Member's statement: Defence Spending: First Minister's Comments

Member's statement by Mr David Brooks on 4 March 2025.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

4 March 2025

Type

Member's statement

Business

Members' Statements

Heading

Defence Spending: First Minister's Comments

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4832757

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will address the comments made by the First Minister in the Chamber yesterday about the investment set out in the Prime Minister's statement that will see £1·6 billion spent on defence for Ukraine, with 5,000 missiles to be manufactured in my constituency, which will result in the recruitment of 200 additional staff and the securing of many other jobs.

In response to that, the First Minister said that she was incredulous that the Government would spend that money, and spend it in Northern Ireland, because she thought that it would be better spent on other things. There is a lack of understanding from the First Minister. We have had many years of peace in this country and across Europe because of the defence that this country has provided, along with the United States and other NATO allies, in the wake of the Cold War. At the time of Brexit, there was a lot of talk about how the EU, in and of itself, having been formed after the world wars, had provided that peace across Europe. What we know is that peace was maintained largely by Europe in cooperation with the United States through NATO, which kept the Russian aggressor at bay. The deal is about providing defence to a country that lies outside NATO, did not have those defences and has had to face a Russian aggressor in an illegal war. The Ukrainian people have had to fight that war with support largely from this country, Europe, the United States and other NATO allies — real freedom fighters, real soldiers, who stood face to face with the enemy. Last week, in the Chamber, we had talk of one of the heroes of those on the Benches opposite — a man who left a bomb outside a bar on the Shankill Road — yet they criticise the UK Government for wanting to provide munitions to those who are fighting a real aggressor in eastern Europe. The people of East Belfast are proud of the role that companies in our constituency have played and will continue to play. We are proud of the next-generation light anti-tank weapons (NLAW), which became so symbolic of Ukrainian defence in the early stages of the war. I will say one thing for Sinn Féin: it is consistent. Its paper 'Defending Irish Neutrality' is really a critique of successive Irish Governments who wished to invest more in their defence. I encourage the Republic of Ireland to look again at that, because it has freeloaded on the backs of NATO and others for some time. This is what makes me incredulous: Sinn Féin, despite carrying out terrorist campaigns that bombed the heart out of our economy for 30 years, asking the Irish state to continue not to invest in its own defence and to freeload on the backs of others. That reinforces the fact that the only place that Sinn Féin supports US foreign policy has been in Northern Ireland. The paper speaks against it, yet, despite not going to the White House —

— in Washington, Sinn Féin will go out, fundraise and tell Americans that they are on their side.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:02 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification