Debate contribution: Deposit Return Scheme
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
- Deposit Return Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4986015
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am pleased to report that, alongside the EFRA Secretary of State, I approved the appointment of the UK Deposit Management Organisation (DMO) on 6 May as the operator of the deposit return scheme (DRS) in England and Northern Ireland. Subject to parliamentary approval, it has also been designated as the DRS scheme administrator in Scotland. The UK DMO is an independent, not-for-profit, business-led organisation appointed by the Government to develop and ultimately deliver the schemes day-to-day. Importantly, the DMO's role is to create the necessary infrastructure and run the deposit return scheme. That means managing producer registrations, flow of deposits, financial obligations and the effective collection of drinks containers and ensuring that recycling rates improve over time. The appointment proceeds from the making of the Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 on 23 January. My officials will continue to engage collaboratively with the UK DMO to meet our collective ambition for the DRS.
159 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.22 | No |
| 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 | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| 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 12:46 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.