Debate contribution: Flood Prevention
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 29 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Flood Prevention
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5644977
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. As the Member mentioned, we have experienced the impact of flooding in both of our constituencies. That impact is not just from the damage to property or the effect on business; there is lasting impact on people, physically and emotionally, when their home or their business is flooded. There is always the anxiety — I hear it from people all the time — that flooding may happen again. We spoke about the cost-benefit ratio at an engagement in Downpatrick last year. My Department recognised the concern that the traditional appraisal method, particularly the focus on the cost-benefit ratio, may not always have fully reflected the lived experience of individuals and communities that have been impacted by flooding. In response, we recently developed and introduced new appraisal guidance, which represents a significant and deliberate shift in approach. Under the previous arrangements, schemes were largely determined by a monetised cost-benefit ratio threshold where, typically, projects that fell below a ratio of one did not progress. However, as we have found, the new approach moves away from that very rigid position and allows for a broader, more balanced assessment of value, including social, environmental and carbon benefits, alongside traditional economic damages. Schemes are no longer automatically ruled out where the monetised cost-benefit ratio is less than one, and appraisers can recommend investment where there is a strong case that is based on wider community impacts, including disruption, resilience and well-being. That change is intended to better reflect, as I mentioned, the real-world impacts of flooding on people's lives, which are not as easily captured through purely financial metrics. Although the Department will continue to keep its appraisal methodologies under review, the new approach represents an important step change, which will help to ensure that our investment decisions are more aligned with the experiences of those who have been affected by flooding and maintain robust and transparent value-for-money principles.
316 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.01 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| 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 16:03 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.