Debate contribution: Council of the Nations and Regions
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 21 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Council of the Nations and Regions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4603746
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes, while we were in Edinburgh, the deputy First Minister and I had the opportunity to meet Keir Starmer privately in advance of the meeting with the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales. We raised the issue of funding for city deals. We absolutely underlined and stressed the importance of urgently securing the funding for those city deals that remain paused, the Mid South West and the Causeway Coast and Glens deals. The British Government's refusal to honour their commitment to the Mid South West and Causeway Coast and Glens city deals is inexcusable. We really wanted to underline their importance. If Keir Starmer is on his feet speaking about economic growth, that needs to be felt across the board. We cannot have a disparity in these deals. They are economic generators and, crucially, will drive investment and increase numbers of jobs. The need for the pause to be lifted and for them to get on with putting the funding back in place was certainly one of the areas that we raised. We are hopeful of having some indication in that regard at the end of the month with the Chancellor's statement. Hopefully, that will shed some more light on the pathway for those deals to be resumed.
208 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.91 | 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 | 0.93 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| 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 11:25 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.