Motion or amendment: Emergency Food Parcels for Children - Amendment 1

Motion or amendment by Mr Brian Kingston on .

MLA
Mr Brian Kingston
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
23 January 2025
Type
Motion or amendment
Business
Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Emergency Food Parcels for Children”
Heading
Emergency Food Parcels for Children - Amendment 1
Assembly identifier
Document 424839

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Emergency Food Parcels for Children - Amendment 1

Leave out all after ‘developmental needs;’ and insert:

‘welcomes the commitment of the Minister for Communities to delivering a new anti-poverty strategy; calls on the Minister to urgently bring that draft strategy to the Executive for consideration, with view to launching a public consultation on the proposals; and further calls on the Minister to work with the Department for Work and Pensions to create a progressive social security system that better supports families with children’

83 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 flagged

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 (0.93).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.01No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.02No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.93Yes
Overall judgement0.03At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.71
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.16
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.11
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.01
Another identity-related subject0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:01 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.

Challenge this classification