Debate contribution: Climate Action Plan: Livestock Numbers
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Climate Action Plan: Livestock Numbers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4985967
Read the official Assembly record
Text
There is a lot of misinformation that relates to the question that was posed by Mr Gaston. The proposals are in draft; no final decisions have been taken. I am blue in the face from saying that. It is not about doing what he outlined. It is about ensuring financial and environmental sustainability, which go hand in hand. I encourage people to feed into the consultation because, as Minister, I am engaging with it, as are my officials. I thank my officials for their engagement on the nutrients action programme. They have engaged, and they have listened. It is important that I put this on record: the social media commentary around the nutrients action programme in recent weeks has been disgraceful. There have been misogynistic comments about officials in my Department. There have been racist comments about people whom we are very fortunate to have working in our agri-food sector. Not for a very long time have I seen such vile homophobic comments about me. I am a gay man, and I am proud to be a gay man. That has no relevance whatsoever to the nutrients action programme or my ability to do this job.
196 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: 0.11 (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).
- The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.96).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.12 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.05 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.18 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.42 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.11 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.04 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.98 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:46 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.