Debate contribution: The draft Period Products (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- The draft Period Products (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4482264
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Today, I am seeking the Assembly's approval of the Period Products (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Specified Public Service Bodies) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024. It is a privilege for me to be able to introduce these regulations, part of a journey that began with the private Member's Bill that was brought by former SDLP MLA Pat Catney and subsequently became the Period Products (Free Provision) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 to create a legal right of free access to items such as tampons and sanitary pads. The Act places importance on respect for dignity and aims to remove financial barriers to accessing period products. These regulations relate to the Department's section 2 duties under the Act to meet an individual's needs while they are on specified public service bodies' premises. The Executive Office is progressing section 1 of the Act to require period products to be obtainable free of charge to all persons who need to use them. It is working with a delivery partner to ensure that free period products are publicly available to anyone who needs them across Northern Ireland from 13 May 2024. Access to period products should be universally available, as is the case for many other basic hygiene products. It is important that people have access to the products in a dignified and confidential way. My Department is liaising with DAERA's specified public service bodies, namely the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, the Livestock and Meat Commission and the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority as to how these regulations will be implemented at their various premises throughout Northern Ireland. They include a requirement for them to give regard to articles that are reusable when they are putting their arrangements in place. There is growing interest in reusable period products, which have the potential to reduce the environmental impact of single-use items. They might include, for example, menstrual cups and reusable period pants. Our specified public service bodies will be carrying out their own consultation exercises with product users in due course after the regulations commence, with reusable products being part of that process, and I thank them for their cooperation thus far. I thank the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for its prompt scrutiny of the SL1 for this regulation.
380 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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.75 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.24 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:57 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.