Debate contribution: Local Growth Fund
Debate contribution by Ms Emma Sheerin on .
- MLA
- Ms Emma Sheerin
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Local Growth Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197359
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Molaim an rún.
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
The motion relates acutely to Brexit. There have been many debates about Brexit in the Chamber, across the North and beyond in the run-up to the decision that was made by the UK Government to pursue that agenda and since. We will have different narratives as to how that has played out, which is fair enough. Some people had a clear perspective on the issue of leaving the EU and decided that they wanted to support that and were comfortable with it, but the issue that we are discussing today is a clear example of how that decision has been objectively bad for the North. Leaving the EU has left us with serious economic consequences, most acutely through a loss of funding. Across the North, we were net benefactors from the EU. As a rural MLA who represents Mid Ulster, I see numerous examples across the board, including the LEADER approach, the rural development programme (RDP) and the common agricultural policy (CAP), of funding streams that we have lost and have thus had to scramble to replace. The motion refers to the European social fund (ESF) and the replacement funding that was supposed to come but did not come in the way in which we would have liked. That is having real-life implications for the people whom we all represent. There are groups in the Assembly today, including the Workspace Group from my constituency; I see Alex and Adele up there watching on. I know from meetings with them and the people who benefit from the schemes that the Workspace Group and others run that this is having a real impact and is causing real anxiety for our constituents. We were told that, when we left the EU, we would not lose out and that all of the funding that we had would be replaced. That has not been the case. We had a cliff edge almost three years ago, when there was an awful lot of concern because we did not know whether the programmes would be extended. We have had some replacement funding, but it has not been to the level that it was. Studies have been done to ascertain the exact value of the shortfall, but the estimates of £20 million per year give you an idea of just how critical it is for those whom we represent. The Go Succeed programme is run by the Department for the Economy and supports local small businesses and allows people to start up. I know that that is supported by the likes of the Workspace Group in Mid Ulster. If that is not extended, there will be real implications for the people who have been able to benefit from it and who are trying to plan for their business, which might want to avail itself of such support. There are programmes for people with learning difficulties and disabilities who need that wee bit of help to get into employment. They have been supported thus far, but there will be knock-on implications for those people and their families and for the people who employ them. We talk every day about supporting people with complex needs, including through work that needs to happen in our schools around special educational needs (SEN), and that is a real, tangible example of actual support that allows people to get into employment. It needs to be extended. This is not a debate about the pros and cons of Brexit. I have a clear perspective on that. My party has been consistent on the harm that has been done here as a result of that decision, which was not of our making. The debate is about what we can do now. We need to have a united voice in going to the British Government and asking for replacement funding and for certainty now. We want to see our businesses, local enterprise groups and support networks and agencies being given certainty so that they can plan for the future. That is what the motion calls for. I hope that we will speak with one voice across the Chamber today — that we will have universality — in passing the motion and asking for a clear message to go from the Executive to the British Government that we want to see that delivered now.
726 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 (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.56 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.39 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:32 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.