Debate contribution: Education Infrastructure: Sustainable Investment
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Education Infrastructure: Sustainable Investment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4217725
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member — my friend — for his best wishes in taking on the role. I will certainly avail myself of his expertise in special needs in particular, and I look forward to working with him. The Member rightly raises the issue of ensuring that the right infrastructure is in place to allow our teachers and support staff the right environment in which to be able to deliver their work. That hit close to home when I visited Glenwood Primary School on the Shankill Road last week. I was appalled at the conditions in which members of the teaching profession and classroom assistants there are having to deliver education. The conditions in which they have to operate are beyond those in the Third World, yet they are delivering excellent education. They need much more support, however. Particularly for communities that come from such disadvantage, there has to be a real focus on supporting them to be able to deliver. The Member asked me about the pay and conditions issue. I have already spoken publicly about the need to resolve that. I can confirm that I will be meeting the trade union representatives tomorrow morning in Lisburn.
I thank the Member for his kind remarks. I am more than happy to engage with him on constituency matters. I will write to the Member about the school that he highlighted. There are schools on the list to be delivered. I referred to Glenwood on the Shankill as being one of them. Subject to finance being made available, it is at a point at which we could commence construction on-site within the next financial year. The seven schools that I have identified are at a much earlier stage in the process. That allows them to move into the stream of work. A number of years down the road, and, again, subject to finance, they will be at the point of being able to move on-site. There are other schools, should the Executive provide me with the finance that is needed, on which work can be commenced within the next financial year. I do not know the details of the school that the Member mentioned, but I will provide him with a written update.
I thank the Member for her best wishes. I am sure that we will continue to be friends as she holds my feet to the fire. We will continue to have not just a professional relationship but that friendship, and I wish her well in her role. She rightly raises the issue of Dromore Central Primary School, which is a derelict site. I have asked for an update on all the derelict facilities across the education estate. Dromore is one example, but there are others, not just in Lagan Valley but in every Member's constituency, that one could point to as having facilities that are derelict and no longer in use. What purpose are they therefore serving?
That may no longer be in the education sphere, but, for Dromore Central Primary School, the Member highlighted what the Education Authority's (EA) view is on special needs provision. When it comes to how to meet the needs around special educational needs in the future, I will want to look at whether there is a role that we can advance in respect of Dromore.
I thank the Member for his best wishes and his question. Obviously, when it comes to taking forward projects and entering that construction phase, it is all on the basis of need. That is ultimately the criterion that we will use to advance projects. The Glenwood project was announced in 2012, I think, maybe by someone opposite who was Minister at the time. I walked around the school, and I saw single pane windows, condensation on every window, mouldy walls and crumbling plaster; indeed, I saw plaster that had been put over plaster and was falling down. I saw evidence of all that. Water was leaking through the roof into two buckets in a corridor. It is wholly inadequate and grossly unfair for the children of that community and the teaching profession to have to operate in that environment. The need for a new build was recognised over 10 years ago, and yet we have still not been able to enter the construction phase. Subject to finance being made available, we are at the point in that scheme at which it could be taken forward in the next financial year. The challenge for me — this is why I am making the statement — is to outline the Department of Education's significant capital requirements. I can take forward schemes, such as the one in Glenwood and other schools that Members raised, only if I receive suitable resources to do so. I am up for doing that. I say this to my colleagues in the Chamber and in the Executive: give me the problem of being able to deal with hundreds of millions of pounds in addition to what we have been able to handle before, and I will deal with that challenge, but do not give me an allocation that fails to recognise the need that exists in the education estate. That will be a dereliction of our responsibility to the next generation. They are the future, and I am committed to delivering for them.
I thank the Member for her best wishes and her question. I have already been discussing in my Department the issue of how to support people who need that additional support. I have been asking questions about how we can do that and about the best way that we can do that to make sure that it is effective. A report will be provided to me on that issue and how we can take it forward, as well as recognising the financial constraints in the Executive around how we can do that. The Member is right to raise that issue. I am already considering it, and I have commissioned reports that will be provided to me in respect of that matter.
1,009 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- 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-qualifying 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.91 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-qualifying 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 | 0.84 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.05 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:35 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.