Motion or amendment: Cross-border Healthcare
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 4 June 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Cross-border Healthcare
- Assembly identifier
- Document 404431
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Cross-border Healthcare
That this Assembly acknowledges the daunting challenges facing our health service; laments that Northern Ireland has fallen behind the Republic of Ireland and the rest of these isles on several healthcare outcomes; understands that a solution to our healthcare challenges will not come solely through increased funding, but also through reform of our services; recognises that a key element of this will be further collaboration with the healthcare service in the Republic of Ireland; acknowledges that certain bespoke specialist services, in particular perinatal and paediatric post-mortem services, which are currently not available in Northern Ireland, could be delivered more efficiently and compassionately on an all-island basis; calls on the Minister of Health to work with the Irish Minister for Health to identify how the two jurisdictions can work together to reduce waiting lists, harmonise healthcare pay rates, and deliver bespoke specialist services on an all-Ireland basis.
148 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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: 0.06 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.81 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.16 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:55 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.