Debate contribution: Job Creation and Cross-border Cooperation in the North-west
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Job Creation and Cross-border Cooperation in the North-west
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4833042
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to say lots of things, but my head is reeling from some of the comments that have been made. The Chair of the Economy Committee is excellent, and I very much enjoy being on the Committee with him, but it is totally bizarre to accuse Sinéad McLaughlin of not being proud of her city: it is all that she talks about. We welcome the motion on job creation and cross-border cooperation in the north-west. We know the importance of utilising skills, resources and talent on a cross-border basis. We support all those ambitions and objectives. We need improvements to cross-border labour mobility and collaboration on skills development. It makes sense, and we are already seeing significant collaboration on a cross-border basis, which is important to note. Sometimes the pace of delivery from this place is slow. I am often inspired by the cross-border collaboration and partnership that we see between regions, councils and business. That is to be embraced. Excellent work is being done already in the north-west, and it is important that we continue to develop that. We face a range of common challenges across the island, and we can augment our power if we work together. One criticism that I have of the motion is that the north-west already has the north-west strategic growth partnership and the north-west regional development group, which are designed to do what the Opposition have called for in their motion, so it would be good to understand a bit more about what they expect any new economic task force to deliver and whether that is potentially duplication. I was going to talk a bit more about clustering, economic niche and the importance of cross-border collaboration, not just in the north-west but right across the border. In the Economy Committee, when we had representatives from the north-west, we saw the advanced work that they were doing and how that has sparked conversations between councils in Fermanagh, Cavan and Monaghan. It is not just important for the region that we are looking at; it is about how it raises ambition across the island. I really want to talk about dual market access and why we will not support the DUP amendment. Dual market access is not just a status. It is an advantage for Northern Ireland businesses, a launch pad for new or expanding businesses and an opportunity to take advantage of. People ask why there are not examples. My colleague will be able to reference some examples in his constituency where dual market access has been of benefit. The issue is that, when the Assembly is up, half of our Ministers will not sell it or talk about it; the other half of the time, the Assembly is down, so we are not able to promote it.
Go ahead.
I have.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The amendment refers to dual market access, as does the motion, so it is important that we have that discussion. Dual market access is not mentioned in the Programme for Government — I wonder why. I wonder whether it may be because DUP Ministers have an issue with it. We have to be pragmatic here and not fall into the trap of taking some sort of ideological position, "We cannot talk about it because it is siding a bit too much with the EU". This is an amazing opportunity for us. It is not just about seamless trading between GB and the 27 EU member states. It gives our businesses a competitive edge and an opportunity to optimise supply chains, and embracing dual market access does not just strengthen and boost our business in the north-west and beyond. If we really harness it, we could really strengthen Northern Ireland's reputation as a dynamic hub for trade and innovation. Job creation and economic stability are good things, and we should embrace any opportunity that we can in that regard. Dual market access is one such opportunity. It seems as though we are cutting off our nose to spite our face when dual market access is something that we could be really proud of and really utilise. I do not understand why we cannot do that. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It is really important that we look inward but also focus on how we can sell outwards to grow our economy. It is not just about getting investment in; we need to be outward-looking and think about what Northern Ireland and the north-west have to sell to the world.
754 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: 0.10 (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 (0.85).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.76).
- 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 | 0.08 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.76 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.05 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.18 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.56 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.40 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:03 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.