Motion or amendment: Extreme Pressures in Primary Care
Motion or amendment by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 16 April 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Extreme Pressures in Primary Care
- Assembly identifier
- Document 397526
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Extreme Pressures in Primary Care
That this Assembly values the enormous contribution of those working in primary care across Northern Ireland; notes that this includes GPs, nurses, health visitors, physiotherapists, social workers and mental health practitioners; recognises that primary care is generally the first point of contact within the health service for those who become unwell; further notes the recent Northern Ireland Audit Office report on Access to General Practice, which found that almost one in three local practices have sought crisis support in the last four years; regrets the absence of a specific workforce strategy for general practice; believes the failure to train, recruit, retain and reward staff has limited progress toward the rollout of multi-disciplinary teams in local primary care settings; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an indemnity scheme for GPs in Northern Ireland in line with arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom; and further calls on the Minister to increase the number of GP training places and invest in an enhanced fellowship programme for newly qualified GPs as part of an ambitious, costed and time-bound plan to grow the primary care workforce.
190 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: 0.02 (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 (0.97).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.92 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:53 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.