Debate contribution: The Troubles: Irish State Role
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- The Troubles: Irish State Role
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4855860
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, I commend the Member for Upper Bann for bringing this important issue before the House. The Omagh bombing and surrounding incidents hold a special place in our household. My father was one of the first responders to the Omagh bomb. As a paramedic, he was called and airlifted to Omagh to find a scene of utter devastation. He returned home to our house in Glengormley the next day and never again uttered a single word about what he had seen that day. That was the tragedy, the mayhem and the murder that he witnessed. He stayed in close contact with the Gallagher family and other members of the Omagh families, and they repaid their debt of gratitude to our family when terrorism visited us. I commend the work of my colleague Mr Buchanan, who, for years, has proudly championed the cause of a public inquiry here in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic. I had the pleasure of being with Mr Buchanan and members of the Omagh families when our party publicly committed itself to supporting their call for a public inquiry here in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. The House has an opportunity today to send a clear and unequivocal message that all parties, be they here in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, need to step up to the mark. The leader of the Opposition perfectly articulated the fact that, whilst Members of the House may disagree with parts of our amendment's wording, its intention is to make clear that no person, state actor or Government should be able to avoid their moral duty to the families of the Omagh atrocity. I wish, however, to call out some of the hypocrisy that has been generated here today. It is welcome that all Members of the House have made clear that there was no justification for the Omagh bombing, but, if there was no justification for the Omagh bombing, how was there justification for the Shankill bombing or the bombing at La Mon? As other Members have rightly articulated, all terrorism, regardless of where it came from — loyalism, republicanism or those pretending to act in the interests of anyone in Northern Ireland — was wrong in 1985, 1995 and 2005. That should be the message that comes from the House today. This has been a respectful and important debate. Members of the Omagh families are listening to what we are saying, so let the House send a clear message and support the amendment that was so eloquently articulated by the Member for West Tyrone.
442 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: 0.17 (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 (0.64).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.58).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.13 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.16 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.64 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.58 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.42 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.94 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:15 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.