Debate contribution: Budget Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .
- MLA
- Mr Robbie Butler
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 19 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Budget Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4223725
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way, because the matter is very close to my heart. The Assembly has seen multiple failures when it comes to the training college at Desertcreat, which should have been in place years ago. The reality is that, if we want to save money and to provide better public services and a better emergency response to save people's lives, there is that need for a tri-service response, whether it is the Fire and Rescue Service, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service or the Prison Service and the Police Service, because the jobs are multifunctional now. The Member makes a really good point about the security risk to police officers. I started in the Prison Service in 1996. I think that my take-home pay was around £850 at that stage, but I had to check under my car every day that I held that job. Prison officers still find themselves with that security risk in 2024. Money does not pay you for some of the jobs that our people have to do. Will the Member reflect on that? He set out a good position on the Police Service in regard to the ongoing security risk, but Prison Service staff still face a similar threat.
207 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.05 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.85 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.11 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:38 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.