Motion or amendment: Funding our Health Service
Motion or amendment by Miss Órlaithí Flynn on .
- MLA
- Miss Órlaithí Flynn
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 17 May 2022
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Funding our Health Service
- Assembly identifier
- Document 373400
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Funding our Health Service
That this Assembly notes with grave concern the increasing pressures across our healthcare system; further notes the growing waiting lists for services, the impact on patients and their families, and the pressures on staff; recognises the limitations of single year budgets for the provision and planning of services; further recognises the chronic shortage of health and social care workers and the impact this is having on services; welcomes the cross-party commitment to prioritise health; further welcomes the draft multi-year budget committing an extra £1 billion to health, including funding for the Cancer Strategy, the Mental Health Strategy and Elective Care Framework; urges all parties to fulfil their commitment to the rebuilding and transformation of health services, by re-establishing the Executive, agreeing a multi-year budget and providing essential support for health and social care staff through the cost of living crisis.
144 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 | 0.77 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.23 |
| 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 08:41 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.