Member's statement: MOT Lifts
Member's statement by Mrs Deborah Erskine on .
- MLA
- Mrs Deborah Erskine
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 March 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- MOT Lifts
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4254000
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise with surprise and concern as I have become aware that 14 MOT lifts have cracks appearing on them again. That is concerning for employees' safety in our test centres and, indeed, could add to delays in MOT testing. Many people are already frustrated with the current backlog: I declare an interest as somebody who is waiting for an MOT test, and I know people who work in the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA). Given the concerns around the MOT testing system, I was surprised that my question for urgent oral answer for today was not accepted, as a series of questions need to be answered on the matter urgently. The cracks were found on MAHA lifts, which were at the centre of MOT testing delays in 2019. My understanding is that the DVA has known about the issue for a number of weeks, yet nothing has come from the Department. That raises serious questions for the Infrastructure Minister, his Department and the DVA; officials from which will be coming to the Infrastructure Committee on Wednesday. The Department spent £1·8 million to replace 52 of the 55 lifts when cracks appeared in 2019. Overall, it cost the Department nearly £4 million in backlogs in the MOT testing system. How have we managed to reach the situation again? The number of lifts affected is thought to be 14 in total. The condition of one lift is very severe, and it has been sent to Germany for further testing, but why is the manufacturer checking its own homework? Should there not be an independent investigation of it? Undoubtedly, it will cause further delays in the MOT testing system. Therefore, whilst we await the outcome of the further testing in Germany, it is important that the Minister clearly outlines what he and his Department are doing to curb the looming crisis. Lessons should have been learnt from 2019, and it is important that we are honest with the public in relation to that. Although I make my comments today as a DUP MLA, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I will be asking the DVA to provide the most up-to-date information to the Committee to ensure that everything is being done to assure the public and employees on the issue.
378 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: 0.03 (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 (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.61 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.