Debate contribution: Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on .
- MLA
- Mr Justin McNulty
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4564120
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
At the outset, it is important to establish a critical fact: the North of Ireland is in the grip of a mental health crisis. Mental illness is indiscriminate, and it is influenced by so many factors, from access to housing and high levels of poverty and inequality to logjams in our education system, the trauma of our history and the challenges of our environment. People from every walk of life are struggling on so many fronts, and, sadly, that includes children and young people. The immense challenges of dealing with our mental health crisis are well documented. The cross-cutting and indiscriminate nature of mental ill health is well known. What we need in response to that crisis is a collaborative and joined-up focus on health and well-being, rather than siloed solutions that tackle the symptoms but ignore the cause. In tackling the cause, nothing is more pressing than supporting the well-being of our children and young people in their formative years. So many Departments have a key role to play in upholding the mental health of our children and young people, most obviously Health and Education, which are on the front line of the issue, but it is equally important that the Communities, Infrastructure, Finance, Economy and Justice Departments engage in finding solutions to the underlying problems that contribute to mental ill health among our young people. Tragically, meaningful action on improving the mental well-being of our young people is being blocked by a dysfunctional Executive who would rather engage in sham fights and petty posturing than work together to address shared problems. We have the tools to support a collaborative approach to the delivery of children's services, having previously passed ambitious legislation that created a duty to cooperate in the delivery of children's services. Rather than that legislation being used to its full potential, there has been little more than lip service and lacklustre implementation. It is true that Departments are impeded by financial constraints, but that does not explain why we are not using existing powers to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of services and improve outcomes. The Programme for Government states:
"We know that fiscal and service sustainability will require brave decisions, collaborative working, and a relentless focus on innovation and efficiency in service delivery. This can only be achieved through partnership working, and a willingness to accept change, challenge the status quo, and make long-term strategic decisions."
We do not see much evidence of bravery, collaboration or focus on innovation and efficiency. Frighteningly, there is no mention of children's mental health in the Programme for Government. I will say that again: there is no mention of children and young people's mental health in the Programme for Government. Stakeholders working on the front line say that cooperation in the delivery of services for children remains the exception rather than the rule and that there is a minimal and piecemeal approach to the pooling of resources. The SDLP's motion simply asks the Minister of Finance to use the powers of the Children's Services Co-operation Act (CSCA) to set up the appropriate mechanisms to make cooperation and collaboration across Departments easier and more effective in delivering effective action on children's mental health. We are asking for public money to be used more effectively in the pursuit of better outcomes. That simple step could make a significant contribution to improving the delivery of special educational needs provision, supporting a government-wide approach to eliminating child poverty and creating a better functioning children's social care system. I fully anticipate financial constraints being invoked as a reason for the Executive's shortcoming. We all know that we need more money — that is no secret — but it is equally true that we already have powers at our disposal to tackle the issues head-on. We must use those powers to make things work for the better here and now. Nothing could be more important than safeguarding our children and young people, and the Executive must act accordingly. Financial constraints are not an excuse, and failure can no longer be the default outcome for the Executive. Children and young people deserve better. Children and young people need the Executive parties in the Government to do better.
705 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: 0.07 (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 (0.94).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | 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 | 0.79 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.10 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.06 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:12 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.