Motion or amendment: Tackling Paramilitarism - Amendment 2

Motion or amendment by Ms Connie Egan on 9 October 2024.

MLA: Ms Connie Egan
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 9 October 2024
Type: Motion or amendment
Business: Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Tackling Paramilitarism”
Heading: Tackling Paramilitarism - Amendment 2
Assembly identifier: Document 413775

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Tackling Paramilitarism - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘structures;’ and insert: ‘welcomes the Executive’s decision to extend funding for the Programme for Tackling Paramilitary Activity and Organised Crime until 2027; further welcomes its commitment to identify a sustainable delivery model, beyond programmatic delivery, to address paramilitary criminality in a manner that encourages the embedding and scaling up of successful approaches; calls on the UK Government to confirm its match funding for the Programme; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to embed a cross-government and cross-Executive approach to tackling paramilitarism and reducing harm in the Programme for Government through a stand-alone mission on Peace and Peacebuilding.’

111 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

Not qualifying

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 (0.97).
Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.03	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.03	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.04	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.95	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	At or below not-qualifying threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.97
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.03
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.92
No identity-related subject	0.06
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations	0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 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.

Challenge this classification