Debate contribution: AccessNI: Non-teaching Staff
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 March 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- AccessNI: Non-teaching Staff
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4841181
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I do not have the precise figures for the Member right now, but I will get them. I know that they were released in a question for written answer to her colleague Michelle Guy.
There has been a significant decrease in the number of individuals who have not had their safeguarding paperwork carried out.
The Member can be assured that, when the issue was brought to my attention, I was aghast. I made it clear that the situation was in no way satisfactory or defensible. I immediately engaged with the Education Authority on what steps it was taking to ensure that the appropriate paperwork was being carried out. However, individuals should not have commenced their employment without it. I have raised the issue of their employment status. If they have not completed the paperwork, why are they continuing to be employed by the school? Work is taking place to address the issue. I want to get to the point where those numbers at not at the high level that they are at now. I have made it explicitly clear that we need to get to grips with the issue, because we can never compromise when it comes to child safety.
200 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 (0.88).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.88 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.74 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.25 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:03 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.