Debate contribution: Transforming Capital Investment: Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- Transforming Capital Investment: Supporting Children with Special Educational Needs
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487027
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is correct that there have been occasions when a special school is what is best but there has been a lack of capacity. When I was in Knockevin Special School, the principal indicated that there were children whom they had wanted to take, because that was the right thing to do, but were unable to take because of the lack of capacity. A SPiMS unit has had to be provided there, with the additional support required for that. Creating a much enhanced school estate will help with wider parental choice, but, ultimately, this is about what is in the best interests of the child and trying to make sure that we get the right place for the right person in the right school. That is what we are trying to achieve. My announcement today puts us on a pathway to creating the school estate that will ensure that that is the case.
It may be more appropriate for schools for which minor works have been planned to move into the school enhancement programme. The programme that has been set up today allows that flexibility to take place. Rather than having a capital call go out to the entire education estate and have special schools competing alongside every other type of school, we have created a stand-alone and discrete special educational capital programme. That is why I have been able to announce the new schools and why we are looking at how to prioritise the enhancement programme for special schools. It is a new programme that we have created, recognising the critical need to do that. In the Member's constituency and every other constituency, where there is a need in a special school, we want to assess that need and make sure that we put in place the right support to take forward a capital programme that will meet that need.
I thank the Member for his question. It was one of those visits — being able to be in the school — that very much stand out as a highlight for me. It was a pleasure for me to be there. I know that you have advocated for the school over the years. I assure the House that Diane Forsythe has advocated for the school as well. I know that a cross-party approach has been taken in the constituency to do that. I have been heavily lobbied by my colleague for the school. The announcement that there will be a new build will allow support to be put in place to set up the design teams to take the school through the various stages. I know that, in the conversation that we had with the principal, a number of options were discussed around potential locations and time frames, and all of that can now be taken forward. We have created a gateway for Knockevin to progress. When we met the principal, I outlined that, at that stage, there was no process for Knockevin to enter into. Had we gone through a conventional process, the school would have been competing against many other schools. In this way, through a new special educational capital programme, we have a new gateway for special schools. That is why I have been able to announce the go-ahead for Knockevin Special School.
The Member highlighted Ardnashee, and I can see from the enrolment figures that the school that has been built has well in excess of 100 children who cannot be accommodated in a new school. That is why we have announced a dual campus at Ardnashee, and work can now commence on the design process. The Member mentioned support for schools that have specialist provision, and she is right to raise that issue. We need to ensure that schools have confidence in that provision. In my statement, I highlighted funding of £4 million for equipment and provisions for schools. As part of that funding envelope, £20,000 will be given to every school that agrees to take a SPiM class to go towards capital equipment and measures such as that. I am trying to make sure not only that we ask schools to take and facilitate a SPiM class but that we provide some resource so that they are able to use it effectively. Every school that does that will receive £20,000 for their capital equipment.
722 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 (0.86).
- 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 | 0.86 | 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 | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:02 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.