Motion or amendment: Removing the Universal Credit Two-Child Limit
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 22 March 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Removing the Universal Credit Two-Child Limit
- Assembly identifier
- Document 395309
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Removing the Universal Credit Two-Child Limit
That this Assembly acknowledges the findings of the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on Child Poverty that nearly half of all children living in relative poverty come from families with three or more children; recognises the pernicious role that the Universal Credit two-child limit has played in increasing the number of children in poverty; understands that the majority of those negatively impacted by the two-child limit are working families; notes that removing this limit is within the powers of the Northern Ireland Executive; believes that the consequences of childhood poverty far outweigh the cost of removing the cap; and calls on the Minister for Communities to present a plan before this Assembly to remove the two-child limit before the end of 2024.
129 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: 0.03 (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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.68 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.15 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.15 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:52 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.