Debate contribution: East-West Council: Second Meeting
Debate contribution by Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly on .
- MLA
- Mrs Emma Little-Pengelly
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- East-West Council: Second Meeting
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5042876
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The First Minister and I attended the second meeting of the East-West Council, which took place in Belfast on 12 June. The meeting was co-chaired by the Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, and the Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Fleur Anderson MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was also present. The Council formally agreed its terms of reference, including its purpose, objectives and missions. The Council's stated purpose is to strengthen cooperation between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK by advising on shared challenges and opportunities that have an east-west dimension. Its objectives will be to provide regular and sustained engagement between the UK Government and representatives from Northern Ireland across a wide range of economic and social activity; take forward the Council's agreed missions; raise the profile of the opportunities offered by Northern Ireland by supporting connectivity and connections; drive UK-wide engagement on the development and sharing of existing clusters of excellence; and ensure that the profile of Northern Ireland is appropriately considered in business and government decision-making. The Council's missions are set out in the 'Safeguarding the Union' paper: economic inactivity; east-west investment and trade flows; improving international investment in Northern Ireland; bolstering east-west institutional connectivity and promoting professional and high-skill pathways; and identifying opportunities for deepening connections between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Noting the positive context of the UK Government's commitment to reset relationships with the devolved Governments, we welcomed the opportunities that the Council will provide for Northern Ireland interests to engage formally and directly with their counterparts in GB to share knowledge and to build and, indeed, rebuild relationships following a volatile period. The Council received a briefing from members of Intertrade UK on its draft programme of work and priority projects for the first 12 to 18 months of activity. Those will be taken forward under three key themes: promoting trade in goods and services across the UK and overcoming identified barriers; trade opportunities; and infrastructure and connectivity. We welcomed the important role that Intertrade UK could play by researching and building an evidence base on barriers to trade and inefficient processes and promoting better information for businesses in GB on how the trading arrangements with NI actually work, as reluctance to supply to Northern Ireland can often arise simply from a lack of understanding. We also emphasised the need for Northern Ireland considerations to be embedded formally and as early as possible in the development of trade policy and that we should be active participants in UK trade missions and promotional activities. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State advised the Council of the launch of the Connect Fund, which is a £1 million fund administered by the Northern Ireland Office and will provide grants to community organisations here for activities that will strengthen east-west connections through the development of civic relationships, support for cultural and sporting links and the enabling of dialogue on areas of mutual interest with their counterparts in other UK jurisdictions. We welcomed the establishment of the fund and urged for it to be operated in a way that is complementary to the support provided to the voluntary and community sector. We acknowledged the potential benefits that can arise even from small amounts of financial support, as the voluntary and community sector here has much expertise to share. We hope that the fund will enable organisations to make valuable and long-lasting contacts with others across the UK on issues of mutual interest and concern. That concludes the statement.
609 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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| 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 | 0.51 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.41 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.07 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:58 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.