Member's statement: Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
Member's statement by Mr Timothy Gaston on .
- MLA
- Mr Timothy Gaston
- Party at the time
- Traditional Unionist Voice
- Date
- 16 February 2026
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Questions for Written Answer: Response Times
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5391062
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As Members are aware, questions for written answer must be answered within 10 days, yet the Health Minister has time and again shown contempt for that rule. I could cite many examples, but, for the sake of time, I will give two. A question on his plans for a palliative care strategy tabled on 24 September 2024 was answered on 12 January 2026: in not 10 days but 475 days. A question on cancer screening tabled on 5 September 2024 was answered on 11 December 2025: in not 10 days but 462 days. Other questions went unanswered for a full year until a freedom of information request was submitted to his Department.
The response to that FOI request reveals something that should shock and concern every MLA. In response, the Department stated that it does not retain draft answers and emails between officials, which are routinely destroyed. There is no audit trail of what the Minister saw, when he saw it or who caused that delay. Under section 46 of the code of practice issued under FOI law, public bodies are expected to keep proper records of key decisions and processes. That is why I have referred the response to the Information Commissioner. If Ministers can sit on questions for over a year, and then destroy the trail, accountability in the House becomes meaningless.
224 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.74).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.74 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.97 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 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 14:53 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.