Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Accessibility
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
- Parliament Buildings: Accessibility
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4691254
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. Colleagues will know that that is an area in which I have had significant interest since becoming a Member. The Member may be aware that, over the years, the Assembly Commission has introduced a number of physical alterations to the Building and undertaken a number of initiatives to improve Parliament Buildings' accessibility. The Assembly Commission is committed to ensuring that Parliament Buildings is accessible to all, and we are always open to receiving feedback. To that end, the Assembly Commission has commissioned a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) audit. That comprehensive audit will identify any areas in which improvements can be made in order to enhance accessibility for people with disabilities. A consultant has been appointed and is doing a preliminary scoping exercise before the survey commences next year. Once the DDA audit is complete, we will carefully consider its findings and develop a plan of action to implement any necessary adaptations. The plan may include making physical modifications to the Building, as well as implementing technological solutions and procedural changes.
177 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 (0.68).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| 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.