Debate contribution: Children's Hospice
Debate contribution by Ms Liz Kimmins on .
- MLA
- Ms Liz Kimmins
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 12 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Questions for Urgent Oral Answer
- Heading
- Children's Hospice
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4218309
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As the Minister will know, I spoke to the Children's Hospice just this morning to understand better the situation that it is in. Based on the Minister's answers, I will ask him a question. He mentioned the differentiation between adult hospice funding and the Children's Hospice funding. Will his Department look at the current funding model for the Children's Hospice to ensure the long-term sustainability of that vital service? As we know, it is much more than just palliative care, and the implications of ensuring that that service stays in place will be far-reaching.
94 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
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 (0.95).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.95 | 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 | 0.71 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.19 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:36 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.