Motion or amendment: Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health
Motion or amendment by Mr Matthew O'Toole on .
- MLA
- Mr Matthew O'Toole
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 17 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health
- Assembly identifier
- Document 410304
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health
That this Assembly recognises that the challenges of mental health are not confined to a single department, but impact all aspects of government policy; regrets that a lack of cross-departmental co-operation, exacerbated by long periods without an Executive, has contributed to a breakdown in children’s services, severely impacting the mental health of many children and young people; and calls on the Minister of Finance to use the powers of the Child Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 to instigate an effective model of cross-departmental co-operation on children’s services by enabling pooled funding, sharing of resources and joint accountability mechanisms to deliver effective cross-departmental action on children's mental health.
114 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 (0.96).
- 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-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 | 0.96 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.86 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:57 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.