Debate contribution: Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 June 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5042990
Read the official Assembly record
Text
We have already discussed the fishing and coastal growth fund. I am fighting to get a fair share of that for Northern Ireland. I am also reviewing the potential for a bilateral agreement with the Irish Government for access to their 6- to 12-mile zone rather than have that engagement take place through DEFRA. Officials also recently met Isle of Man fisheries officials on a range of issues, and I await a briefing on the outcome of that meeting. I am also awaiting a submission from officials that it is due soon on the marine environment and fisheries fund, including on how we can support recruitment initiatives and the marketing of fisheries produce. A meeting has also been held between my officials and the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority (NIFHA) to discuss how we can take forward the harbour development programme while reflecting the needs of today and our budgetary challenges. We will also continue to engage with the UK Government on their migration policies and the severe detrimental impact that those have on the fishery industry in Northern Ireland. I am doing all that I can to support fisheries in Northern Ireland. It is an important issue that is raised often with me, and I am seeking to make progress in a number of areas.
216 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: 0.03 (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 (0.86).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.86 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.55 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.40 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:00 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.