Debate contribution: Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Daniel McCrossan on .
- MLA
- Mr Daniel McCrossan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 11 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Defective Premises Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4495720
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Minister for that intervention. We are providing clarification, because, in reality, throughout the process, as is typical of how the DUP and, indeed, Sinn Féin have done government in the past, there has been no proper scrutiny of important legislation that will have unintended consequences. It is ironic that the Minister has concerns about the legal implications of an amendment — a positive amendment — to a Bill that has not received the scrutiny that it should and must receive. No lessons have been learnt from legislation previously brought through the House, even though there were clear warnings and signals at that point —.
107 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: 0.25 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.06 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.16 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.31 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.07 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.78 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.