Debate contribution: Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Children’s Mental Health: Cross-departmental Cooperation
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4564163
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic. The mental health and well-being of children and young people should be a priority for us all. As has been reflected, it is an issue that we all deal with in our constituency offices on too regular a basis. Statistics show that the rates of anxiety and depression in the child and youth population are higher here than in England, Scotland or Wales — a trend similar to that seen in the adult population. That highlights the scale of the challenge. The establishment of a mental health champion in Professor Siobhán O'Neill demonstrates the clear commitment across the Executive to joint working to improve the mental health and well-being of all our citizens. The aim of the office of the mental health champion is to advise and assist in the promotion of mental health and well-being through all policies and services here. The Children's Services Co-operation Act aims to improve cooperation among Departments and agencies. It places a duty on children's authorities to cooperate where appropriate and pool resources should they choose, as they deliver services aimed at improving the well-being of children and young people.
The Act enables my Department to make regulations about procedures to be followed when sharing resources or pooling funds. Cooperation between Departments already takes place, and existing mechanisms allow for the pooling of funding and sharing of resources. There is guidance available from a number of sources about how the pooling and sharing of resources can be actioned. For example, Departments can submit joint bids for funding from the Budget or during in-year monitoring rounds. The recent call for bids to the transformation fund also encouraged joint bids across Departments. One good and recent example of how cooperation has been taken forward and implemented in that area is the work done at pace to develop proposals on interim support measures for early learning and childcare. The Executive agreed to earmark £25 million for that in 2024-25, and that funding was held centrally until measures were brought forward. Those measures were developed with the support of a cross-departmental task and finish group. That ensured that proposals captured work across relevant Departments and avoided duplication of existing support measures. Although the Department of Education is the lead Department on the work stream, it is coordinating implementation of the measures and transferring funding, as appropriate, to other delivery organisations. Technical transfers are also possible between Departments to facilitate the pooling of resources. There is therefore guidance available, and there is the means to cooperate across Departments. The process for setting the 2025-26 Budget is under way, and I will encourage Departments to look for opportunities to work together and to propose joint working. Ministers can, of course, work together to deliver effectively on a cross-departmental basis, and that must be encouraged. I am keen to do everything possible to encourage collaboration across the public sector and beyond. I appreciate that the pooling and sharing of resources across Departments, where appropriate, can support more efficient and effective service delivery, and we all aspire to that. Earlier this month, I hosted a round-table event with representatives of the children's sector and organisations with a more general interest in the Executive's actions for children and young people. A number of those present highlighted the 2015 Act and called for more collaboration between Departments. I will continue to engage with representatives from the sector in order to understand the issues and requirements. It is my view that the pooling and sharing of resources is best addressed on a case-by-case basis, as that approach ensures maximum flexibility to deliver services in the most efficient and effective way rather than constraining the options available to Departments or to the Executive as a whole. There will be some concerns that putting regulations in place could have adverse impacts by limiting the cooperation that can take place rather than by allowing initiatives to develop organically. I genuinely believe that there is a desire amongst Ministers to work together to deliver for people, not just because of our limited resources but, more importantly, because it will deliver better outcomes. I, however, am always happy to look at the need for further guidance if it can be shown to be making a meaningful difference. My Department is represented on the children and young people's strategy monitoring and reporting board, and that is a useful forum for discussing the issues.
749 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 (0.91).
- 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 | 0.02 | 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 | 0.91 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.62 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.28 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.08 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| 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.