Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495716
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I appreciate the Member's giving way, but, with respect, he has not answered the question of what legal effect the amendment would have. He is not creating an exclusive list of materials and saying, "It must be under this". He is saying, "Here is a list. I want you to go out and think of all the materials that can come into it". His amendment says that a material not being on the list does not preclude action being taken. He acknowledges in his amendment that the regulations exist. His proposed new paragraph 4B(2) states:
"The Department shall have due regard to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979".
That is entirely covered. You are bringing nothing new to the table; the amendment has no legal effect.
Will the Member give way, for scrutiny of his amendment?
137 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.91 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:38 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.