Debate contribution: Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 7 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4890898
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 March, I reminded the House of your remarks on 18 February to the Member for North Belfast Mr Brett. You said, in reference to Freedom of Information requests:
"MLAs should not have to go down that route because they have access to questions" — [Official Report (Hansard), 18 February 2025, p6, col 1]
I draw your attention to questions for written answer that were tabled in October of last year, which were about a private meeting between the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and the First Minister ahead of her giving evidence, that remain unanswered. I do so, because, on Friday past, the latest deadline imposed by the Information Commissioner on the Executive Office to furnish me with all the information that it holds about that meeting ran out. The Information Commissioner is pursuing the Executive Office for breaching the Freedom of Information Act 2000. What can you do, Mr Speaker, when the First Minister and deputy First Minister ignore their duties to the House under our rules, namely Standing Order 20, which requires Ministers to answer questions for priority written answer within two days, not six months?
198 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.05 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.40 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.97 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| 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 12:20 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.