Debate contribution: Household Waste
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Household Waste
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4489068
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We are making good progress today. Despite having policy and legislation in place to divert resources up the waste hierarchy, too much of our waste ends up in landfill. From households, it is around 23% of waste, and, from businesses, it is even higher. I want to reduce waste generation through effective waste prevention, promoting reuse, repair and redistribution. We must reduce our reliance on landfill as far as possible, not only because it is the right thing to do for our environment but also to help achieve our challenging targets, particularly that less than 10% of waste is sent to landfill by 2035. One of the biggest issues is with biodegradable material entering landfill. That material enters landfill and emits methane for decades. To counteract that, my officials are exploring options to divert as much of that material as possible away from landfill sites to treatment methods further up the waste hierarchy. On 7 March, I launched a consultation on proposals to improve recycling and divert more waste from landfill. For households, those proposals, if implemented, would see residual waste capacity reduced by 25% at the kerbside, with a move to three-weekly collections or smaller receptacles. Details of the consultation are available on the DAERA website. I encourage everyone to respond.
212 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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.01 | 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 | 0.84 | 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 10:28 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.