Debate contribution: Casement Park: Non-GAA Events
Debate contribution by Mr Phillip Brett on .
- MLA
- Mr Phillip Brett
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Casement Park: Non-GAA Events
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5394510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and introduce some facts that, unfortunately, have been missing from the very outset. There have been some predictable and some unpredictable remarks made. I will start with the unpredictable ones. Mr Gaston said that the motion is not about opposing Casement Park. That must be a change in policy on Casement Park from the TUV. I will set out very clearly the Democratic Unionist Party's position: we signed up to a fair and equitable agreement for all sports across Northern Ireland in 2011, which gave sports equal funding to ensure that they were able to deliver the stadiums that they required. Some of those projects have been held up as a result of sectarian politics, but Casement Park is not one of them. The subregional stadia programme for football was held up by Sinn Féin Ministers because they did not want grassroots football in Northern Ireland to get the funding that it deserved. Let us have the facts as to why Casement Park has not progressed. It was, frankly, laughable to listen to Mr Durkan as he tried with a straight face to lecture the House on why Casement Park has not been built. On many occasions, I have read this into the record, and I will do so again:
"Casement Park redevelopment: Stadium planning approval unlawful".
Who made that illegal and unlawful decision? It was none other than Mr Mark H Durkan, not the big, bad unionists whom some Members rant about when it comes to Casement Park.
I will not give way, Mr Durkan.
You had the opportunity to apologise for breaking the law when you unlawfully approved Casement Park, but you have not done so to date. Now that we are on the subject of the SDLP and Casement Park, let me read into the record some other remarks from members of that party. Mr Attwood, former SDLP MLA for West Belfast, said:
"That is why the SDLP in West Belfast, and Councillor Tim Attwood in particular, have worked with the residents"
to oppose moving those plans forward. Were those remarks about opposing those plans made by a unionist? They were not. They were remarks from the SDLP, which happily opposed Casement Park for political expediency, hoping that Mr Attwood would hold onto his seat against Sinn Féin, but, in the end, he lost his seat and any credibility on Casement Park. We then listened to the uninformed rant from Comrade Carroll about the reason for Casement Park not being built. He said that it was as a result of unionist Ministers, but he did not give one example of an action by a unionist Minister that contributed to why it has not been built. Again, let me read into the record comments by Mr Carroll on Casement Park:
"Still politicians peddle the lie that this is about jobs and the economy. In truth, this is a vanity project for politicians."
Those were the remarks of Mr Carroll, who stood on the picket line to oppose the development of Casement Park. He then comes to the House and throws out nonsense about the DUP and other unionist Ministers opposing the building of Casement Park. There is no branch of the Democratic Unionist Party on the Andersonstown Road in west Belfast, although I wish that there were. It was Mr Carroll and his comrades who stopped the building of Casement Park.
I will not give way. Unfortunately, we had to listen to your 10-minute rant at the start, and we will have to listen to another five minutes of your nonsense. I turn to the issue of safety concerns at the stadium. It is a matter of fact that, in a tribunal case, Sport NI was forced to pay a settlement to Mr Paul Scott because he raised issues about safety concerns at Casement Park. None of the people involved was a DUP Minister or a DUP politician. We then heard a rant from the Chief Whip of Sinn Féin, who said that she had not written a speech but then managed to read out every single word of one that she had written before coming to the Chamber. In her anti-unionist rant, she said that we did not care about Irishness and that we hate Irish people. You do not get to tell me what my identity is.
I am very proud to say that I am British, I am Irish and I am proudly Northern Irish. You do not get to tell me. The facts speak for themselves. Sinn Féin and other nationalists have failed to deliver Casement Park.
It is your fault.
You are to blame.
Not the big, bad unionists.
785 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for flagging as culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.85 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- Criteria met: Identity framing (0.79); Dog-whistle messaging (0.74); Controversy escalation (0.63).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.88).
- Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
- The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which is flagged even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
What a flag means. A flag means the activity contains at least one instance of culture-war framing that met the published test. It does not mean the whole activity is divisive, or that its substantive arguments are wrong.
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 | 0.79 | Yes |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.59 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.19 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.74 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.63 | Yes |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.29 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.85 | Above flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.06 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.88 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.65 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.21 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:51 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.
If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.