Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence Strategy

Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on 14 September 2026.

MLA: Ms Kate Nicholl
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 14 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Artificial Intelligence Strategy
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5686052

Text

I welcome the opportunity to talk about the AI strategy. I do not think that any Member has asked more questions about it than I have. I think that it is something like 80 at this point, and that is not because I am evangelical about AI or because I am frightened by it. It is just because AI exists and because, as the proposer of the motion quite rightly said, our choice is whether we help to shape it or whether we allow it to shape us and happen to us. I am really glad to see the strategy and the values and principles that underpin it. As the chair of the all-party group on artificial intelligence, I have been particularly struck by how different the conversations are. When you are talking to people in the tech sector, they are really optimistic, ambitious and enthusiastic about the opportunities that it presents. When you talk to people in the creative industries, there is a lot more fear and a sense of not being protected. Over the past week, we have seen a lot more fear and panic on social media about the potential impact of super intelligence. They are serious issues, and they require a serious response. As a party that really values international engagement, we strongly believe that that challenge has to be dealt with in international cooperation and stronger global regulation. Turning it off, as some have suggested, is not realistic. Dame Wendy Hall, who is one of the world's leading AI experts and a member of the UN high-level advisory body on this, has made exactly the case that governing AI for humanity requires a global framework. That is where we need to focus. To be more specific, we support the motion. There is something slightly contradictory about welcoming an ambitious AI strategy while calling for a moratorium on the infrastructure that may be needed. We have only a handful of data centres in Northern Ireland, not hundreds, and the culture war that we are currently seeing across the world does not map on to our reality. We should not import fear that is not grounded in facts.
Yes.
Thank you. It is a pity that it is a one-hour debate, because I need far more than three minutes to talk about this. I agree in part, and there are two things that I will say. First, we need to start with data centre policy and an energy strategy, as opposed to calling for a moratorium on something that we do not have.
At the moment, there is only GreenScale, which is for hyperscale, at the Foyle port. I would have started with policy. We see that being developed in other jurisdictions. We do not yet know what the need is or whether it is to service local or wider markets, so I would have started with a policy. A lot of the information and discussions on AI in general are founded on outdated information, albeit not in this debate. Cooling technology is evolving very fast, with closed-loop systems, water use being cut and waste heat being used. The Queen's Co-Centre for Climate + Biodiversity and Water is using AI for its biodiversity work.

537 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification