Member's statement: Muckamore Abbey: Plans
Member's statement by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 March 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Muckamore Abbey: Plans
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5462721
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Quite often in the Chamber, we hear Members complaining about the length of time that it takes for questions to be answered. Given the complexities of some questions, I understand that it may take considerable time. Six weeks ago — bear with me — I tabled the following question for written answer:
"To ask the Minister of Health to detail any (i) short-term; and (ii) long-term, plans for the Muckamore Abbey site, particularly for the unused or unutilised buildings."
Given the financial state of the health service and the Health Minister's concerns about raising finance, you would think that that is a fairly straightforward question to answer and that plans for Muckamore Abbey would be at an advanced stage.
Given that, like me, the Minister has representatives in that area, he will, I am sure, have heard by now some of the concerns from people who live in the Antrim area and beyond. Those concerns are that there are allegedly plans afoot — I do not know whether this is true or otherwise, but, if it is not true, it would have been good to kill off the rumours — to take asylum seekers to Muckamore Abbey. If that is true, we will be deeply disappointed.
Just last night, I had a lady on with me who is being made homeless on Monday. The recovery van is coming on Monday. She is a pensioner and has nowhere to go. Three weeks ago, I had a similar case with another pensioner, who called off the recovery van on the morning that the van was to come because the landlord gave her an extension on her lease. Those would all have been viable reasons to use the unused student accommodation and other parts of that building, but, if those rumours are true, it is deeply disappointing. There is no rationale for it to take six weeks for a priority question for written answer to be answered, given the basic nature of the question. I know that the Minister is here today. I am sure — I hope — that the Minister has had sight of this. While I am on my feet, I make this call on the Minister: if those rumours are not true, can we get that question answered to quell the concerns in the community? This is gathering steam. There are people who live in Muckamore Abbey. There are still clients on the Muckamore Abbey site. Former patients are in supported living beside it. Former staff live on-site. I think that the last thing that those people would wish to hear is confirmation that there are plans, now or in the future, for an immigration centre on that site.
450 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: 0.40 (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 (0.65).
- The text reports, quotes or asks about the framing rather than adopting it (0.53).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
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 | 0.26 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.31 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.35 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.26 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.40 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.26 |
| Reports or questions it (chosen) | 0.53 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.02 |
| Adopts it | 0.19 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:15 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.