Debate contribution: Bathing Waters Policy Review
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Bathing Waters Policy Review
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5613738
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department has launched a 12-week public consultation on proposed measures as part of the bathing waters policy review for Northern Ireland. The consultation seeks views on a range of proposals to modernise and improve the bathing waters programme. They include how bathing water information is communicated to users; the length and flexibility of the bathing season; the introduction of a risk-based approach to bathing water monitoring; revised criteria for the identification of bathing waters; improved monitoring and management of candidate sites; the removal of automatic de-identification of sites; ensuring that monitoring locations better reflect usage patterns; and the consideration of wider stakeholder recommendations. In addition, the consultation provides an opportunity for members of the public to propose new bathing water sites through a dedicated application process. My Department will shortly host an information webinar to provide further detail on the proposals and clarify any queries from the public. The consultation closes on Friday 21 August 2026.
157 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: 0.02 (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 (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 | 0.01 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.45 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:50 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.