Motion or amendment: All-Island Cancer Research Co-operation - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 13 June 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “All-Island Cancer Research Co-operation”
- Heading
- All-Island Cancer Research Co-operation - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 405587
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
All-Island Cancer Research Co-operation - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘cooperation in cancer research’ and insert:
‘with both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland; further recognises that clinical experts in this field have stated that developing Oncology Innovation Clusters by pooling resources, could help to drive research and investment in oncology, domestically and internationally; calls on the Department of Health to engage meaningfully with the respective Departments of Health in London and Dublin to consider opportunities for increasing both East-West and North-South cooperation in delivering innovative research into cancer prevention, treatments and interventions in the British Isles; and further calls on the Minister of Health to develop a Northern Ireland Cancer Research Strategy and subsequently update the Committee for Health with a progress report on this issue.’
130 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 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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | 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 | 0.73 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.27 |
| 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 08:56 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.