Motion or amendment: Guaranteeing the Provision of Essentials Under Universal Credit
Motion or amendment by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 September 2023
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Guaranteeing the Provision of Essentials Under Universal Credit
- Assembly identifier
- Document 386567
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Guaranteeing the Provision of Essentials Under Universal Credit
That this Assembly supports the Trussell Trust and Joseph Rowntree Foundation campaign Guarantee our Essentials; and calls on the Minister for Communities to assess the adequacy of the level of universal credit payments in Northern Ireland, and to provide a copy of the resulting report to the Department for Work and Pensions as part of a request to update benefit amounts to meet need.
72 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:
- Ms Kellie Armstrong – record
- Ms Paula Bradshaw – record
- Mr Nick Mathison – record
- Ms Kate Nicholl – record
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.96 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.03 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:46 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.