Debate contribution: PEACE PLUS Funding
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- PEACE PLUS Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5484017
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Democratic Unionist Party recognises the tangible benefits that PEACE PLUS funding has delivered to communities across Northern Ireland, particularly at a grassroots level. We welcome the prospect of continued funding beyond 2027 and agree that clarity is needed on future allocations to give certainty to community organisations and their partners. However, the allocations must provide value for money and the outcomes must be a key consideration. As a party, we will continue to engage constructively to ensure that the programme strengthens stability, prosperity and community confidence across all parts of Northern Ireland. We will continue to support measures that deliver real benefits to communities but we will not endorse attempts to politicise what should remain a programme that focuses on securing positive and tangible outcomes for our society and economy. We welcome the investment, but let us remember that we, the UK taxpayer, make up the vast majority of the funding. Of course, that is not referenced in the motion because it does not suit the narrative that is being pursued by some. Some 75% of PEACE PLUS funding —
I will in a second, Dr Aiken. Some 75% of PEACE PLUS funding is provided by the UK Government, which is not bad from what the party opposite describe as the "big, bad Brits".
Dr Aiken has made the point that I was going to come on to: PEACE PLUS funding is not an EU grant, as some have suggested. It is heavily funded by the UK Government to the degree of 75% and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Executive here in Belfast. It is vital that the contribution made by UK taxpayers is properly recognised, and it is disappointing that neither the preamble nor the countless words in the motion contain a recognition that three quarters of the funding comes from our national Government in Westminster. With the majority of the funding coming from Westminster, engagement with our national Government will be crucial to securing any future investment and funding for Northern Ireland, and our Members of Parliament and in the House of Lords will continue to show up to engage on those important issues. Although financial support from the European Union has been welcomed in the years since, we should not overstate its role in the Belfast Agreement. On Saturday, I read nonsense on Twitter when the deranged character Richard Neal claimed that the United States was a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement. This morning, I read the motion, and I was told that the European Union's support was vital to securing the Belfast Agreement. I will happily give way to those on the Benches opposite if they can articulate the role that the European Union played in securing the Belfast Agreement. No, because no such role existed. The revisionism that takes place in the Chamber is, frankly, laughable. I may still be young and fresh-faced, but despite my boyish good looks, I can remember a time when Sinn Féin shared this party’s position on Europe. Where was Sinn Féin on the Maastricht treaty? Opposed to it. Where was Sinn Féin on the Treaty of Rome? Opposed to it. Where was Sinn Féin on the Treaty of Lisbon? Opposed to it. However, once the United Kingdom decided to leave the European Union, Sinn Féin claimed to be the biggest cheerleader for the European project. The fact is that its record says something else. I feel bad, but I want to break it to Mr Kearney that no one in the European Union is watching the debate here today. It will file the motion under the same letterhead that it did when we passed a pointless motion calling for an EU office, which was rejected. When we passed a pointless motion in the House calling for observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Union, it was ignored. If it makes Mr Kearney and others feel great to say that the motion went through, we will let that be the case, but it will be filed under "Thank you very much". Let us remember that the funding is important, but the overwhelming majority of it is provided by our national Government, and that needs to be recognised in the House today.
702 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: 0.43 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.70).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.31 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.10 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.50 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.46 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.43 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.70 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.26 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.71 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.25 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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.