Written question AQW 37308/22-27
Written question by Dr Steve Aiken OBE on .
- MLA
- Dr Steve Aiken OBE
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 11 December 2025
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 37308/22-27
- Department
- Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Business
- To the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Assembly identifier
- Document 463544
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in light of the December 2025 Comptroller and Auditor General’s (C&AG) Report on Financial Audit Findings 2025 – Central Government, where his Department's accounts where qualified in respect to the discrepancy between the provision his Department made of £495,000 on the Mobuoy illegal dump, while the quantum of the provision is in the region of £107 million, to detail (i) on what grounds did his Accounting Officer make the recommendation to the treatment of the sum in the departmental accounts; (ii) on what grounds did he agree to this treatment of the accounts, in light of the C&AG views; and (iii) on whose advice did he rely on in making this decision.
122 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: 0.03 (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 (0.89).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.89 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 05:22 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.