Motion or amendment: Rejuvenating our High Streets and Town Centres (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 24 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Rejuvenating our High Streets and Town Centres (Revised Wording)”
- Heading
- Rejuvenating our High Streets and Town Centres (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 415539
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Rejuvenating our High Streets and Town Centres (Revised Wording) - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘businesses;’ and insert: ‘acknowledges that the majority of businesses on our high streets are small, reflecting the broader structure of the local economy; further acknowledges that, compared to their larger counterparts, these businesses are disproportionately affected by the current non-domestic rates system; and calls on the Minister for the Economy to work with the Minister of Finance to produce a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate high streets and town centres, including options for the reform of non-domestic rates’
93 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: 0.03 (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 (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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:58 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.