Debate contribution: Flood Forecasting Centre
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 7 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Flood Forecasting Centre
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5164777
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. Thank you for your comments. I met the Newcastle RCRG, which does phenomenal work in responding to flooding, particularly given the frequency of the incidents that they have experienced and the severe impact that those incidents have caused. My Department continues to work very effectively with all multi-agency partners, including our local councils and the RCRGs, to provide support to local communities that are affected by flooding. The RCRG, which my Department co-chairs with local government representatives, works with communities at risk of flooding to help them prepare for and respond to weather-related emergencies, including flooding. That work helps to build resilience in communities. It is not that the Department is stepping away from its responsibilities; rather, it is about developing an extra layer of support that is proposed for those who are impacted on by flood events. It is really important to note that that work helps to ensure that we hear the real experience, expertise and thoughts of people on the ground, because they have become experts on those issues and the best solution. That grassroots approach to collaboration is really important, and we have seen the benefit of it. At present, the RCRG is working with 50 communities to help them to improve their preparedness and resilience when it comes to severe weather. Another good example of that work can be found in Newry in my constituency. As a result of the flooding in autumn 2023, the Department established the very first business-led group with the Newry business improvement district (BID). That group is a real template of what else we can do. The impact on businesses cannot be overstated. You mentioned the example of Newcastle, where the surface water flooding protocol by NI Water has been established and used in recent months. However, it is important to recognise the fact that residents in particular have some nervousness, because it is a temporary measure. NI Water is working on modelling to find a more permanent solution.
330 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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:22 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.