Motion or amendment: Protecting Frontline Services From Increase in Employers’ National Insurance
Motion or amendment by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 November 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Protecting Frontline Services From Increase in Employers’ National Insurance
- Assembly identifier
- Document 419149
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Protecting Frontline Services From Increase in Employers’ National Insurance
That this Assembly recognises the need to protect businesses and community and voluntary sector organisations that provide vital frontline services in Northern Ireland from the destructive impact of the increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions; notes concerns voiced by general practitioners, dentists, care homes and a range of other independent providers that this extra cost could lead to job losses, jeopardise the future of some services and create additional hardship for the most vulnerable in society; further notes the rising pressures facing Executive departments, local councils and the Northern Ireland Civil Service as a result of the Government’s decision; calls on the Minister of Finance to work with Executive colleagues to ascertain the total additional cost of increased employer National Insurance contributions for the public sector, including independent providers; and further calls on the Minister to lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the funding required to meet this shortfall in full, protect jobs and incomes and place the delivery of frontline public services on a stable footing.
177 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | 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 | 0.98 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:00 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.