Debate contribution: Fireworks: Impact on Wildlife
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 2 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Fireworks: Impact on Wildlife
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5272007
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My Department is conscious of its responsibilities for raising awareness of the matter, which we do every year in the run-up to Halloween. It is also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. I reached out to the Minister of Justice today in anticipation of such a question. The Minister is conscious of the impact that fireworks can have on wildlife. Her reminders always encourage the public to follow the law, keep fireworks safe and be considerate. Information on fireworks is available year round on the NI Direct website to remind people of the impact that fireworks can have on older or vulnerable people as well as on pets and farm animals. The information also highlights the availability of low-noise fireworks.
123 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).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.35 | No |
| 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 | 0.69 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.13 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:06 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.