Motion or amendment: Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Mr Alan Robinson on .
- MLA
- Mr Alan Robinson
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 26 September 2024
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health”
- Heading
- Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 411829
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Cross-departmental Co-operation on Children’s Mental Health - Amendment 1
Leave out all after ‘policy’ and insert: ‘regrets that a lack of cross-departmental co-operation, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, has contributed to a breakdown in children’s services, severely impacting the mental health of many children and young people, as well as their parents and carers; calls on the Minister of Health to provide a statement on his Department’s intended approach to progressing the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Review of Children’s Social Care Services without further delay, with a particular focus on the expansion of respite care; and further calls on the Minister of Finance to use the powers of the Children’s 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.’
149 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 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 (0.97).
- 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-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 | 0.97 | 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 | 0.81 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.13 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| 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. 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 reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.