Debate contribution: Wildfires: Mourne Mountains
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 18 May 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Wildfires: Mourne Mountains
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5548401
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have been really clear that the work to prevent wildfires in the Mournes and elsewhere has to be a collective endeavour. That is why I recently launched the wildfire action plan, which will run to 2030, as part of the strategic framework that we launched last year to tackle the increasing threat of wildfires. The action plan focuses on five main objectives: prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. Those strategic objectives are supported by 35 areas of development as part of the action plan, which should ensure regional capability to better address wildfires in Northern Ireland. As part of the implementation, DAERA recently appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts to deliver a range of wildfire mitigation and management work across Northern Ireland, including wildfire management and response plans in the Mournes. It is important that I thank the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service for its work in extremely challenging circumstances alongside many other agencies, including my officials, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and relevant organisations in the Mournes, particularly the Mourne Heritage Trust and the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team. The most important action that we can all take is that, if we know anyone who is deliberately lighting malicious fires, to report that information to the police or Crimestoppers. I would be delighted to accept the Member's invitation to come down to the area.
228 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: 0.02 (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 (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| 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 15:33 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.