Debate contribution: Waste Water Treatment Plants
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 December 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Waste Water Treatment Plants
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5296056
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member has chosen his words carefully, because he is fully aware of why there has been an underspend in capital in my Department. The issue with the A5 is completely beyond my control. I cannot spend money that I am not allowed to spend, and that is the reality of it. However, the Member will also be aware that, in the Minister's statement, he outlined a further allocation of almost £60 million back into my Department to deal with some of the issues that he has outlined. That money will be put to good use. Let me be clear: we continue to work extremely hard to deal with the issues that he has outlined. It is unfortunate and disappointing that we are in this position. I would love to have spent that money on the A5 and to have construction well under way. Unfortunately, that was not to be. However, as you know, legal proceedings started today on the appeal. I will continue to look at what is available to me. I have outlined clearly what we are doing through the different avenues of work that are under way to try to tackle the issues. I have outlined exactly how much NI Water has been allocated in this financial year and what we have been able to do with that. I will continue to work with everybody to ensure that we find solutions and continue to make good progress on the issue.
243 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 (0.67).
- 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 | 0.67 | 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 14:07 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.