Motion or amendment: Cancer Strategy
Motion or amendment by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 9 April 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Cancer Strategy
- Assembly identifier
- Document 396568
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Cancer Strategy
That this Assembly acknowledges the widespread concern at the increase in cancer diagnoses among children and young people over the past decades; notes that some rarer cancers require co-operation across borders, including sharing of information such as clinical trial results and cancer registries; stresses the need to prioritise the tracking of the prevalence of particular cancers to enable more efficient interventions and better patient outcomes; recognises that countries and regions with the best cancer outcomes have delivered these through the adoption of a strategic approach based on ongoing learning and cross-party political endorsement; and calls on the Minister of Health to set out a clear plan to implement the Cancer Strategy 2022-32 as a matter of urgency.
119 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:
- Ms Paula Bradshaw – record
- Mr Stewart Dickson – record
- Mr Danny Donnelly – record
- Mr David Honeyford – 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: 0.02 (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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.69 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.07 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:52 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.