Debate contribution: SEN Provision
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 29 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- SEN Provision
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5139276
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Obviously, there will be support throughout the process. The Member will know the various ways in which you can be referred into that. It can be through parental referral, through the school or through educational psychologists or paediatricians. They can all make referrals, and an assessment process can then take place. Having engaged with a lot of principals on that area, I know that they feel that it would be better for them to have resources in the school so that they can have some autonomy in how best the needs can be met. The various needs present in different ways; the presentation can be in speech, communication or behaviour. Schools say to me that, if they were able to have a resource, they could utilise support in a way that would be more effective for the whole school population, not just those young people who have a statement. There are thousands of children who have additional needs but do not have a statement. We need to empower schools with a degree of autonomy, accompanied by resource, in how best that support can be deployed. That could involve employing a full-time teacher so that there are smaller class settings. It could be through a youth worker. I have been in schools that have employed youth workers. I have been in schools that employ counsellors. We need to find a better framework for our schools to operate in and in a way that will be more beneficial for our children and young people in achieving better outcomes.
256 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 (0.93).
- 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 | 0.93 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:18 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.