Debate contribution: Children’s Social Care Services

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on .

MLA
Mr Robbie Butler
Party at the time
Ulster Unionist Party
Date
8 October 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Committee Business
Heading
Children’s Social Care Services
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4581606

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I fully support the motion with, like the Member who just spoke, a particular emphasis on the value of prevention, early intervention and ongoing support for our children and young people. The motion should be more than just words: it should be about demonstrating in our words and, more importantly, our actions, that their lives matter. Regardless of the start that they have had in life and regardless of their circumstances and of how bereft of hope they have been made to feel, we are here to say that we care. However, it is not just about caring. We must care enough to act on the far-reaching recommendations set out in Professor Ray Jones's review of children's services. Let us make no bones about it: those circumstances existed more than 16 months ago; they existed more than 32 months ago; and they extended before my time in the Assembly. As an Assembly, we stand at a great moment of scrutiny in our attitude to children and young people. However, I refer to when we walk off the pitch in political protest at failures, whether they are perceived or real. When we do that, we abandon the first and most crucial pillar of reform, transformation and change that a Minister can affect. I will continue to remind those in the House who still justify their three- and two-year absences that those five years of lost time will be measured in five years of lost progress and five years of lost transformative opportunities to bring and manifest changes in the life of those young people. Please, when you speak about change and transformation, review what we have done and not done in the House. I will not get tired of reminding people in here of that, because those children, over that period, did not have advocacy in the House. It is time that we shook ourselves up and wobbled our heads. It is imperative that we stay committed to the work, as our absence removes the possibility of the very progress that we claim to seek. The Reimagine Children's Collective has been a shining example of collaborative advocacy for some of the most marginalised children in our society. Its work shows us the power of standing together to push for meaningful change. Let us not forget the grim reality that we face: rising rates of child poverty; record numbers of children in care; a shortage of foster carers, which has been talked about; and the multiplicity of challenges faced by prospective adopters. Those children are not just statistics; they are lives in need of urgent care and compassion, as were the children who did not have advocacy here when we were not here for five years. I pay tribute to those working in social services, who face overwhelming bureaucratic challenges, increasingly complex workforce issues and the difficult task of helping families to navigate complexities that are never easily untangled. I am sure that Members come across those examples. I pay tribute to the health professionals working in paediatric care, both physical and mental, and to those in the community and voluntary sector, in particular, to whom we owe our utmost gratitude. Their essential, life-breathing support is nothing short of amazing. The recommendations in Professor Ray Jones's review are not just guidelines; they are a blueprint for the transformation that we desperately need. When we look at the rising rates of child poverty and the record numbers of children in care, we see that we really are failing too many of our young people. Each of those children deserves the opportunity to thrive, and the growing complexities of their needs cannot be ignored. The key theme from Reimagine Children's Collective, which has tirelessly advocated for some of our most marginalised children, reminds us that progress is possible but only through collaboration. The collective has shown that we can bring about real change and that we can and do need to work together. That is something that, as an Assembly, we strive to do. In particular, the Minister of Health will need that intervention and help from the Minister of Education, the Minister of Justice, in particular, and the Minister for Communities. We all need to face in the same direction to deliver transformative change. I will go back to it: to those who have previously felt compelled to walk off the political pitch in protest I say this: "When you do so, you remove a vital pillar of reform, a vital pillar of transformation, and you remove hope. If you ever feel compelled to do it again, remember that". If we abandon our responsibility, we leave behind the very children who need us most. The motion calls for immediate, sustained action and demands collaboration across sectors. We must work together to ensure that the recommendations of the review are not just implemented but properly funded and resourced. Children and families across Northern Ireland depend on us to deliver. Let us not fail them again.

831 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.05 (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 (0.86).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.03No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.01No
Dog-whistle messaging0.04No
Controversy escalation0.09No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.86Yes
Overall judgement0.05At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.73
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.15
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.08
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.02
Another identity-related subject0.02

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.

Challenge this classification