Debate contribution: Bathing Water Quality
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
- Bathing Water Quality
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4929700
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am conscious of the issue that the Member has outlined. There is a different situation as regards water quality in different bathing areas. I also know that sea swimming is a popular sport that people undertake. I undertook it on Christmas Eve, and I think that I will stick to running. That is my focus. We need to be conscious of the report of the Office for Environmental Protection on the matter. It is a welcome report. I spoke to officials last week, and they are working through the recommendations from that. We will consult further on a number of matters arising from that. One of the biggest issues arising from the report is an extended season. People may be out swimming today, before the start of the official, designated season. We will take that work forward. The important announcement today is on those seven sites. That is not to say that all is fine. A lot of work needs to be done. We need to address the pollution of our waterways, whether that is from sewage or from agriculture. That is something else that we are talking about today and something that I am determined to do.
199 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 (0.79).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | 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 | 0.49 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.46 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 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.