·5 million for Cuilcagh Lakelands Geopark; a local company that was to lead on a green hydrogen distribution network, a game-changer for energy representing £24·7 million; a construction innovation excellence centre of £7 million; support to the agri-food industry with investment in the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE); and a £36 million project on industrial lands that would have been a real support to the manufacturing hub of mid-Ulster due to a chronic shortage of land for expansion — all left with a question mark hanging over them. The Mid South West growth deal was not just some fine words on a page; it was to be a regional economic catalyst. Through the Government's shambolic handling of the news at the weekend, we now have ever-widening gaps in equality and regional balance. Each part of Northern Ireland was promised investment, and each part of Northern Ireland deserves it. I will be making that point to the Secretary of State, and I will not be idle in fighting to ensure that the Mid South West growth deal goes ahead.
392 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 (0.92).
- 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 | 0.05 | 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 | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.90 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:01 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.