Written question AQW 36185/22-27
Written question by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 24 November 2025
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 36185/22-27
- Department
- Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Business
- To the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Assembly identifier
- Document 460864
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to detail (i) why the Investigation Report commissioned in relation to the TREES Project was not included in the answer to AQW 31577/22-27 on the basis that it related to employee matters, given that (a) the Forestry Survey and the Governance and Oversight Review also contain material relating to employee matters, with the governance report noting that a culture of finger pointing is in evidence at a cultural level with the organisation; (b) the Investigation Report states, at page 4, that it was appropriate to wait for the Rapid Condition Survey, Forestry Survey and Governance and Oversight Review as these were integral to the overall findings of the investigation; and (c) at pages 27 and 28, the Investigation Report explicitly treats the Forestry Survey and the Governance and Oversight Review as evidence; and (ii) on what basis the Investigation Report is considered distinct from the other reports and why it has not been treated as an integral element of the suite of reports relating to the TREES Project.
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: 0.04 (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 (0.80).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| 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 05:12 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.