Debate contribution: Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 11 March 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4269879
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Work is ongoing to scope out and refine the cost associated with delivering the commitments that will be set out in Northern Ireland's first climate action plan. Some of them will fall to DAERA, but other Departments will bear costs. The Department of Finance commissioned a Budget 2024-25 exercise for Departments on 18 February. My Department is firming up its projected costs and bids for next year as part of that exercise. They will be considered by the Executive along with bids from all Departments in due course. Projected costs for 2025-26 and beyond will be worked up as part of the Budget exercises covering those years. It is important that the costs and opportunities of addressing climate change be embedded in economic appraisal processes. It is also important to emphasise that those are upfront costs and that they represent investments in an improved society for future generations. The cost of delaying action would ultimately be much greater. I add that the UK Government's financial settlement to Northern Ireland, which should allow us to live up to our climate change obligations and to take advantage of those opportunities, falls well short. It is about time that the UK Government realised that Northern Ireland is funded below its objective need and that we ought to be allowed to invest in our public services for the good of all the people in Northern Ireland.
232 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.08 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:50 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.