Written question AQW 44827/22-27
Written question by Mr Declan McAleer on .
- MLA
- Mr Declan McAleer
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 27 April 2026
- Type
- Written question
- Assembly reference
- AQW 44827/22-27
- Department
- Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Business
- To the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs
- Assembly identifier
- Document 481711
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, pursuant to AQW 17036/22-27, to detail (i) the rationale for not proceeding to a full Equality Impact Assessment in respect of the draft Ammonia Strategy; (ii) any criteria or thresholds applied under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 - A Guide for Public Authorities, 2010 to determine that revised screening was sufficient; and (iii) whether any consideration was given to undertaking an Equality Impact Assessment as a precautionary measure, given the acknowledged potential for differential impacts.
88 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: 0.06 (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 (0.92).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.60 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.31 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 06:36 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.