Debate contribution: Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5180600
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When I came back from maternity leave, I decided that I would not rehash points that have already been made. There are a couple of reasons for that. The main one is that, having been in my glorious baby bubble, I now realise how little attention people pay to what we say in the Chamber. When we focus too much on politics rather than ambition, it turns people off. My colleague Paula Bradshaw outlined, as always, perfectly the need for an investment strategy and the context behind it, but there are a couple of things that I wish to point out. When I was in my baby bubble, at the mum and tot groups, the conversations that I had and that I overheard were not about the culture wars of the day. They were these: "How will I afford to pay for childcare when I go back to work?", "How will I move into a new house? I can't afford it; there aren't enough houses", and, "How are we going to pay the bills?". Those are the conversations that people are having and that they want us to have, so I am grateful for the motion. It is forward-looking. Having a motion that looks to the future and at how we improve our infrastructure, not just now but for the future, is welcome. As the Alliance Party, we obviously take issue with a few things, such as the language around "petty rows". We do not identify that with the work that Naomi Long and Andrew Muir are doing. We would have liked to see specific mention of net zero. The development of critical infrastructure must be balanced with our net zero commitments, and we would have liked that to be included in the motion. A point was made about that, but not tackling the climate crisis puts our infrastructure at risk. Any MLA in South Down and Upper Bann will be able to testify to that. It is counterproductive to pit the two against each other.
It is important to have a pathway and a strategy that go hand in hand. The investment strategy has to lay out how we are going to meet our climate obligations. It is so important to decarbonise our economy. That should have been mentioned in the motion. The Member also mentioned the Assembly's being up and down. The constant collapse of this place is such a problem. We are like a broken record when we talk about it. We will not be able to solve all the problems right now — no one expects that we will be able to do that in a shortened mandate — but we have to lay the foundations for that, and we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to be about partnership. I loved working in Belfast City Council, because we worked so well with the universities and with business. We were able to be ambitious and work together. Given the size of Northern Ireland, we could do so much more of that. Casement Park, the A5, waste water and housing are not just good things to do in themselves; they are foundational for further economic development. Public infrastructure is a catalyst for further investment and gives innovators and business leaders confidence, but, too often, our lack of strategic investment in such projects has been a barrier. We have to turn that around. There was mention of the multi-year Budget, and that gives us a window of opportunity to plan and think ahead, but having an investment strategy really is urgent, and we need agreement and collaboration. I welcome the motion, although we would change a few things in it. The one thing in particular that I would change is how we engage collectively on the issues. So often it is about, "You said this" and "You said that". Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about having an investment strategy that will work now and for future generations, because, I promise you, that is what people out there want to hear us talking about.
681 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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.60).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.60 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.06 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.34 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.48 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 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.