Member's statement: National Defence and Security
Member's statement by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 14 April 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- National Defence and Security
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5481968
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yesterday, at the end of questions to the Infrastructure Minister, I pointed out that, far from our Government paying billions to the war against Iran, we are, in fact, paying nothing towards that conflict. Rather than believing the spin from Sinn Féin, we should concentrate on the real and diminishing state of our national defences. To add to that rather hypocritical position taken by a Sinn Féin Minister and in yet another nugatory debate that was brought to the House by the Sinn Féin MLA for South Antrim later the same day, not only is the United Kingdom not investing enough in its defence but it has now taken on the responsibility for defending the airspace, cyberspace, sea space and subsea space of the Irish Republic at a cost of millions to the UK taxpayer, while the Irish Government find half a billion euro for fuel subsidies. While we defend the Irish Republic, it shows no indication of moving away from its freeloading approach to defence, and the Irish lecture us and others about security concerns. This morning, in the 'Financial Times', Lord Robertson, an ex-Labour Secretary of State for Defence, former secretary-general of NATO and co-author of Starmer's latest strategic defence review, gave a damning indictment of the state of our nation's defence today. He said:
"We are underprepared. We are underinsured. We are under attack. We are not safe ... Britain’s national security and safety is in peril."
The first duty of any British Prime Minister is, supposedly, the defence and security of our nation. Paradoxically, we have also committed ourselves to the defence and security of our neighbour — a neighbour who seems more interested in taking us to court than investing even a modicum of its tax-avoidance revenues in support of the rest of us in defending our values. Any normal Prime Minister would rectify both of those issues with urgency. That should be a matter of concern for all of us. Sticking proverbial heads in the sand will do neither and should not be supported.
340 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: 0.31 (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 (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.79).
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.23 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.43 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.31 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.20 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.67 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.24 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.06 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:16 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.