Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Car Parking
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: Car Parking
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5046960
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission currently has the use of four car parks in the vicinity of Parliament Buildings. They are the two upper car parks, located on either side of the main Building, with a third, which is referred to as the lower east, or visitors', car park, situated a short distance away from the main Building, in close proximity to the search facility. Finally, an overspill car park near the lower east car park is also readily accessible. The Assembly Commission fully acknowledges the difficulties experienced with parking, particularly on sitting days. Although the Commission will continue to look at ways in which those difficulties might be eased, there are no immediate plans to increase the number of spaces available, as doing so is simply not possible, owing to the topography and the limited space in general around the Building. A number of parking spaces are currently unavailable as a result of the scaffolding at the rear of the Building, but that is a temporary situation that should hopefully be resolved by early 2026.
181 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 | 0.52 | 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 12:53 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.