Debate contribution: Questions for Written Answer: Ministerial Responses
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Questions for Written Answer: Ministerial Responses
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4266846
Read the official Assembly record
Text
No, I have no plans to review the practice, because I want Members to get information in the most timely way possible. There is precedent for it in the rest of the United Kingdom, as Ministers in Parliament often refer questions to outside organisations. The Member can take the approach of writing to the Housing Executive to ask for the information, or he can go down a longer and more costly route. That route is to go to the Business Office, which takes the question and sends it to the DFC private office, which commissions a lead business area in DFC to deal with it. The lead business area then contacts the ALB to request specific information. The ALB gathers information and provides it to the DFC business area, which then drafts the response on the basis of the information provided by the ALB. The draft answer goes through the official-level processes and is then provided to the private office. It is reviewed by a spad — it would be if I had one — approved by the Minister and issued by the DFC private office to the MLA and the Business Office. It is simple and straightforward: do you want the information as quickly as you can get it, in the most efficient way, or do you want to go through that whole palaver in order to get it? If the Member is serious about getting the information as quickly as possible, he will want to go by the first route. I find it interesting that the SDLP announced that it was going into opposition by saying, "We will provide a new type of politics that addresses the problems facing parents and families across our communities", yet both of the questions that its Members have tabled for answer today are about the internal processes of the Assembly.
308 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.17 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.16 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:47 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.