Debate contribution: Household Recycling
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Household Recycling
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4779355
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am committed to assisting local councils to transform kerbside recycling and household recycling centre infrastructure and services to help meet our recycling targets and deliver a circular economy in Northern Ireland through my Department's £23 million household waste recycling collaborative change programme. That is a bit of a mouthful. The programme supports capital projects that improve both the quantity and quality of household recycling collected, which is vital in helping to keep our valuable resources in use for longer and reducing consumption of virgin materials. Reducing the quantity of residual waste will also reduce reliance on landfill and recovery. Funding of up to 50% of eligible costs is available to local councils. Since the programme's launch in June 2019, £8·26 million has been allocated to seven councils for 12 projects. Allocations of funding under the programme must be made by 31 March 2026. Further information on the fund and application process can be found on the DAERA website. In addition, my Department provides funding to the waste and resources action programme to provide essential local council support, including specialist technical guidance, as well as delivering key national and regional behaviour change campaigns. My Department has been engaging frequently with all 11 local councils to ensure that Northern Ireland is best placed to meet the ambitious recycling targets set by the House in legislation, including the 70% recycling target set out in the Climate Change Act.
236 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 (0.70).
- 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 | 0.70 | 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 11:52 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.