Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Artificial Intelligence Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5686048
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Normally, the SDLP says that it is those of us on these Benches who do not want to look to the future, but perhaps they are taking on that mantle today. It is not a new phenomenon, but I struggle to understand the point of the motion. We are calling for the introduction of a moratorium on something that is not, as far as I am aware, currently before any council, nor is there any proposition before the Department for the Economy to develop large-scale AI data centres. I struggle, therefore, to understand the relevance of or need for this discussion. The fact that Northern Ireland will not meet the 2030 climate targets that were set by the House will not be as a result of the creation of AI data centres but will be the clear result of the fact that the targets were always unattainable. Unfortunately, we continue to have made-up reasons, and this must be the next made-up reason: because we have AI data centres, we will not meet the targets. Perhaps, one day, Members will finally admit that, when they voted for legally binding targets, they got it wrong.
Ultimately, we want to ensure that AI is done in the best possible manner, and we should warmly welcome the fact that the Executive have agreed a draft strategy on how it can be best used in the public sector. There is nothing in that strategy that says that Northern Ireland must adopt a new economic policy or strategy of growth being based on trying to attract AI data centres; it is the very opposite of that. I am sure that the Members proposing and winding up on this motion have read that strategy, but, if they have not, I can guarantee them that it is clear that the strategy does not say that. I am happy for this non-binding motion to go through, but, ultimately, we need to ensure that we get the AI strategy right. I do not think that any of us believe that, in the public sector, we are currently maximising our efficiency and our resources. AI offers that opportunity. Indeed, Members of the House take advantage of AI. You only need to look at some of the expense claims from Members to see that they claim for AI through their expenses. Our party will support the motion, but there are questions about the limits on our infrastructure and our ability to connect to the waste water network that are more fundamental than the questions about an AI data centre that currently does not even exist.
433 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 (0.69).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.05 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.10 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:16 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.