Topical question AQT 2444/22-27
Topical question by Mr David Brooks on .
- MLA
- Mr David Brooks
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Topical question
- Assembly reference
- AQT 2444/22-27
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613868
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, having pointed out that his colleague Pam Cameron dealt neatly with issues regarding agriculture, to detail what engagement he has had with other Ministers to resolve issues with making progress on critical infrastructure, which has hit a roadblock caused by having unrealistic net zero targets, and when we can expect common sense to prevail.
65 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber
These were assessed together with this record:
- 15 June 2026 – I say this: shame on him, because —
- 15 June 2026 – — that will no doubt be the first of many court cases. Our net zero targets are hampering the A5 project, and they will…
- 15 June 2026 – Not the amendment. Disingenuous. Where is the honesty that you mentioned?
- 15 June 2026 – Where is your honesty? You talk about honesty. Where is it?
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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:47 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.