Motion or amendment: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity - Amendment 2
Motion or amendment by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 March 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity”
- Heading
- Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity - Amendment 2
- Assembly identifier
- Document 434738
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity - Amendment 2
Leave out all after ‘money for government,’ and insert:
‘including tackling fraud and abuse in the welfare system, targeting global corporations who evade tax, and exploring a potential sales tax for online marketplaces; acknowledges calls for tax increases for the super-wealthy but believes any such policy must be fair, deliverable and avoid a detrimental impact on savings or investment; calls on the UK Government to reconsider the punitive elements of its proposals and ensure fairness and dignity for those requiring welfare support, as well as the taxpayer; and further calls on the Minister for Communities to work with the UK Government on the establishment of a UK-wide commission to develop holistic, cross-departmental proposals for addressing economic inactivity among those with long-term illnesses and disabilities.’
133 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:
Divisions on this item
- 1 April 2025: Social Security Reform and Economic Inactivity - Amendment 2 – The Amendment Therefore Fell
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: 0.04 (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 (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:03 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.