Member's statement: Executive Office: Transparency

Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on 2 February 2026.

MLA: Mr Timothy Gaston
Party at the time: Traditional Unionist Voice
Date: 2 February 2026
Type: Member's statement
Business: Members' Statements
Heading: Executive Office: Transparency
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5356197

Text

I have previously raised in the Chamber the challenges that I have faced in relation to transparency when it comes to the Executive Office's refusal to answer questions for written answer. Thankfully, that situation has improved somewhat since I last raised it in this place. What has remained a problem, however, are challenges in relation to freedom of information requests. I particularly think of the one lodged in the aftermath of the private meeting between the First Minister and the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Paula Bradshaw. That meeting took place after giving the Committee 10 minutes' notice and without seeking the consent of its members. Since then, I am pleased to say that everyone on the Committee has agreed that there should be no repeat of such meetings. However, there are many questions about that meeting that still go unanswered. The only minute of that meeting between Ms Bradshaw and the First Minister was written up by the staff working to Mrs O'Neill's office. Furthermore, once released, it became obvious that the minute was drawn up after the absence of a Committee minute only because it became contentious. Finally, the minute was sent to Ms Bradshaw in draft form before it was produced. It is now somewhat a year since I submitted a freedom of information request, seeking the notes of that meeting that were taken in the room. I am told that a decision by the Information Commissioner's Office on the release of that information is imminent. Making judgements on what transpired that day in the absence of such information is, I suggest, unwise. While I have not yet seen the notes, over the weekend I received a copy of a letter from the PSNI confirming that police inquiries are ongoing into the meeting between the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Ms Bradshaw, and Mrs O'Neill. It is time that the Executive Office came clean on the issue and published all documents related to it. Making judgements while those inquiries are ongoing is also, I suggest, unwise. I trust also that all Members will reflect on Máiría Cahill's comments. This morning she raised serious concerns about the propriety of the Assembly debate on the report that deals with her case and the fact that she was never asked about its contents. That reflects very badly on the Assembly and its lack of concern for victims.

403 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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 (0.63).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.10	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.63	Yes
Overall judgement	0.09	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.98
Reports or questions it	0.02
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.66
No identity-related subject	0.25
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.05
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.04
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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.

Challenge this classification