Debate contribution: Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on 14 October 2025.

MLA: Mr Phillip Brett
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 14 October 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Opposition Business
Heading: Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5180568

Text

I will split my speech in two. One part will be on where I agree with the leader of the Opposition, and the other will be on where I disagree with him. The first part might be slightly shorter than the second. All Members in the House want to see an investment strategy, and no contributor will stand up and lament the leader of the Opposition's call for that. However, it is important to recognise the context in which the forthcoming publication of the investment strategy will happen. First, in fairness to the leader of the Opposition, he articulated the fact that the comprehensive spending review has taken place, and the Finance Minister and Executive colleagues are now working on a multi-year Budget. It is right that we waited to have that before publishing our investment strategy, because, once again, in fairness to the leader of the Opposition, had we published an investment strategy in advance of knowing what our affordability envelope was, he would be the first to stand up in the Chamber and criticise the lack of ambition or our ability to deliver that strategy. Secondly, we cannot get away from the judgement on the A5 development. The court ruled that the current climate change targets meant that that capital project and its investment strategy could not go ahead. I am happy to give way to the leader of the Opposition: if he really wants to start building things and get that investment moving, he can join me in tabling a motion today that calls for the Executive to revoke those targets so that we can ensure that projects are delivered.
The Member had the opportunity to join us to remove those targets in order for the A5 to proceed — he spent 90 seconds of his speech talking about how he wants to see the project delivered — but he did not take that opportunity. I will move on to the motion and say why my party will oppose it. Ms Bradshaw articulated one of the reasons when she highlighted the inclusion of "petty rows" in the text of the motion. The one example that the leader of the Opposition gave for why those words were included was not an Executive motion but the Back-Bench motion that I moved yesterday, the debate on which took place after the motion before us was tabled. He therefore cannot even articulate a reason for why that wording was included. On the cherry-picking of flagship projects, we, as a party, are very clear that all flagship projects that the Executive agreed must be delivered, not just ones that the leader of the Opposition wants to see delivered. There is no mention of the Northern Ireland Football Fund (NIFF), the Union connectivity review report or the York Street interchange in the leader of the Opposition's motion. I wonder why the York Street interchange, which is an Executive flagship project in my constituency, is not included in the motion? Is it perhaps because, when the party opposite held the Ministry in the Department for Infrastructure, it delayed that project? It failed to deliver that vital investment. It failed to build what the people of North Belfast and Northern Ireland want to see. On waste water infrastructure, Members from the party opposite have held the position of Minister for Infrastructure for longer than anyone on these Benches. Where was the rationale for what was or was not delivered by previous Ministers? Members on these Benches will therefore take no lectures from the party opposite. In the motion, there has been an attempt to single out the lack of an investment strategy as the reason that Casement Park has not been delivered. That myth continues to be pushed by Members on all sides of the House to try to blame this party for not moving the project forward. I did a bit of research before I came here this morning in order to find some Members' comments on Casement Park. Former SDLP MLA Alex Attwood, who, as Environment Minister, had the Casement Park project on his desk until he was replaced by his party colleague Mark Durkan, said of the court case that blocked Casement Park:
"I want first to applaud the residents of Mooreland, Owenvarragh and surrounding areas ... That is why the SDLP"
supported their objections. There is no mention of the fact that Casement Park has not been delivered because of the actions of those in the party opposite. Once again, the SDLP tries to blame the big, bad unionists. We see that for what it is, which is nonsense. We oppose the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.33 (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 (0.73).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.48).
Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.14	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.09	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.03	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.30	No
Controversy escalation	0.15	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.73	Yes
Overall judgement	0.33	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.45
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.05
Adopts it (chosen)	0.48

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.48
No identity-related subject	0.42
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.04
Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies	0.03
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:35 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.

Challenge this classification