Debate contribution: Coastal Erosion
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Coastal Erosion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5493377
Read the official Assembly record
Text
By way of a response to the Speaker, I am happy to take question 12 separately, if that is so desired. I find it a bit rich for the DUP to lecture me on climate change when the actions that I am trying to take to address the impacts of climate change have been stymied by its Department again and again. The climate change adaptation programme sat in the Executive for months before I could get agreement to publish it. We are seeking to take action on the issue. The institutions did not sit for two years, so I am seeking to catch up on the progress that should have been made. We are clear about the impact of climate change around Northern Ireland. We seek to take forward the climate change adaptation programme and deal with the issues associated with coastal erosion. The most fundamental thing that we can do, however, is to acknowledge that there is a climate change problem rather than continue to deny it.
168 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: 0.08 (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 (0.65).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.98).
- 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 | 0.09 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.08 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.65 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.08 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.98 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.94 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.03 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:21 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.