Debate contribution: Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
Debate contribution by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4890923
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I thank you for your response to the point of order from the DUP Member, but will you also direct the correspondence to all members of the Executive? In particular, I think of the Minister for Communities, who often responds to questions by directing Members to the Housing Executive. I also think of the Minister of Education, about whom the same can be said regarding the Education Authority. I also highlight the fact that, in your well-prepared response to the Member, Mr Speaker, the information on the Policing Board that you relayed did not mention the PSNI's operational independence. The Policing Board is the authority that holds the police to account. Will you remind the DUP that three of its Members sit on the Policing Board? They should be well equipped to ask questions there and should get answers from the Chief Constable.
151 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: 0.13 (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 (0.99).
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.09 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.13 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.83 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.08 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
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.