Debate contribution: Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on .
- MLA
- Ms Sian Mulholland
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4564151
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposer of the motion. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the matter. For me, it is unsurprising that, when we talk about mental health, we also have to talk about poverty. It plays a significant role in exacerbating the mental health challenges that we have discussed today. Around one in four children in Northern Ireland live in poverty, and those children are far more likely to experience anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. A recent survey found that children from low-income families are nearly twice as likely to suffer from those conditions than their more affluent peers, yet many families in those situations find mental health services completely inaccessible, perhaps because of physical transportation barriers. Another key point is the lack of ability to pay for further services once the initial health service provision period has ended. Unfortunately, that usually coincides with the young patient only starting to get to the crux of the issues that they face. We need to address the root causes of poverty, and that falls to other Departments. I believe that it was the Member for West Belfast, Ms Flynn, who mentioned in the earlier debate that different Departments all had a part to play, not just a single Department. I want to focus on something that I have been really passionate about raising since I became an MLA, which is the Children's Services Co-operation Act. It really has the power to enable public authorities to share resources, pool funds and collaborate across their silos, but, thus far, we have failed to leverage the legislative framework to its fullest potential. It is nearly a decade since the Act was passed, and our services have remained fragmented, with many Departments not taking full advantage of the Act's provisions. The recent Department of Education report on the Act was delayed by two years because of governmental disjointedness and there not being a Government here. That underscores the consequences of the failure. While there are occasional instances of great cooperation, like the Thrive project, which is coordinated by Barnardo's, they are far too rare. The reality is that Departments are not adequately aligning their resources or efforts. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and the Children's Law Centre have repeatedly voiced their concerns about a lack of meaningful progress in implementing the CSCA. We need a rights-based approach with the full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into all areas of domestic law. That is something that Alliance has called for on multiple occasions. With those standards in place, young people will be more than just subjects; they will become co-designers of their communities and their services. Never has the phrase "Nothing about us without us" been more pertinent than when we discuss services for young people. The time for action is now, and I agree with the call on the Finance Minister to introduce the necessary regulations under the CSCA.
498 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 (0.96).
- 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 | 0.03 | 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 | 0.96 | 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 | 0.52 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.30 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
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.