Motion or amendment: Implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
Motion or amendment by Mr Danny Donnelly on .
- MLA
- Mr Danny Donnelly
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 16 April 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
- Assembly identifier
- Document 397525
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022
That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the full implementation of the Autism (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022; stresses in particular the duty on the Minister of Health to prepare, implement and review a cross-departmental autism strategy for Northern Ireland; condemns the failure of the Department of Health to introduce measurable targets to assess the effectiveness of the Autism Strategy 2023-28 as mandated in the 2022 Act; believes this will undermine the provision of improved, regionally-consistent autism services for children and adults across Northern Ireland; further believes that the present Strategy should be reviewed to ensure that the primacy of the 2022 Act is not only recognised but enshrined in all respects; expresses concern at protracted delays in appointing an Autism Reviewer; believes this position must be filled and properly resourced as soon as possible; and calls on the Minister of Health to present to the Assembly a roadmap for ensuring his Department’s compliance with the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 as amended by the 2022 Act within six weeks.
179 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: 0.03 (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).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- 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 | 0.01 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:53 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.