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 5042898
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The fund was announced by the NIO on the Thursday of the East-West Council meeting. It is live at the moment, so the details are online. You can go through the application process online. At this stage, it appears to have been developed with maximum flexibility. It could be for individuals who, for example, want to attend conferences on the mainland. Alternatively, it could be for people to come from GB to NI. It could also be for community organisations or civic organisations to reach out and join up or to perhaps do some study visits or similar engagement. Great benefit could come from academic and other link-ups in sharing knowledge, experience and expertise. We have a lot to give. A lot of our programmes would work really well in the other areas of deprivation and challenge that we see right across not just England but Scotland and Wales. There is no doubt that we could also learn from some of the innovative work that is happening there. It is always important in all these things that there be a challenge function and that new ideas and fresh thinking come in. There is a really good opportunity for some new thinking and for new people and groups to work collaboratively with ours to try to really tackle the issues. There is no doubt that we really need to do that. It has to be about action and intervention, not just the right words and warm words in the right place. That fund could, undoubtedly, support that important work.
I thank the Member for his important question. As he will be aware, there is a range of different views across our office. Personally speaking, I absolutely agree with him. I raised, as did he and many others, concerns about the so-called best of both worlds. It felt much more like the worst of both worlds, and I think that that, unfortunately, has played out for businesses in that they have faced absolutely disproportionate and unnecessary checks, bureaucracy and barriers to internal trade. The reason why the European Union so stoically and passionately defends its internal single market is because it is precious. The UK ought to have done the same with its internal market and should not have so carelessly tossed it away in the negotiations. The UK Government promised to restore the integrity of the UK internal market. That has not yet happened. They need to take that opportunity. As the UK develops alignment or arrangements with the European Union, such as what is proposed in the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal, that will remove some of the so-called uniqueness from the arguments about having the best of both worlds with dual market access.
We have seen no significant benefit from it thus far. Companies are interested in it, but there has not been a benefit thus far. Nevertheless, the UK Government must step up and remove the internal barriers to internal UK trade.
501 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: 0.06 (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 (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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.73 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.27 |
| 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 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.