Debate contribution: Belfast's Night-time Economy

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on .

MLA
Ms Joanne Bunting
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
4 February 2025
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Adjournment
Heading
Belfast's Night-time Economy
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4779687

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am grateful to my party colleague for securing the Adjournment debate on this important issue, given that Belfast is our capital city. I am glad that the Minister for the Economy is here. I will draw on some wider matters of import relating to our night-time economy. Belfast must be able to compete as a tourist destination with cities across the British Isles, Europe and the globe. We certainly do not have the weather as an advantage, so we need to put our best foot forward in other areas and play to our strengths. Our warm, welcoming natures and a strong sense of hospitality, combined with our vibrant social scene, fabulous hotels and quality eateries and produce are up there in making Belfast an attractive place for people to work and live in and to visit. We must have an eye to tourism but remain focused on our permanent customers, who are our constituents and citizens who love a good night out. As a proud east Belfast girl, I say this: what's not to love? For the enjoyment and employment of our citizenry and for our economy, it is imperative that our capital city has a thriving night-time offering, affording diversity of choice to all consumers. That is all well and good in theory, but it is not easily done. It hinges on other key factors in which we could be better. Transport is certainly one; affordability and offerings are others; but security and safety is absolutely key. There is no doubt that Belfast is a great place. I commend those entrepreneurs who have started their own businesses, invested their own money and have to make it work to earn a living. The private sector is a really difficult place to be. Employers in Belfast have been hit with, essentially, the perfect storm. Their overheads for rent, rates and utilities, particularly electricity, have soared. Let us look at the cost of produce and the increase in the minimum wage and National Insurance contributions. Those cost increases are in circumstances when people are already struggling to rebuild post COVID, and they are having a dire effect. Businesses, retailers, pubs and restaurants are struggling across the UK. Record numbers of restaurants are closing their doors. Obviously, a great deal of that falls at the feet of the Government. However, there are some things that are most certainly in our gift. Safety and security is a huge issue. I have hosted meetings between the police and the business community about that. I am under no illusions that we have to adopt a common-sense approach to personal safety, particularly in this time. However, recognising that there are some nefarious, desperate and simply bad people out there at times, having the lowest policing numbers ever places our people at risk. Thankfully, we are the safest place to live in the UK, but those of us who represent Belfast are acutely conscious of the fundamental need for the town to be a safe place to walk, to travel and to be out, especially for women — although I do recognise that men face their own barriers and risks. Moreover, there is a significant and extant drugs epidemic. We are aware that drugs are being dealt openly, and it is increasingly common to find people in stupors on our streets at all times of the day. In the summer, I met members of the Belfast business community who are tortured by aggressive and repeat shoplifters, who are shameless about it, to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds per year per store. You might think that that does not relate to the night-time economy, but it certainly does, in that there are numerous convenience stores in the city. However, it has a wider impact on the general feel of the place, and, often, the feeling of safety and security can lead to an overall improvement in footfall. Delays in planning is another issue that is turning investors off and may likely be losing Belfast its edge in the next big thing: expansion. I also point out that the Belfast chamber has often felt that its issues have fallen between the stools, as parts of the city are divided and the city centre is divided across all four Belfast constituencies. That often results in the failure to consider the city as a whole, and we must address that. Between the Assembly and the City Hall, there is plenty that we can look at and seek to improve. This is an opportune time to commend those who have put the pedal to the metal to make our city what it is. It is also the right time to advocate for the agreed 7,500 police officers whom we are supposed to have to ensure the safety of those who wish to enjoy all that our city has to offer and those who provide it. Without doubt, Belfast has much of which to be proud. In recognising some of our flaws, I say that I fundamentally believe in Belfast and its possibilities. We just need to make sure that it is safe, clean, accessible, affordable and unbeatable.

858 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: 0.04 (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 (0.88).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
  • 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 antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.03No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.88Yes
Overall judgement0.04At 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
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.51
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.28
No identity-related subject0.18
Another identity-related subject0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:53 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