Debate contribution: Regional Imbalance

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 6 October 2025.

MLA

Mr Phillip Brett

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

6 October 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Regional Imbalance

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5157260

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I start by saying that, although I am a representative of Belfast, I am the party's economic spokesperson, so I am committed to ensuring that we have a Northern Ireland that works for everyone, in every corner. I welcome Ms Nicholl back to her place. She will bring a much-needed calm and zen back to our Committee deliberations. She is very welcome back. I thank the Member for Foyle for the debate. Although the tone or content of the discussion has drifted away from the motion, a number of issues in it are worthy of discussion, not least the subregional economic plan that was announced by the Minister's predecessor more than a year ago. I am on record as having criticised that plan when it was launched, because I believed that it had failings. Those have been played out to date. The exclusion of Ards and North Down from the renewed focus by Invest Northern Ireland under the Minister's instruction is, in my view, completely unacceptable. In the rankings of labour productivity and median wages, that council area ranks worst and second worst in comparison with other parts of Northern Ireland. The Minister at the time could not justify the creation of a false Belfast metropolitan area plan area to exclude funding or support from that council, and, to date, neither has the new Minister been able to do that. I also said that, in many ways, plan would not be worth the paper that it was written on if the proposals were not advanced. Unfortunately, that is now the case. Within the document, page 9 is dedicated to the Invest Northern Ireland regional property fund. That new approach was taken forward by the Minister to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland would invest in new properties and business parks. To date, the Minister has allocated zero pounds to that programme. If it were a Minister from these Benches who allocated zero pounds to that fund, we would be accused of sectarianism and anti-Foyle sentiment. The previous Minister's approach to the subregional economic plan was the economic partnerships: some £45 million has been allocated to that to date. How much of that vital £45 million of resources has been spent? Absolutely zero. Again, if this party had behaved in that way, we would have been, rightly, criticised. I will pick up on some of the points made by other Members who spoke, who blamed the lack of investment in parts of Northern Ireland on the big bad unionists. The message for the Benches opposite is that you have jointly run this place for 25 years. No longer can you criticise Ministers. You have had the joint head of Government since 2003. You now hold the Economy, Infrastructure and Finance portfolios. You can no longer blame failings on the big bad unionists. Had we presided over the shambles that is the A5 court case, this party would have been hounded by our political opponents and the media. You cannot blame that on the big bad unionists. I also want to pick up on Mr Honeyford's point. He incorrectly stated that the DUP is holding up the economic development of the Maze/Long Kesh site.

I will go tomorrow with Mr Honeyford and a digger to clear that site completely and open it up for economic development. What Mr Honeyford did not say is that the DUP will not support a shrine to terrorists on that site. If Mr Honeyford wants to join me with a digger tomorrow, we can go and clear the site.

Mr Honeyford.

I take it that Mr Honeyford will not be taking up my offer that we clear the site with a digger tomorrow. My party remains committed to ensuring that we have regional balance in all parts of Northern Ireland. It is worth reading into the record some figures relating to the points raised by my colleague, Mr Bradley, who is an articulate champion for the people whom he is honoured to represent. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council Area is ranked ninth out of 11 for labour productivity, tenth out of 11 for median wages, ninth out of 11 for subregional employment rates and ninth for greenhouse gas emissions. That is where the focus of this place should be: ensuring that people of all backgrounds and communities in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area receive the support that they deserve. Mr Bradley can be assured of my support in ensuring that he gets a fair case for the people whom he represents.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

Most of the contribution is concrete economic scrutiny: the exclusion of Ards and North Down from the subregional plan, "zero pounds" allocated to the regional property fund, the unspent £45 million for economic partnerships, and productivity and wage rankings for Causeway Coast and Glens. The identity-tinged passages are rebuttals. One rejects other Members' claim that underinvestment is the fault of "the big bad unionists" by pointing to their parties' record in office, which is criticism of a record rather than of a community. The other describes a possible development at the Maze/Long Kesh site as "a shrine to terrorists", which is loaded language on a recognised legacy flashpoint, but it is a single line explaining a party position in reply to an accusation, not the thrust of the speech.

Public interest or divisiveness

The main thrust advances the public interest by holding Ministers to account for unspent regional development funds and arguing for investment in deprived council areas, for "people of all backgrounds and communities". The "shrine to terrorists" remark and the digger challenge add partisan, legacy-flavoured point-scoring that keeps a familiar communal argument going. That element is real but secondary to the economic case, so the record is mixed.

Jev’s structured answers

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.

Challenge this classification