Debate contribution: Standing Order 19(5): Ministerial Answers
Debate contribution by Mr Gerry Carroll on .
- MLA
- Mr Gerry Carroll
- Party at the time
- People Before Profit Alliance
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Standing Order 19(5): Ministerial Answers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244850
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the independent review of liquor licensing, the Minister for Communities dismissed my entirely reasonable question about Unite the union's Get me Home Safely campaign as a "stupid question". Leaving aside the arrogance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 19(5) states:
"A question must be answered as clearly and as fully as possible."
Does the Minister's dismissal of my question mean a breach of Standing Orders?
Have there been previous rulings against Ministers — I will not be shouted down — dismissing valid questions as "stupid questions"? Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
102 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: 0.07 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.34 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.12 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.97 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:02 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.