Motion or amendment: Social Care Workforce
Motion or amendment by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 28 February 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Social Care Workforce
- Assembly identifier
- Document 391064
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Social Care Workforce
That this Assembly recognises how crucial social care workers are to our society, healthcare system and economy; acknowledges that it is a hugely varied sector and views those that work in social care as highly skilled and valued; further acknowledges that pay and conditions needs to be improved in the sector along with the development of clear training and career pathways if we are to attract and retain staff; condemns the recent migration policy of the UK Government to not allow care workers to bring dependants on their work visa; and calls on the Minister of Health urgently to outline his short-term and long-term plans to address the shortage of people entering the profession; and further calls on the Minister to provide sufficient funding to enable the public sector and the independent sector partners to pay social care workers a fair wage.
145 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 qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (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 (0.99).
- Subject area: Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying 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 |
|---|---|
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.95 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:51 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.