Debate contribution: Sustainable Agriculture Programme
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
- Sustainable Agriculture Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4779494
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have outlined my vision for agriculture as part of the sustainable agriculture programme. It is a clear and positive vision going forward. I am already on record as saying that I believe that 'Going for Growth' was a mistake, and it does not feature as part of the sustainable agriculture programme, nor my future vision for agriculture. I was therefore rather shocked to receive a letter from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, addressed to me as Minister, that outlined concerns about the apparent disregard for the previous 'Going for Growth' programmes. It sought clarification of whether there was an opportunity to reinstate the programme. What planet are those councillors living on?
112 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: 0.05 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.09 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.29 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.14 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.22 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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.