Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Security Hut
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: Security Hut
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5272095
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission has used the security hut in the lower east car park for a number of years. The hut was originally installed and maintained by the Department of Finance, although, recently, it has fallen into a state of significant disrepair and is now considered to be close to the end of its service life. The Department of Finance has indicated that it is not minded to replace the hut in the foreseeable future and has left it for the Assembly Commission to determine the way forward, since it is the primary user of the car park. Assembly Commission staff presently monitor and manage the lower east car park on the busiest days of the week, although plans are already well advanced to erect an automatic barrier at the car park entrance in early 2026. Once that work has been completed, those staff will be withdrawn, and, should occasional monitoring of the car park be required, it can be carried out from the existing search facility at the east glen.
178 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.51 | 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 14:07 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.