Motion or amendment: Additional Funding for North South Bodies - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 22 May 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Additional Funding for North South Bodies”
- Heading
- Additional Funding for North South Bodies - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 440669
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Additional Funding for North South Bodies - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘Assembly recognises’ and insert: ‘the considerable financial drain on Northern Ireland’s public finances of funding North-South bodies which are of little tangible benefit to the people of Northern Ireland, such as the Loughs Agency which duplicates functions already performed by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and its agencies, Safefood which does not employ a single person in Northern Ireland while Intertrade UK exists without any independent staff, offices or even a budget; and calls on the UK Government and the Executive to urgently redress this imbalance by commissioning a value for money audit, specifically of the Loughs Agency and Safefood and committing to a proper funding package for Intertrade UK.'
126 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: 0.11 (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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | 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 | 0.94 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.06 |
| 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 09:06 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.