Member's statement: Manufacturing: Dual Market Access
Member's statement by Mr David Honeyford on .
- MLA
- Mr David Honeyford
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 February 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Manufacturing: Dual Market Access
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4793286
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We hear a lot about dual market access and the advantages that this region has over other parts of the UK and Ireland. New figures released today show that our economic growth is at least resilient, whereas the rest of the UK is contracting. Worryingly, however, business activity is declining. Unfortunately, we do not see a lot of movement from the Department for the Economy to seize the opportunities that dual market access brings. We have all the talent in the world, an entrepreneurial base, a highly skilled workforce and market access, yet the focus seems to be on ourselves rather than on turning outwards to seize the opportunities and use the potential that we have. When, unfortunately, we left the EU, we lost three fundamental freedoms. The only advantage left for us is in products: we have the ability to export without barriers to either market. The Department does not, however, seem to have a focused vision on bringing forward a manufacturing strategy to grow that part of the economy, giving us more products to export. I have said many times in the Chamber that it is our job to create the platform on which others can flourish, creating the conditions for our economy to grow. The Minister's economic vision listed multiple key industries, but should we not prioritise one, two or three of those in which we have an advantage and drive for growth in them? I call for a definite focus on innovation and advanced manufacturing. I ask the Minister for the Economy to move on that issue by bringing forward an outward-focused vision for the economy that targets innovation and grows our manufacturing base. We need that in order to increase exports and develop advanced manufacturing across all sectors, to take advantage of dual market access, to grow our economy, to seize opportunities and to provide highly skilled jobs and increased wages in Northern Ireland, thereby bringing growth back to our economy.
326 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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.92 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.77 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.23 |
| 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 11:56 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.