Topical question AQT 218/22-27

Topical question by Miss Nuala McAllister on .

MLA
Miss Nuala McAllister
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
23 April 2024
Type
Topical question
Assembly reference
AQT 218/22-27
Business
Oral Answers to Questions
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4485488

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Communities, who will be aware that his Department granted a licence for exploratory work at Milltown cemetery, in the area at the bottom of the cemetery that includes the graves of babies and unmarked burial plots, whether, given the information that has come to light, he will use his power to enforce that the Catholic Church, through the trust diocese, stops any works there until such time as an independent investigation is carried out.

80 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber

These were assessed together with this record:

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.23 (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 (0.86).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
  • Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.09No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.06No
Cultural grievance politics0.10No
Dog-whistle messaging0.07No
Controversy escalation0.16No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.86Yes
Overall judgement0.23At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)0.91
Reports or questions it0.03
Criticises or condemns it0.04
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)0.93
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.05
No identity-related subject0.01
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:03 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.

Challenge this classification