Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors
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: Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5272197
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission has a policy entitled 'Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors in Parliament Buildings', which can be found on the Assembly's website. The purpose of the policy is primarily to ensure that the Assembly's core business and other events, be they at Parliament Buildings or at an outside location, can proceed without interference from or disruption by visitors or any other persons. The policy is extensive and provides clear guidance on the general rules of entry and the behaviours expected at Assembly plenary sittings and Committee meetings. However, it is important to note that, under Standing Order 66, access to the Public Gallery is within the procedural responsibilities of the Speaker, including the ability to require someone to leave the Public Gallery if necessary to preserve good order. With regard to the incident on 10 November 2025, a member of the public was removed from the Public Gallery during plenary proceedings because they had risen from a sedentary position and begun shouting in the direction of the Floor. Usher Services staff who were nearby promptly intervened. The Speaker directed that the person be removed, and she was escorted from the Public Gallery. The incident lasted just over 20 seconds, and there was no further disruption to business. Section 7 of the policy deals with that type of incident and provides guidance on what will happen if a visitor interrupts or attempts to interrupt plenary proceedings. That policy was applied during the incident on 10 November.
253 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.26 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 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.