Debate contribution: Civil Service: Temporary Promotions
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 3 December 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Civil Service: Temporary Promotions
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4691022
Read the official Assembly record
Text
With the Speaker's permission, I will answer questions 5 and 10 together. The career opportunities and promotion policy sets out the arrangements for temporary promotions in the Civil Service, including the circumstances in which they may be considered, eligibility requirements and the selection processes. Temporary promotions are designed primarily to meet business needs and can be required for several different reasons, such as covering sick absence or maternity leave; for special exercises that are time-bound projects; and to temporarily fill substantive posts that are vacant for reasons such as resignation and promotion. Based on information from our HR services provider, over the past 10 years, the average duration of temporary promotion was 317 calendar days. Some staff may have been temporarily promoted more than once during that time period. As of the end of October 2024, the majority of temporary promotions, which is 76%, in the Civil Service were due to vacant posts and/or resulting backfill. The Civil Service continues to work to reduce the number of temporary promotions by filling vacancies, where possible, on a permanent basis through external recruitment competitions. Budget pressures have resulted in recruitment activity for the Civil Service being curtailed, which has impacted on the use of temporary promotions.
204 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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.55 | No |
| 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 | 0.90 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.04 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:42 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.