Member's statement: Member's Bill: Regional Economic Balance

Member's statement by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on .

MLA
Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time
Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date
14 January 2025
Type
Member's statement
Business
Members' Statements
Heading
Member's Bill: Regional Economic Balance
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4736184

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Last month, I launched the online consultation for my private Member's Bill on regional economic balance. I am grateful to all those who have responded to date and to those who will do so during the period of consultation. It is a cause that is close to my heart, as many people will know, and, to me, the law is long overdue. Recently, I looked back at the 2011-15 draft Programme for Government. It talks about:

"addressing regional imbalance as we move ahead"

and contains specific interventions for places in my council area such as Fort George and Ebrington, but words are cheap. It lacks any mention of transformational legislation. We know that regional inequalities are still a running sore, more than 10 years later; in fact, poverty indices show that the gaps are getting wider. For many, that sounds all too familiar. The places that the Bill intends to help deserve better than the same thing simply being done over and over again. Everyone knows that I am never shy about standing up for my home city. It is our second city, and, in order for the whole of Northern Ireland to grow, it makes sense that we invest in a place with such huge potential. If we turn a blind eye to the wider north-west, the whole of Northern Ireland suffers, but the Bill is for every area of Northern Ireland that has been left behind. We are all too aware that it is simply a myth to say that everywhere east of the Bann prospers while everywhere west of the Bann suffers. Our economy is much more complex than that. Yes, our city — the second city — demands urgent intervention, but it is also important to say that there are areas of Belfast that face deeply rooted disadvantage. I am looking at my colleague across the Chamber from North Belfast. There are areas of Tyrone and Fermanagh that feel cut off from being able to get ahead, and there are areas of Newry, Mourne and Down where poverty is still too high. The Bill is for every area that is left behind so that our economy can work for everyone. As the consultation progresses, we will publish our proposals on the specific case, as we see it, for legislation. I look forward to engaging with Members from across the House as we do so. We seek to build an economy that works for all of our constituents. I ask Members to have a look at the consultation and to, please, respond. The consultation closes on 16 February.

431 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.87).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.87Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.94
Another identity-related subject0.04
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:47 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.

Challenge this classification