Debate contribution: Financial Assistance for Political Parties Scheme 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Financial Assistance for Political Parties Scheme 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494620
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. Through the Chair, it is notable that, when Mr Allister spoke earlier, he made the criticism of all of the bigger parties and how much they got. He clearly has a copy of the table, but, of course, he did not read into the record that it was suggested, not proposed, that his party, a single-Member party, should receive £54,000 while a party with 25 Members should receive £200,000. I am sure that you will think, as I do, that that is inequitable and unfair. Indeed, the calculation that has been arrived at from the FAPP process treated every party equally by size in how much was awarded to each party. If it had concluded that it should be the way in which it is applied now, the Member for North Antrim would have received £10,000, because it is £10,000 a Member. I think that that was a fair and equitable system, but I notice that the Member for North Antrim forgot those figures when he was on his feet earlier.
178 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: 0.07 (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 (0.61).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.61 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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.