Debate contribution: Pollution: Slurry Run-off
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pollution: Slurry Run-off
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4517730
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We all know that water quality in Northern Ireland is a significant concern, and the Office for Environmental Protection has issued comments on that. There is an Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) report on water quality that I will share with the Member. Approximately a quarter of the issues related to poor water quality can be attributed to the waste water infrastructure; about 12% can be attributed to septic tanks; and 60-odd per cent can be attributed to agricultural run-off. We are doing further research on the specific issues in Lough Neagh, but it is my understanding that a good element of that relates to diffuse pollution. We need to find ways to tackle that. That is why we are taking forward a measures on the management of slurry that will be consulted on as part of the nutrient action programme. We will announce some stuff in the time ahead on the sustainable utilisation of slurry. From engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union and AFBI, I know that they are keen to see us roll that out at pace. That is one action that we are taking. The other action relates to low-emissions slurry spreading equipment (LESSE) and how we can incentivise its uptake. There are interventions that we can make. I also understand the concerns about planning and ammonia. That is one of the issues about which farmers have been coming to me. They want to get better ways of managing it, so I have convened a ministerial round-table so that we can work through those issues.
258 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 (0.87).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | 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 11:02 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.