Motion or amendment: Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare - Amendment 3
Motion or amendment by Mrs Michelle Guy on .
- MLA
- Mrs Michelle Guy
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 13 November 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare”
- Heading
- Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare - Amendment 3
- Assembly identifier
- Document 417874
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare - Amendment 3
Leave out all after ‘Minister of Education’ and insert:
‘to place Early Years programmes on a statutory footing, expand Sure Start, deliver a 10-year Early Learning and Childcare Strategy, which includes developing a learning framework for under three-year-olds with the goal of working towards a universal service for all children under three and a costed Affordable Childcare Scheme that is based on a supply-side subsidy paid directly to providers; and further calls on the Minister to prioritise any additional Barnett consequential funding his department receives to improve affordable, flexible and high-quality childcare provision, including the expansion of the Northern Ireland Childcare Subsidy Scheme to school-aged children, and address challenges facing the childcare workforce including recruitment, retention, well-being, qualification levels, rates of pay and support the establishment of a professional association for childcare occupations.'
140 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 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.65 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.21 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.08 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.