Debate contribution: Regional Imbalance
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 6 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Regional Imbalance
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5157230
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will put forward a perspective from the south-west. I thank Sinéad for proposing the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party shares the concerns around regional imbalance that are raised in the motion. However, we believe that regional balance should be tailored to benefit all of Northern Ireland. While investment in the north-west is welcome and necessary, it must not come at the expense of other regions such as the south-west. The story in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been one of cuts and job losses in recent years. Last year, BT axed 300 jobs, and this year, jobs were lost at Severfield, which is a leading employer in Ballinamallard. Those are only a few cases from the south-west that have exacerbated the feeling of neglect and avoidance.
Certainly.
I thank the Member for his intervention. When we look at the A5, we also need to consider our spending priorities. The A5 is an Executive flagship programme, but other Members have mentioned an all-Ireland rail strategy. Where is the magic money tree for everything that we need? I am, of course, looking for jobs for the south-west. At the moment, businesses in the south-west have to deal with lacklustre infrastructure, yet they still manage to export globally. I want to see that being improved. The north-west has already been earmarked a £290 million investment package through the Derry City and Strabane region city deal. On the other hand, the Mid South West growth deal's investment of £252 million is spread across three council areas — Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Mid Ulster District Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council — meaning that funds need to be stretched further in order to support real economic development. Invest NI has reported that, in 2024-25, it supported 236 investments in the north-west, with £22 million in financial support and £165 million in total investment. That level of investment has simply not been replicated in the south-west. The local press recently highlighted the lack of funding for sports and community organisations in the area. Over the past three years, Sport NI has allocated a total of 3·25% of its funding to the Fermanagh and Omagh area. The lowest allocation was this year, with 1·3% for 2024-25. For regional balance to work, people in all corners of Northern Ireland need to feel that the economy is delivering for them. I echo the call for the Minister for the Economy to publish an assessment of the progress that has been made under the subregional economic plan, in order to give a true picture of economic progress. The local economic partnerships are vital for assessing barriers to and opportunities for economic growth, but we desperately need to see some form of outcome from those partnerships and a clear plan from the Department as to how it intends to support them. The recent resignation of Mr Kennedy from the Invest NI board has, rightly, raised questions about how regional economic interests are being represented here. A recent response to a question for written answer that I posed to the Minister for the Economy assured me that the appointment to the vacant post would be made on merit. I welcome that, but the Invest NI board needs greater regional representation in order to have a voice from areas such as the south-west. Representation from all regions would demonstrate regional balance in economic policy that is fair to and inclusive of all regions in Northern Ireland. In short, we support regional balance, but it must work for the entirety of Northern Ireland. Let us ensure that every community has a fair shot at growth, investment, opportunity and prosperity.
613 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: 0.05 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.92 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.03 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:26 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.