Debate contribution: Forests for Our Future
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
- Forests for Our Future
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4489148
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her questions. I have lead responsibility for that legislation, but the overall responsibility falls to all Ministers. I am holding a number of bilateral meetings with Ministers. Last week, I met the Infrastructure Minister to discuss the obligations arising from the climate change legislation and the need to adopt a climate action plan and carbon budgets. I will engage with the Finance Minister on that tomorrow. This is part of a scoping exercise for what will be needed for the first climate action plan. That will list the potential costs associated with the plan. There is a cost of inaction. I will continue to make representations to the UK Government, and to any potential replacement, on the need to make those investments. By making those investments, we can turn Northern Ireland round and make it somewhere that attracts investment and economic success. However, we need the capital and resource funding from the UK Government to enable us to meet those obligations. That is particularly relevant this week, the week of the Balmoral show, and when it comes to future agricultural support, which is relevant to these issues as well. The UK Government need to come forward with the level of support that we need to be able to support our farmers in the time ahead.
220 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | 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 | 0.96 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.03 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.