Debate contribution: Poultry Litter
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 25 February 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Poultry Litter
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4815333
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his important questions. It is essential that we have transparency and accurate information about the movement of poultry litter and manure to the Republic of Ireland. That is needed for animal health and disease control reasons, as well as environmental reasons. DAFM, which is my Department's counterpart in the South, has requirements and systems in place for those purposes. If farmers want to transfer poultry litter and manure to the Republic of Ireland, it is reasonable and fair that they meet the requirements in the South. Those requirements have a purpose and are not simply an exercise in regulation. If there are specific concerns from a specific organisation, I am happy to consider them, and I will respond in writing. You raised another issue that relates to avian influenza. I am concerned about the developing situation and met stakeholders this morning on the issue. The message that I want to send to the general public in Northern Ireland is twofold: one is the importance of biosecurity, and the other is about asking farmers to report any concerns very promptly to us so that my Department can respond. We continue to work with and support the industry on the situation, but it is one that, unfortunately, England has been enduring since the end of November. We are working at pace in the Department to respond in conjunction with the industry.
234 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 (0.75).
- 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 | 0.75 | 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 | 0.95 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:02 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.