Debate contribution: Parliament Buildings: Roof Repairs
Debate contribution by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Parliament Buildings: Roof Repairs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5436584
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 2 and 9 for answer. I thank the Members for their questions. The remedial works to the roof of Parliament Buildings have been split into two phases to prioritise the works to the areas that were deemed to be the most critical and for the areas that require ongoing access, including the slope entrance, the boiler room and the kitchen. The first phase will address the defects at the rear of the Building in addition to courtyards 1, 2 and 3. The second phase will address the remaining areas. A tender exercise for the first phase was undertaken by the Department of Finance's property services division and concluded in January 2026. A preferred bidder for the works has now been identified, and a contract is expected to be signed this month. A full plan of the works will be developed by the end of March. It is anticipated that the work will be completed over the next six months and that scaffolding in those areas will be removed as soon as the work is completed. The Department of Finance's construction division is commencing the process to appoint an integrated consultancy team to undertake investigatory works and to develop proposals to address all sources of water ingress to the roof of Parliament Buildings and the remedial repairs not included in the first phase.
233 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.39 | 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 15:12 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.