Debate contribution: Printer Replacement Costs
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 3 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Printer Replacement Costs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4691236
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. Historically, the Assembly Commission provided Members with a printer device for use in their constituency office and paid for associated maintenance and repairs. Members then paid for the cost of printer toner via their constituency office operating expenses budget. The average cost of consumables per Member was £550 per annum, which would have enabled Members to print approximately 52,000 black and white pages per annum, if you were counting. As part of the printer replacement project, engagement with Members indicated that they require print, scan and copy capability in their constituency offices. Some Members also indicated a preference to procure their own printer from either a central contract, managed by the Assembly Commission, or an alternative supplier. The Commission therefore approved an uplift to the constituency office cost expenses budget of £300 to enable Members to either procure their own print capability for constituency offices through a leased management print service or to procure independently. Taking into account the average spend by Members on consumables, combined with the uplift that has been approved by the Assembly Commission, this will enable Members to print approximately 180,000 black and white pages per annum under the Assembly Commission's leased management print service. Of course, if a Member prints fewer pages than this, the monthly cost is lower. However, the leased management print service is not mandatory, and Members can procure their own print solution. If Members have any queries about the Assembly Commission's leased management print service, they should contact the head of IT.
258 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | 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.