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 4498510
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. I am not aware of any examples of where we have not. We will publish the report, and I would welcome feedback from the PAC, which carries out important work in looking across the Executive to identify where things can be improved. However, I repeat the earlier point: we should not require legislation to force Departments to work together. The Executive have been showing that, where we can work together, we are able to do so successfully. Can things be improved? Yes, they can. Just this morning, I met Caleb's mother, Alma White. We talked about the campaign to do with Caleb, and I know that Conor Murphy, the Economy Minister, spoke about that yesterday. The Economy Minister, the Health Minister and I need to work in collaboration on how we can meet the needs of post-19 provision. That sits across different Departments, and we should not need legislation to make us work together. As I gave a commitment in that meeting that I would work collaboratively with ministerial colleagues, I will do so, because we need to make sure that we act together. Legislation should not be required to force Ministers to do that, and I am glad that we in the Executive are able to get on with the job and try to do our best for people.
221 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 (0.79).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.66 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.30 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.