Motion or amendment: Expansion of the Early Removal Scheme for Foreign National Offenders - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Aoife Finnegan on .
- MLA
- Ms Aoife Finnegan
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 23 October 2026
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Expansion of the Early Removal Scheme for Foreign National Offenders”
- Heading
- Expansion of the Early Removal Scheme for Foreign National Offenders - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 505420
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Expansion of the Early Removal Scheme for Foreign National Offenders - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘status quo;’ and insert:
‘notes that the powers to remove individuals from this jurisdiction are reserved to the British Government; and calls on the Minister of Justice to carry out a review of the early removal scheme and consider options to ensure that it is effective.’
63 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Divisions on this item
- 3 November 2026: Expansion of the Early Removal Scheme for Foreign National Offenders - Amendment 1 – The Amendment Was Therefore Agreed
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: 0.09 (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 (0.83).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.08 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.09 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 26 October 2026 at 22:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.