Debate contribution: Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 27 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Disposable Nappies: Collection and Recycling Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4759392
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you for giving way. I want to provide you the reassurance that there is no rolling back on my previous commitments. I am happy to engage with the councils. I am conscious that we also have to strike a balance. You are asking me to issue statutory guidance to councils, and the consultation is about non-statutory guidance. Sometimes we are accused of giving too many instructions to councils, and, on the other side, it is that we should work in partnership with people. I want to work with people on this. I am happy to engage with them on it. I hope that that gives you some reassurance. My perspective in life is to work with people. That is what I want to do with the councils on this issue. This has been a really good debate. Michelle has raised these issues consistently. I am happy to work with the councils on these issues, but we also need to get their voices and their perspectives on the matter. The fact that I am going to Wales to see its efforts on recycling also shows my broader commitment to recycling.
190 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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.47 | No |
| 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 | 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 11:51 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.