Debate contribution: Assembly Business
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 24 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Assembly Business
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4864578
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention again the issue that I raised during Members' statements last week regarding the Executive Office. In response to a point of order from the Member for North Belfast Mr Phillip Brett on 18 February, you said:
"You could go down the Freedom of Information Act route if the information is not forthcoming; however, in most instances, MLAs should not have to go down that route because they have access to questions to Ministers." — [Official Report (Hansard), 18 February 2025, p6, col 1 ].
On a number of occasions, I have raised in the House the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister failed to answer a question about the cost of their trip to Washington in 2024. On Friday, the answer that £54,000 of public money was blown in just four days was revealed. However, as today's 'Belfast Telegraph' shows, the data was released to a journalist — on the same day as it was released to me — only because the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) got involved. Surely that situation is not acceptable. MLAs should be able to get answers to questions without having to go to the ICO.
205 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: 0.04 (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).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.59 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| 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.