Member's statement: Ultra Low Emission Zone: Car Cloning

Member's statement by Mr Paul Frew on 3 February 2025.

MLA: Mr Paul Frew
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 3 February 2025
Type: Member's statement
Business: Members' Statements
Heading: Ultra Low Emission Zone: Car Cloning
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4773629

Text

Mr Speaker, the Member's forbidden prop was upside down — a bit like his argument. Today, I will talk about the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) in London. Some Members might think, "How does that affect us and our constituents?". For many, it will not, but, for a growing number, it will, and it has. I have seen a growing trend — small numbers yet but a trickle that is getting worse and increasing — of constituents in North Antrim getting penalty charge notices from the ultra low emission zone and being asked to pay £90, £180 or even up to £270, if they do not pay those notices. The issue is that my constituents were not in London. There is a growing trend that their cars are being cloned: the number plates are the same, and, in some cases, the make and model of car are the same. Of course, you could say, "Those people are innocent. They were not in London at that time", but they are being asked and forced to prove that they were not in London, and that comes with great anxiety and concern. They worry about their credit ratings, if they cannot prove it. They are being asked to prove that their vehicle was at a different location via a tracker report, a statement from a colleague or neighbour, photographs that demonstrate the difference between the vehicles, proof of involvement of another enforcement agency that has confirmed that the vehicle is a ringer or a clone or proof that the customer has had previous dealings with the police in relation to the vehicle, resulting in it being recorded as a ringer or cloned. When they go to the PSNI, the PSNI tells them, "This is a civil matter", so they are left with no support in trying to prove that their car was not in London at a specific time or in a specific place, and it is proving really difficult. It is a growing trend. I am not sure whether other Members have picked up the trend, but I worry about it enough to bring it to the Assembly to raise awareness of it.

361 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.67).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.03	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.05	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.67	Yes
Overall judgement	0.03	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
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 11:51 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.

Challenge this classification