Debate contribution: Artificial Intelligence Strategy
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 14 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Artificial Intelligence Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5686074
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will speak relatively briefly. We are all speaking relatively briefly because it is a short debate. As my colleagues said, this is one of the first opportunities that we have had to debate AI in any detail. Our motion calls not for a junking of the construction of data centres — as has been said, Northern Ireland has a relatively limited selection of data centres — but is important that we have the opportunity to debate the issue because we are going to be debating it a lot more. We make no apology for saying that we would like to pause and examine the risks and benefits of widespread construction while acknowledging that there clearly have been and will be benefits from the introduction of AI, whether that is simply the use of large language models to improve bureaucratic tasks or some of —.
Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We are in the situation where, in the past couple of days, the boss of Anthropic has said that AI should be delayed. We are all going to have to be very serious about the debate and the gravity of what is going on with AI. There are the ecological impacts and the impacts on society in security and humanity. This debate is one part of that. I understand that people want to have a little pop at how we have described data centre development, but I make no apology for the Opposition bringing forward a debate on AI when we have Musk and Altman talking about the need to delay and slow the development of some of those models. Today's motion is not specifically about AI security, but I am intrigued by some of the response, which is that we are being a doomster or slowing this down.
I do not have enough time to give way, but I will say this: clearly, AI exists in the same way that the internet and calculators exist, and it is a technology that can be harnessed for human benefit. I will be honest: we all stand here and talk and have to pretend that we are experts in all these subjects; I am not an expert on this subject, and, frankly, none of you is an expert on this, and that is the bit that we are going to have to be honest about. I welcome the fact that the Executive have published a draft AI strategy, but I am also not simply going to be a booster about technology and technological change that is already having quite serious downsides. That is not me being doomsterish, but it is me being realistic. There are real concerns about some of the ecological impacts of data centres, but we are not, as my colleagues said, down on investment in any and all circumstances. Changes are needed regarding data centres.
I recognise what has been said about how data centres are powered and positive developments in that regard, but we are in a situation —. You are shaking your head, but —.
OK.
I thank the Member for making his comment. We started with the subject of data centres, because that is one of the bits that is most immediate and in front of us, but, genuinely, I say this: as dysfunctional and disreputable as this place is, there is no place for us, as legislators, simply to say, "We can't talk about this stuff" and then wave it all through. Data centres will, of course, have their place, but we need to be honest about some of the downsides. Tonight's debate is just the beginning. I am sure that we will be talking about this a lot —
— more, including when we discuss the draft strategy.
627 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: 0.03 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 16:17 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.