Motion or amendment: Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 8 October 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice”
- Heading
- Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 413588
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Funding for the Northern Ireland Children’s Hospice - Amendment 1
After ‘inflationary pressures;’ insert:
‘agrees that the provision of palliative care should be a core Health and Social Care service and not dependent on charitable fundraising;’
36 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:
- Mr Stewart Dickson – record
- Mr Danny Donnelly – record
- Mrs Michelle Guy – record
- Miss Nuala McAllister – 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.63 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.33 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.