Debate contribution: Childcare Scheme
Debate contribution by Mr Mark Durkan on .
- MLA
- Mr Mark Durkan
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Childcare Scheme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4544196
Read the official Assembly record
Text
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is about Executive Office Question Time. Is it in order for a Minister to wash their hands of or to try to remove their Department's fingerprints from a project that would not or could not have proceeded without that Department's support? It is bizarre that the First Minister told us earlier that the Peacemakers Museum had nothing to do with the Executive Office given that the former permanent secretary of that Department had previously conceded that TEO:
"did not carry out due diligence in relation to ensuring that the Hume family's views had been properly communicated"
to TEO and even said that TEO officials would welcome the opportunity to apologise for and address that with the Hume family. It appears that the First Minister has no issue with the rewriting of history.
140 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: 0.24 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- Subject area: Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism.
- 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 | 0.07 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.24 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.52 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.30 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.24 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.04 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.02 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.90 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.06 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.03 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 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.