Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 8 April 2025.

MLA: Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time: Ulster Unionist Party
Date: 8 April 2025
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 4919435

Text

I thank the Member for her intervention. The Member did not engage with my point. I talked about using the word "unionist". I suggest that someone looks through Hansard and Twitter to see how many times the word "nationalist" is used to describe either Sinn Féin or the SDLP. It is probably zero. However, she has no problem with the use of the word "unionist" to talk about unionist parties. Back to the matter under debate. A unionism that does not cherish the environment or speak to the truth of climate change is not strong. I suggest that it is brittle. We see the devastation caused by the wildfires, the scorched fields, the blackened hills and the exhausted firefighters, and yet we hear the commentary today about the fiscal appropriation of what we are trying to do. Where is the depth? Where is the sincerity? Let me give you some testimony and background to show why this is important to me. When I joined the Fire Brigade in 2000, for the first four or five years, I probably dealt with three or four grass or gorse fires in that time. There were no major or significant incidents. The fires happened in small numbers. Since that time, worldwide, probably led most effectively in Spain, but we have spoken into it for quite a few years now, is the growing propensity, risk and cost of wildfires in Northern Ireland.
Yes.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I absolutely agree. I will set a bit more of the context. Why do I think that this is absolutely necessary? For five years out of the past eight, we did not have any ministerial lead on anything in this country for health, education, wildfires or the climate. Let us not lose sight of ourselves here, guys. People are going to put their trust in us. Do we deserve it? No, we do not. We have no stability or credibility, and that is what we are trying to achieve. We are looking at a body that will still be created, that we can still speak to and that we can still change. But let me tell you this —.
I will let you in in a wee second. One week of wildfires in Northern Ireland costs more than £1 million. Just for that week, not for the reparation, not for fixing back or building back. What else happens in that week when we spend at least £1 million on a major incident? We put people's lives at risk.
Give me one second. I am very popular today. One wee second. I will let you in, because it is genuinely important to talk about the issue. It is probably £1 million per week, and there is another cost that nobody has mentioned today, especially when the fire is in the Mournes. There are two dams in the Mournes that supply our drinking water. How much does it cost to clean that water after a fire? After the last burn, it cost £890,000 to clean the drinking water. We have to be fiscally appropriate, but let us talk about all the costs.

525 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.32 (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 (0.78).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.42).
Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
The overall probability was moderate at most and none of the culture-war criteria was close to being met.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.13	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.12	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.11	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.24	No
Controversy escalation	0.36	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.78	Yes
Overall judgement	0.32	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.34
Reports or questions it	0.19
Criticises or condemns it	0.05
Adopts it (chosen)	0.42

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.69
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.25
No identity-related subject	0.03
Another identity-related subject	0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:21 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.

Challenge this classification