Motion or amendment: Importance of Children’s One-Year-Old Health Review
Motion or amendment by Mrs Diane Dodds on .
- MLA
- Mrs Diane Dodds
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 February 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Importance of Children’s One-Year-Old Health Review
- Assembly identifier
- Document 429864
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Importance of Children’s One-Year-Old Health Review
That this Assembly commends the vital role that health visitors play in supporting the health and development of children under the age of five; expresses alarm that 15 per cent of children in Northern Ireland were not seen by a health visitor for their year 1 review in 2023-24; notes with deep concern that this figure rose to 46 per cent in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust; highlights the critical need to end regional inequalities in the provision of child health reviews in order to ensure that every child and young person has the best start in life; and calls on the Minister of Health to urgently work with all Health and Social Care Trusts to drive down the number of health reviews that take place outside of the accepted timeframes or not at all.
143 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 qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.56 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.41 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.