Debate contribution: Assembly Passes: Audit
Debate contribution by Mr Andy Allen MBE on .
- MLA
- Mr Andy Allen MBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 3 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Assembly Passes: Audit
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4691228
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. Usher Services staff issue Assembly ID passes on request to party staff in accordance with the d'Hondt formula, and some of those staff may also work in constituency offices. Members are also issued with three ID passes for use by their staff or other nominees. Usher Services staff therefore rely heavily on accurate and prompt communication from Members and parties in relation to the initial issuing of ID passes and any changes thereafter, including the termination of any staff. A procedure has been put in place whereby Members and parties will be requested to review their ID pass allocation twice yearly for accuracy and to highlight any previously un-notified changes. Assembly Finance will also notify Usher Services of the termination of any party staff in receipt of salary. Whilst it is anticipated that these steps will assist in the wider management and governance of ID passes, there remains nonetheless a clear responsibility on Members and parties to ensure that records are fully accurate and that Usher Services are promptly advised of any changes.
180 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.45 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 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.