Debate contribution: Family-friendly Hours: Parliament Buildings
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Family-friendly Hours: Parliament Buildings
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498728
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission recognises the importance of a family-friendly working environment, as it contributes to a healthier, more engaged and productive workforce whilst enhancing the organisation’s reputation and competitiveness. The Assembly Commission also recognises, however, the particular challenges to providing a family-friendly working environment in a parliamentary institution where there is a need to be responsive to developments and it is not always possible to do so strictly within office hours. The Assembly Commission has a number of policies that its employees can avail themselves of. The hybrid working policy offers staff the opportunity to work from home where possible, carefully balanced with the realities of business need and the importance of colleagues being together for strong team dynamics; the staff hours at work policy affords staff the opportunity to accrue additional time worked, which can be taken during recess or when business is quieter; and the special leave policy gives staff the statutory right to time off for care of dependants. From a Member's perspective, the Assembly Commission’s remit relates solely to the provision of allowances to enable Members to exercise their functions as Members. The Assembly Commission has therefore agreed to provide additional support to a Member who is absent due to parental leave in order to carry out the constituency work that the Member would otherwise have undertaken. It is intended that that provision will be incorporated into a new determination that is to be considered by the Assembly Commission in September. The Assembly Commission is also aware that there are likely to be issues related to Members' work in Parliament Buildings arising from periods of maternity or paternity leave, adoption leave or shared parental leave. There is limited provision for Members’ absences in Standing Orders when it comes to, for example, participating in debates or voting. Procedural matters are, in the first instance, for the Committee on Procedures. Such issues are not within the Assembly Commission's responsibilities. For instance, any proposal to allow a replacement Member to be put in place to cover a period of parental leave would require a change to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is outside the Assembly Commission's remit.
366 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 (0.63).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.63 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.48 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.37 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:57 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.