Motion or amendment: Utilising the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (2015) to deliver SEND transformation

Motion or amendment by Mr Danny Donnelly on 2 September 2024.

MLA: Mr Danny Donnelly
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 2 September 2024
Type: Motion or amendment
Business: Motion · Private Members' Motion
Heading: Utilising the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (2015) to deliver SEND transformation
Assembly identifier: Document 408735

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Utilising the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (2015) to deliver SEND transformation
That this Assembly recognises the serious, long term and systemic challenges that are facing the delivery of services for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND); notes that the current crisis management approach is leaving children without an appropriate SEND placement for September 2024; welcomes the ongoing End to End Review of SEN by both the Department of Education and the Education Authority; recognises the potential that the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 has in tackling these systemic issues; notes the observation from the first report on the operation of the Act, that resource pooling has been limited and is considered to have significant untapped potential; and calls on Minister of Education to engage with the Minister of Health to create a joint SEND action plan which outlines how the two departments will collaborate to deliver jointly planned and commissioned services, including explicit detail on how they will work with the Minister of Finance to facilitate the pooling of resources in order to deliver real and effective transformation.

185 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

Not qualifying

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 (0.97).
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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.02	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.01	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.02	No
Controversy escalation	0.02	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.97	Yes
Overall judgement	0.03	At or below not-qualifying threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
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 area (top five)
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 08:56 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.

Challenge this classification