Motion or amendment: High Quality Affordable Childcare - Amendment 3
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 8 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “High Quality Affordable Childcare”
- Heading
- High Quality Affordable Childcare - Amendment 3
- Assembly identifier
- Document 387676
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
High Quality Affordable Childcare - Amendment 3
Leave out all after ‘well-being amongst children;’and insert:
‘calls on the Minister of Education to work with his Executive colleagues to deliver an ambitious, child-centred and fully funded strategy, co-designed with parents and providers that includes a plan to invest in the childcare sector and cap costs by no more than parents can afford no later than 100 days after taking office or to make a progress statement to the Assembly; and further calls on the Executive to agree a package of immediate support for parents and make a collective approach to HM Treasury to lift the £2,000 cap on tax-free childcare to allow more parents to benefit from the scheme.’
118 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:
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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.97 | 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 | 0.84 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.07 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.06 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:47 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.