Debate contribution: Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5465450
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I agree with the comments that the Member has just made. I assure him that, following the introduction of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act, the Department supported the establishment of an implementation team in the Education Authority in September 2022. That team was created and provides practical support to schools, educational settings, young people and parents, helping them to understand and meet the requirements of the Act and to embed cultures that eradicate bullying-type behaviour in schools. We ought to do all that we can to address bullying. The Member highlighted the evolving nature of some of that bullying, particularly given the greater accessibility to smartphone devices and what can occur by way of messaging, WhatsApp groups, TikTok and so on. That is why I changed the policy in the Department to have a prohibition on smartphones in our schools. That is why I approved the smartphones pilot in nine of our schools; a pilot that the Alliance Party called a waste of money. Tell that to the children in those schools who have benefited. When I visited, they told me that it has made a positive impact in reducing the bullying behaviour that had been taking place. Tell them that it is a waste of money. Shame on the Alliance Party for scoring points on an issue related to those types of behaviours in our schools. Instead of doing that, I encourage Members to get behind the policy, and we should seek much greater effectiveness of it in our schools. That will go a long way to minimising that form of bullying, which often takes place.
268 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: 0.07 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.68 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.29 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:07 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.