Debate contribution: Loughs Agency: Value for Money
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 6 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Loughs Agency: Value for Money
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929605
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I strongly believe in the value of the Loughs Agency and cross-border working. I have responded in detail to the questions for written answer that the Member has tabled to me. The Member raised the issue of prosecutions. The agency has a statutory duty to protect the fisheries in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. Dealing with illegal nets is only one part of the remit of the agency's conservation and protection directorate. The conservation and protection directorate operates a hotline that the public can use to report suspected pollution events or illegal fishing activity. Staff members are on call to respond 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In 2024, the agency inspected over 1,600 fishing licences, detected 133 illegal fishing incidents and dealt with 216 pollution incidents. Since 2015, it has successfully prosecuted 85 offenders for water quality offences and 111 offenders for angling-related offences. The key objective of that directorate is to provide a highly visible, public-facing approach to enforcement to act as a deterrent to the illegal activity that is taking place in the first place. On the issue of the boardrooms, which Mr Gaston seems to have an interest in, the agency can hold meetings at its headquarters and its two regional offices. Those meeting rooms are used extensively outside of board meetings to support the day-to-day running of the agency.
226 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: 0.04 (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 (0.81).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| 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 12:26 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.