Topical question AQT 2271/22-27

Topical question by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 27 April 2026.

MLA: Mr Matthew O'Toole
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 27 April 2026
Type: Topical question
Assembly reference: AQT 2271/22-27
Business: Oral Answers to Questions
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5508379

Text

Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that, at the weekend, the First Minister said that she wanted to move towards reforming the Stormont institutions, which he welcomes, as it is something for which he, his party and other Members have been pressing for years, particularly as we have seen two years-plus of failure from the current Executive, and given that the First Minister and her party, along with the DUP, have in the past resisted most practical forms of reforming how this place works and were responsible for collapsing this place for significant parts of the past decade, to be specific about the reform proposals that she would support.

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

Follow-ups by the same MLA in the Chamber

These were assessed together with this record:

27 April 2026 – It may not be a matter for the Executive Office, but it is a matter for this place, so, although I appreciate your…

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: 0.18 (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 (0.69).
No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
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	0.10	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.04	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.10	No
Controversy escalation	0.07	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.69	Yes
Overall judgement	0.18	At or below not-flagging threshold

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

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.77
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.13
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.07
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.02
Another identity-related subject	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:27 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