Debate contribution: Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 25 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4498502
Read the official Assembly record
Text
When we publish the report, I will certainly welcome feedback on its findings. There are examples of good practice where Departments are collaborating. There are also examples of where we should be doing things better. Let us focus on the things that we have been able to do, because legislation should not be required for Departments to work collaboratively. We should be doing that, and we are. I can give some examples: the early learning and childcare strategy that was agreed by the Executive, which involves nearly all Departments and for which the Executive have approved £25 million; the RAISE programme, for which we again secured funding and which will have various Departments on its teams; and the THRiVE scheme, which involves voluntary, community and local government agencies. We work together in collaboration. Legislation should not be needed for Departments to do that, and I have given examples of where we did not need it to work together, but it can be a useful tool to underpin some of the services that the public expect us to provide.
178 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: 0.02 (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 (0.84).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.84 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:55 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.