Member's statement: Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4864569
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I used a previous Member's statement to draw attention to the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been sitting on an answer to a question originally tabled by my predecessor and then tabled again by me when I was co-opted into the House. The question was simple and, indeed, factual; it was to establish how much public money the First Minister and deputy First Minister spent on their trip to Washington in March 2024. On Friday, I finally received the answer. Tellingly, it was after the Information Commissioner stepped in and instructed the Ministers to respond to an FOI request submitted by Adrian Rutherford from the 'Belfast Telegraph'. We now know that, over the course of four days, the Executive Office spent an eye-watering £54,000 of public money: £38,000 on travel, £13,000 on accommodation and £3,000 on other expenses. Each Minister travelled with a special adviser, their private secretary and their press officer. Oh, this is the best bit: they also brought a photographer with them to catch their special moments together. Members, what a waste of money. It is, frankly, obscene to spend £54,000 of taxpayers' money in four days and then come to the House time and time again to lament the fact that there is no money for vital services. It is, simply, outrageous. The vast majority of my constituents could not dream of spending such a sum of money, even after many years of saving. Indeed, many of them would not bring in even a fraction of £54,000 into their household in a year.
Shame on Michelle O'Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly. Now we know why the question went unanswered for so long.
280 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: 0.09 (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 (0.71).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.71 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| 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 12:10 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.