Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Facade Maintenance
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: Facade Maintenance
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4691168
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission takes its responsibility to maintain this historic Building extremely seriously. As Parliament Buildings is a grade A listed building, there are strict guidelines governing how cleaning, repairs and other maintenance works are carried out. The first step in the process is to seek and receive listed building consent for proposed works. A proprietary application was made in September 2024 in relation to the specialist cleaning and repointing of the Building. The Building's age and listed building status mean that all cleaning and the repointing of joints will be agreed with a conservation architect and will conform to the British Standard code of practice on the cleaning of buildings and surface repair of buildings. All decorative features, metalwork and windows etc are to be protected throughout all cleaning processes. The Assembly Commission has agreed that the east and west ends of the Building will be cleaned in the current financial year, subject to receipt of listed building consent.
167 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: 0.02 (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 (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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 11:43 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.