Debate contribution: All-Ireland Tourism
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- All-Ireland Tourism
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4497374
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Deputy Principal Speaker. The collegiality that dominates our Economy Committee has transcended it and come into the Chamber, which is good to see. With that, I welcome the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to our Committee. Members made a number of important contributions. Miss Murphy and Mr McMurray spoke eloquently of the tourism offering of their constituencies and the need for them to be included.
Mr McNulty gave a helicopter view — pardon the pun — of the great tourism offering in his constituency. I will meet him for some apple pie with Hilda at Dan Winter's cottage.
Mr Honeyford summed up the Alliance Party's position well. He said a lot of nice words but not what those words stood for. I am therefore not quite sure whether the Alliance Party is voting for the motion or the amendments, but he eloquently outlined the offering in Lagan Valley and his party's commitment to it. Mr O'Toole rightly raised the issue of my mistake in amendment No 1. I simply embraced the giant, and perhaps I was writing my literature for the Westminster election in North Belfast rather than the amendment for today's debate. He also, as he consistently does, raised the issue of direct flights from the United States, and it is something on which we will all work together to try to deliver. Mr Beattie, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, rightly highlighted the commitment in the Command Paper to achieving pre-clearance and the need for us to do work on VAT to support our hospitality sector. The Minister gave a useful update on the tourism partnership board, and the Committee looks forward to seeing its membership. I am sure that it reflects and is inclusive of all aspects of our tourism offering right across Northern Ireland. He did not get a chance to update the House on the air connectivity review that his Department commissioned, but I know that he will keep the House abreast of developments. There is a consensus in the Chamber that we all value the role of Tourism NI's branding, but we want to see continued cooperation across this island and all the islands. Hopefully, Members can find it in their hearts to support the DUP amendment and work together to achieve a collective position.
386 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).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.48 | No |
| 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 | 0.74 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.17 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:38 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.