Debate contribution: Written and Oral Ministerial Statements
Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Written and Oral Ministerial Statements
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4813933
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies for indulging in points of order and dosing you on them twice in one day. In the past hour and a half, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has issued, under embargo, a written ministerial statement. Further to what I raised with you earlier, not only has he not brought that written ministerial statement to the House to allow Members to ask questions about the vital subject of avian influenza, he has put an embargo — or his Department has — on the written ministerial statement for reasons that are completely inexplicable to me, having read the statement. He talks about issues that Keith Buchanan raised on the record on the Floor of the Assembly earlier. I ask that your office investigates not only the question of when Ministers do and do not bring oral statements to the House but the use, or misuse, of embargoes for no obvious reason. We have been asked to embargo that information, most of which seems to be in the public domain, until 4.30 pm, and I have no idea why.
188 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: 0.03 (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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 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 12:01 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.