Debate contribution: Pay and Grading Review: Non-teaching Staff
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
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Pay and Grading Review: Non-teaching Staff
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4487235
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to keep the Member and the House updated. I agree that we need to take forward the pay and grading review so that we have the appropriate workforce in place. This is slightly different from the pay disputes that were taking place in the Civil Service and in the teaching profession — they had not had a pay award. Support staff are part of a national joint negotiating position. Last year, on average, there was an 8% pay rise. This year, within my budget, a pay rise for those workers will be delivered, because it is contractually required. The issue is that their starting point is much lower, and, as the private sector has become much more attractive, we are not able to recruit and retain. The pay and grading review is not the same as a dispute over a pay settlement. However, I have put forward the business case because I believe that it needs to be addressed. The Finance Minister and her Department have agreed. We now need to get a resolution. Obviously, the Treasury is involved because, if we are to repurpose the limited resources that are available to an Executive that will have limited resources in the next financial year, there needs to be a justification for that. Treasury will be part of the process, but the Executive have agreed a willingness to get a resolution. Obviously, there will be engagement with the unions and all the relevant actors.
246 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 (0.87).
- 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
| 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 | 0.87 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 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.