Debate contribution: PEACE PLUS Funding
Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Diana Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- PEACE PLUS Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5484031
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to speak on the motion on behalf of the UUP. I do so having seen at first hand the tangible, positive impact that PEACE PLUS funding has delivered for communities across Northern Ireland. I welcome future funding beyond 2027 in the same vein. However, let me be clear: the success of PEACE PLUS is not the property of any one party or any single Government. It is the product of cooperation between the United Kingdom, Ireland, the European Union and, most important, the communities on the ground who bring the projects to life. That is precisely why it is so disappointing that we are presented with a motion that seeks not to reflect that shared effort but to appropriate it. We should call that out for what it is. The motion is less about delivery and more about self-congratulation. It is an attempt to wrap a collective achievement in party political branding. The proposers go as far as to explicitly praise their own MEPs, which, frankly, speaks volumes about the true intention behind the debate. At a time when public confidence in the Assembly is fragile and when people are crying out for serious governance and meaningful outcomes, we should not use the Chamber as a platform for electioneering. We are sent here and paid by the taxpayer to deal with the real challenges facing our constituents: growing the economy, improving public services and delivering stability. Instead, we are debating another non-binding motion that imitates action rather than delivering it. PEACE PLUS funding has been transformative and has supported grassroots organisations, strengthened cross-border economic links and invested in communities that too often feel left behind. It has also played a vital role in rural regeneration, tourism development and fostering the stability that underpins long-term economic growth. For that we are thankful. We must be able to clearly demonstrate the success of PEACE PLUS support for communities not just in terms of funding allocated but in terms of what is actually being delivered. The Ulster Unionist Party wants to see the outworkings of the projects — tangible results that improve lives, strengthen communities and leave a lasting legacy. Given the financial constraints facing the British Government, there is uncertainty as to whether equivalent funding will be brought forward to replace PEACE PLUS in the years ahead, particularly in the post-Brexit context. I have seen positive examples of cross-border cooperation in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and I must also raise an issue that is too often overlooked: fairness in the allocation of funding under some of the themes. Not every community starts from the same place. Some organisations simply do not have the capacity, expertise or resources to submit complex applications and compete successfully for funding. That creates an imbalance whereby those in need can sometimes be those least able to access support. Let me give a practical example. Enniskillen Rugby Football Club is a highly successful sporting organisation with recent promotions for men and women's teams to the All Ireland League. A strong cross-community group plays within that club, and it continues to operate out of a clubhouse dating back to the 1970s, with facilities that are no longer fit for purpose. Despite the clear cross-community benefit and inclusivity of that club, it was unsuccessful in a recent application for funding. That is hard to accept for a club like that. That raises important questions about how funding decisions are made and whether they are truly equitable. Let us also inject a degree of balance into the debate. As Mr Brett said, the United Kingdom has contributed the overwhelming majority of PEACE PLUS funding: well over 75% of the €1·1 billion programme. That fact alone should challenge the tired narrative that we so often hear that Northern Ireland receives nothing from Westminster. Furthermore, as my colleague Dr Aiken pointed out, throughout the UK's time in the EU, we were, unlike the Republic of Ireland, a net contributor. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the value of PEACE PLUS, and we support the principle of continued funding so that the programmes continue to succeed. However, we will not endorse political grandstanding dressed up as delivery.
698 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: 0.14 (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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.10 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.14 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.38 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.28 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.25 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 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.