Debate contribution: Active Travel Spend
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Active Travel Spend
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5099488
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I reiterate that it is not a change to the definition. I am now required to calculate that overall spend and report how it is made up. That is all that has changed. I am required to do that. We cannot say that we are spending x, y and z on active travel while excluding the maintenance of the new infrastructure elements or the existing infrastructure that is important in allowing an active travel route to be used. I need to be clear about that. We are not fixing street lights and saying that that is active travel; we are doing that on specific active travel routes to ensure that we capture the facts and what is required.
If we do not ensure that those routes are up to standard, people will not be able use them in the way that they were designed to be used. We talk about ending violence against women and girls. There is no point putting footpaths and other infrastructure in place if women do not feel safe to use them.
There may be a little bit of a grey area here in that it is not a change in the definition; it is just what I am required to do given my responsibility to outline what is included in that spend. That is part of active travel infrastructure. If you are developing any piece of infrastructure, that spend would be included for the new road or whatever it may be.
246 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 (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.06 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.57 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:07 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.