Debate contribution: TEO: Policy Development
Debate contribution by Ms Michelle O'Neill on .
- MLA
- Ms Michelle O'Neill
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- TEO: Policy Development
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4698286
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Executive Office is committed to effective consultation and engagement with everyone across society, including children and young people. Officials use a variety of consultation methods and documents that can be made available in a range of formats to ensure that they are accessible. Recently, the Department took additional steps to engage with children and young people in its consultation on the ending of violence against women and girls strategy and its review of the Race Relations Order 1997. Our officials follow the guidance in the Department's equality scheme and advice from the Equality Commission when preparing any policy consultation and equality assessment. Where policies are likely to have a particular impact on children and young people, officials also consider whether a child rights impact assessment is appropriate. That assessment, endorsed by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, aims to embed children's rights considerations at the very beginning of developing legislation, strategies and policies. Child rights impact assessments were recently undertaken on the 2024-25 Budget, the Programme for Government and, as I said, the ending violence against women and girls strategy. We will continue to use them as an appropriate consultation process where policies are likely to have a particular impact on children and young people, alongside our commitment to deliver and embed our section 75 duties.
220 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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- Subject area: Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups.
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.04 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.74 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.14 |
| Immigration, asylum, race, ethnicity and Travellers | 0.11 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:41 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.