Motion or amendment: Establishing a Dedicated Treatment and Recovery Centre in the North West
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 18 February 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Establishing a Dedicated Treatment and Recovery Centre in the North West
- Assembly identifier
- Document 428703
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Establishing a Dedicated Treatment and Recovery Centre in the North West
That this Assembly recognises the growing crisis of substance misuse and addiction in the North West; notes that the North West experiences some of the highest rates of drug and alcohol dependency in Northern Ireland; acknowledges the significant economic and social cost of untreated addiction, including its impact on healthcare, policing, and the economy; calls on the Minister of Health to prioritise the delivery of a fully funded, purpose-built addiction treatment and recovery centre in the North West; and further calls on the Minister to work with Executive colleagues and counterparts in the Irish Government to integrate addiction treatment into a wider regional strategy for mental health, housing, and employment support to ensure long-term recovery and rehabilitation.
128 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 | 0.69 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.29 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:02 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.