Motion or amendment: Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice
Motion or amendment by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 24 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice
- Assembly identifier
- Document 411310
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice
That this Assembly acknowledges the vital role of the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice in providing palliative care for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and supporting their families through extremely challenging times; notes the financial pressures faced by the Children’s Hospice due to statutory funding not increasing in line with rising costs incurred due to inflationary pressures; calls on the Minister of Health to prioritise the inclusion of additional funding for the Children’s Hospice in future health budgets; and further calls on the Minister to underline his commitment to sustainable funding going forward by covering 50 per cent of the costs incurred by the Children’s Hospice in providing lifeline care and support to children and their families.
124 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: 0.02 (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 (0.97).
- 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-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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.97 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.33 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.