Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Children's Hospice: Funding
Debate contribution by Mr Mike Nesbitt on .
- MLA
- Mr Mike Nesbitt
- Party at the time
- Ulster Unionist Party
- Date
- 9 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Northern Ireland Children's Hospice: Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5369394
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have met the hospice movement on a number of occasions; in fact, just last week, I was with the Foyle Hospice in Derry/Londonderry. I am keen to do more for all of the hospices. I am also keen that they become part of the neighbourhood network, because palliative and end-of-life care does not happen solely within the confines of the physical buildings that are our hospices across Northern Ireland. I continue to engage with the Children's Hospice. The Member must be aware, however, that we started the year with a shortfall in our budget of £600 million. That is unprecedented, and, in fact, it turned out to be unmanageable. I pay huge tribute to all those, particularly those in the trusts, who have worked so hard to reduce that figure, which sits currently at around £200 million. Savings of £400 million is fantastic, but that shortfall absolutely restricts our ability to give more, do more or introduce new services.
160 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 (0.85).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.85 | 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 | 0.88 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.11 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:32 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.