Paul Givan
Lagan Valley · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“The EA's enhanced support model has been out for consultation. The Member's party is the largest political grouping on the Education Authority, so his party supported the model's being consulted on.”
“Protections around strike action and action short of strike are firmly established in statute for all workers, including teachers. If the Member is referring to the Education Inspections Bill, let me be clear: nothing in that legislation removes or undermines that right.”
“The issue was covered at length at the Education Committee. The position is still not where it ought to be. When I came into office, the position that I inherited was much worse than it is today.”
“It is an area that I have had to navigate, as have many previous Education Ministers. Industrial relations is an area that needs ongoing work. I have outlined how we can address it, but I come back to saying that, when workload was undefined, trade unions struggled to specify the challenge.”
“That is not a fair characterisation. In fact, I was with Justin McCamphill, the leader of NASUWT, at the launch of the curriculum reform, at which he commended me for it and said that he thought that it was good. I have sat in many a meeting with trade union representatives during which they have said, "This is a good initiative.”
“That is exactly why there is a 16-week consultation period, rather than the normal 12 weeks or the minimum eight weeks; to allow the public and teaching profession to very much engage in that curriculum, which I commend to all Members.”
The complete record
Every one of 6,258 lines we hold for Paul Givan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 126.
“Once the Bill goes through its due consideration processes, how the Assembly wishes to vote on it is entirely a matter for it. We should never compromise on children's safety. I listened carefully to the Minister of Health this morning in response to what has happened in Muckamore. He said:”
“If only the Member asked me questions in the same way in which she asked the First Minister questions earlier. She was so pleasant and nice during that Question Time, but, when it comes to me, she is like a different Member.”
“We have been able to resolve outstanding disputes on pay. There are ongoing issues around workload. We had a panel that made 27 recommendations. I will continue to make progress in delivering on those. <BR /> <BR />I say this to Mr O'Toole: get out and engage with the principals in your constituency who have attended many of those events and are very encouraged and excited about the excellent work that is happening to transform our education system. It is long overdue.”
“That is not a fair characterisation. In fact, I was with Justin McCamphill, the leader of NASUWT, at the launch of the curriculum reform, at which he commended me for it and said that he thought that it was good. I have sat in many a meeting with trade union representatives during which they have said, "This is a good initiative. This is something that we support". There will be further announcements over the next number of weeks through which I will respond to trade union representations to me. There is a very good relationship in that regard. In fact, I have delivered the biggest increases of any Education Minister for our teachers and classroom assistants during my time in office. I have put up the pay for new teachers from £23,000 to £32,000. I have put up teachers' pay by double figures in percentage increases.”
“The Bill closes a critical gap in our legislation and removes any ambiguity by making clear the absolute necessity of cooperation.”
“Protections around strike action and action short of strike are firmly established in statute for all workers, including teachers. If the Member is referring to the Education Inspections Bill, let me be clear: nothing in that legislation removes or undermines that right. However, there must be a clear distinction between legitimate industrial action and the obstruction of a statutory independent process that is designed to safeguard vulnerable children and uphold their right to a good education. The Bill simply ensures that school inspections can proceed during periods of industrial action by requiring cooperation with that essential process. In no other jurisdiction across the United Kingdom or Ireland is it acceptable for inspections to be obstructed as part of industrial action. It is neither reasonable nor defensible.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have addressed those points. I sought to facilitate as many Members as I possibly could, including the Minister of Justice. If I prolonged my contribution to the dissatisfaction of the Member for South Belfast, I can only apologise for the Minister's interventions and my indulgence of them. I have made the points about our position. I accept that the position of some is sincere, but it is sincerely wrong. For others, there is no sincerity in their position on changing the age of criminal responsibility. Our party will continue to hold that line, not just in this mandate but in future mandates.”
“Listen, it was a reform that we agreed with. It may not have been our starting point either. We had to compromise, and we restored the institutions on the basis of New Decade, New Approach. Under that, we know the rules: two or more parties have to sign it, not just one; it cannot be used to block legislation at Second Stage; when it is used, there are certain conditions, such as a 14-day window —.”
“Its application in the context of these amendments is in line with New Decade, New Approach. So, we did support the reform of the petition of concern.”
“We are not going to make progress by seeking to exclude people, particularly those on these Benches from the unionist community.”
“<BR /> <BR />We put down that petition of concern. I appreciate that others disagree, but, in our view, that was the right thing to do. If people are now saying, "Never more can we ever seek cross-community votes in the Assembly", let them bring forward legislation where the default for passing the Budget, for example, which affects all our citizens equally, is an automatic cross-community vote and not one triggered by a petition of concern. However, that is not the basis of the Belfast Agreement. It is about consensus politics. <BR /> <BR />When others were not in the ascendancy and did not have a majority, all those safeguards were core tenets of the Belfast Agreement that were never to be given up. However, when the shoe is on the other foot, they feel that all those safeguards ought to be disbanded.”
“That response was more indicative of an attitude of how people want to have majority rule and not seek the consensus that the Belfast Agreement sought to create within the Executive and Assembly. We ought to strive towards getting consensus on a cross-community basis. It may not always be possible for us to achieve that. We have the mandatory coalition, which is difficult to navigate, and we have an Assembly with many political opinions, but we should seek to get consensus. At times, I have had to water down my ambition in legislation in an attempt to get consensus. I have had to do it: I have had to compromise. Those who know me know that I do not like to compromise, but there are times when we have to do it. There have been times when I have had to do it at the insistence of the Alliance Party and others.”
“It says that, as a safeguard, a cross-community vote can be applied to "key decisions" through a petition of concern. That is the test, when it comes to applying the petition of concern. <BR /> <BR />My party put the petition of concern in the Business Office well over a week ago. It was out there, publicly, and we said that that was what we were doing. We appealed to other Members to join us. The TUV joined us — I appreciated that. We continued to call for others to join us. That was well known and, largely, unremarked upon by anybody else in the Chamber, in the hope that there would not be sufficient signatures. Then Mr Chambers and others joined us, and we got the 30 signatures. That is when we got the response that we heard last night.”
“<BR /> <BR />My party will take, first and foremost, a victim-centred approach to this. That will be the default position. When an incident happens, what are the rights of the victim? That takes precedence over any rights of the perpetrator. That is why, in extremis, we want to retain the age at 10. That is why we did not have support for this at the Executive. Our Ministers were able to use our position. We were not going to support it. That is why we sought to use whatever mechanism was available to us to protect against the change to the law. <BR /> <BR />Strand one of the Belfast Agreement refers to safeguards. The paragraph on safeguards talks about the petition of concern. It does not prescribe the circumstances in which the petition of concern is constrained.”
“Let me respond to my colleague. <BR /> <BR />He is right to highlight the issue about the framework. Even if the framework were to be developed, broader society and certainly our schools would need to be confident that it was robust, that it could be effective and that it would be a replacement that was a credible alternative before the Youth Justice Agency or the PSNI would be withdrawn from getting involved in serious incidents, which, regrettably, do take place in our schools. It is one thing to have a framework, but it is another thing for the sector to have confidence that it represents a better approach. The framework would need to be tested long before we would think about removing what I have called the backstop for dealing with serious offences that occur.”
“Mr Frew can speak for himself. I am not so sure that the implication that Mr Frew, by way of his amendments, was trying to be helpful is accurate. He tabled amendments to amendments, and they were designed to try to prevent any change to the minimum age.”
“Our priorities should be to strengthen prevention, invest in early intervention, enhance safeguarding and ensure that schools are fully supported to manage complex and serious behaviour. <BR /> <BR />I therefore urge the Assembly to reflect carefully on the process by which the issue is being considered. In my view, making those changes through amendments to the Justice Bill is not the right way in which to make them. Given the significance and complexity of their potential impacts, it is essential that any such proposals be subject to a fuller and proper level of scrutiny rather than be dealt with through amendments. Later, I will —.”
“I fully accept that many young people who display harmful behaviour require support, not punishment alone. Support and accountability are not mutually exclusive, however. They are most effective when delivered together in a clear and structured system, so early intervention must go hand in hand with mechanisms to ensure accountability, risk management and victim protection. Before any change to the minimum age is even contemplated, there must be confidence that the alternative arrangements to be put in place are legally robust, properly resourced and capable of responding effectively to serious incidents that affect pupils, school staff and the wider community. Those include access to mental health services, specialist behavioural support and strengthened safeguarding systems.”
“It risks shifting responsibility without providing the necessary tools and placing additional pressure on an already stretched education system. We also need to be alert to the risk of inconsistency. Those organisations bring their expertise and apply it in a uniform fashion. In the absence of that, without a clear, shared framework, there could be inconsistency of practice in how we deal with challenging behaviour in school settings. <BR /> <BR />It is not just about whether a child can be held criminally responsible. The focus must be on ensuring that harmful behaviour is identified early, that effective interventions are in place, that victims receive appropriate support and that schools have confidence in accessing the multi-agency assistance that they need.”
“Of course, the younger you go, the fewer incidents there are. The numbers are relatively low, but that is not a reason to change the law on the age of criminal responsibility. Each year, around 50 children up to the age of 12 are identified in our schools by way of intervention. That number rises to 700 children per annum up to the age of 14. Obviously, the numbers for eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds are significantly lower. Given how small those numbers are, I would not want to remove the access to youth justice services or the PSNI in supporting resolutions to such issues. <BR /> <BR />If we do not have robust alternative arrangements, raising the age would risk creating uncertainty for schools, families and victims about how serious incidents would be managed.”
“Engagement with the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency is not simply about accountability; it provides structured intervention, risk assessment, support for victims and a means of reducing reoffending. Schools also benefit from wider safeguarding and youth justice partnerships that assist in managing risk and addressing harmful behaviour in a coordinated way. Any proposal to raise the age of criminal responsibility must therefore demonstrate clearly how those important functions would continue to be delivered and must show how victims would be protected, how harmful behaviour would be addressed effectively and how schools would be supported to maintain safe environments.”
“I will continue making progress. If I were to give way to the Member, she would continue to embarrass herself. I will save her from that behaviour. I do not want the Member to be a repeat offender when it comes to what she has contributed to the debate. <BR /> <BR />There are also important considerations around safety and confidence. If serious behaviour were not seen to be met with appropriate consequence and intervention, that could erode trust. Victims may feel unsupported; staff may feel exposed; and parents may question whether their children are safe. Those perceptions matter. They impact on attendance, well-being and educational outcomes. <BR /> <BR />I accept that the current system is not perfect, but it enables schools to draw on vital multi-agency support.”
“While suspension or expulsion are sometimes necessary, they do not address the root causes of behaviour, and nor do they reliably prevent recurrence. Indeed, increased reliance on exclusion risks displacing the problem, placing vulnerable young people outside the protective structure of school and increasing the likelihood of further harm in the community.”
“Without access to the existing framework of policing and youth justice, schools may be left to manage serious incidents internally. Unfortunately, that includes assaults, threats and other harmful behaviour, which would place a considerable burden on teachers and school leaders who are neither trained nor resourced to operate as a substitute for the justice system. <BR /> <BR />I caution Members: it is not for us here in the comfort of the Assembly Chamber to hand down what many regard as idealistic policies that would result in the consequences of the amendments that are proposed. Teachers and other children and their rights are most important to me. The amendments would also limit the range of responses available.”
“I have made the point about the prematurity of legislating without having alternatives in place. The Minister has made her point about not making unnecessary preparation for something that may not materialise. I understand that. However, if we were to take the provision forward, it would have been better to do so through primary legislation, albeit the Minister would not have been able to do that because, as she rightly said, we did not support it at the Executive. An amendment on something as significant as this is not the way to do it. Removing too early the backstop of a minimum age of 10 risks sending an unintended signal that there are limited consequences for serious wrongdoing. In practical terms, it has a direct implication for what happens in our schools.”
“My officials engaged with the Minister's Department while the amendments were being tabled, and they did so to identify what the alternative would be. The point was relayed to my officials that they would work on some of the frameworks. That will not change my position. The Alliance Party is right that the DUP's position on the matter is clear. We have adopted that position in the Executive and will adopt it in the next mandate as well. We will not change our position on the age being 10. However, as I said previously, it was premature to have moved an amendment without having that process developed and ready to be implemented. That might have been a reason for others to vote against it, but my position would not have changed.”
“The broader point is that raising the age of criminal responsibility risks reducing the deterrent effect that is associated with the most harmful behaviours. While most children are not motivated by legal consequences, it is important that clear boundaries and accountability frameworks exist. That matters, particularly for a very small cohort of young people whose behaviour can have a disproportionate impact on others.”
“However, we should, in cases of extremity and where there are repeat offences, have access to the criminal justice system. The Youth Justice Agency engages with some of those young people in a school setting, and it is effective in helping us. However, where an offence that is committed is so egregious, it is only right that, in those circumstances, the victim should have recourse to the criminal justice system. As a norm and a rule of thumb, I do not want our young people being criminalised, whether that is in schools or in wider society.”
“I am happy to respond. There is a contradiction where, on the one hand, I am criticised for drawing on my education experience but, on the other hand, am asked questions about that. I have no problem with that. I will be happy to provide some of those statistics to the Member who has raised them. <BR /> <BR />The broader point that the Member has made is whether I believe that the most effective way to tackle those behavioural issues in our schools is through the criminal justice system: no, I do not. Do I want those young people to get a criminal record? No, I do not. I believe that young people should get not only one, two or three chances but multiple chances to make sure that they do not become embroiled with a criminal record, because that can be harmful.”
“It is not an academic issue. From an education perspective, schools across Northern Ireland are increasingly managing complex and serious incidents, including violence, sexualised behaviour, serious bullying and online harm. Those behaviours cause significant distress and trauma not only for victims but for the wider school community, including our education workforce. Schools have a fundamental responsibility to provide a safe and orderly environment for learning. Where serious incidents occur, pupils, staff and parents rightly expect that they will be dealt with in a meaningful and consistent way. <BR /> <BR />I am sorry; I indicated that I would give way to Miss McAllister.”
“Why are we seeking to unpick arrangements that, in practice, result in a very small number of children being subject to criminal sanctions? I fully recognise the importance of children's rights and the need to support vulnerable young people, but this is not the way to do that. Why would we elevate the rights of children who are potentially responsible for criminal offences over those of the children who might be their victims? Why would we make young people who are immune from prosecution vulnerable to exploitation by older people? To say that I am not persuaded that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is the right course of action at this time is an understatement. It is a fundamental mistake.”
“If I am certain of one thing, it is this: it may not be in 12 months or 12 years' time, but, if some of the amendments were to be passed, the day would come that the public would ask, "What on earth were the MLAs who voted in favour of those changes doing?". <BR /> <BR />What is the problem that the legislation seeks to address?”
“I do not seek to say that Members are anything other than sincere, but I think that the amendments are misplaced. That is my view, and I hope that people can disagree with me on that agreeably. The amendments that have been tabled are dangerous for teachers and children. I believe that most people will view with disbelief the notion that the minimum age of criminal responsibility would potentially be raised to 16 and that such a position is advocated not only by Mr Carroll, who tabled that amendment, but by someone who was appointed as the Children's Commissioner. That raises very serious questions.”
“No, with respect, I am going to make some progress. I am happy to give way on points of clarity and will do so in due course, but I am going to proceed. <BR /> <BR />I was making a comment about Mr Dickson's indicating that it may well be difficult for some of the arm's-length bodies to engage with Ministers in the Department of Health or the Department of Education because of the position that we have taken. I am not accountable to arm's-length bodies; the arm's-length bodies are accountable to Ministers. My ultimate accountability is to the electorate and the people of Lagan Valley. As a Member of the Assembly, that is from whom I get my mandate and to whom I am accountable. <BR /> <BR />I want to make clear my position on some of the amendments. They have been tabled with sincerity by Members, who have spoken passionately about them.”
“With respect, Mr Speaker, the Member wishes to ascribe commentary to me that I did not make. I referred to "Members"; I did not say "the Minister". However, the Minister is a Member of the House. It is not unprecedented — far from it. In fact, I only wish that more Members contributed to debates. I am glad that there are some who do that in the Assembly. I think there should be more. Some who spoke a lot last night are not here.”
“I have not impugned the Minister's integrity.”
“The Minister was right to say that, when she attempted to bring it to the Executive, the DUP did not support it. I did not support it, and that is why these are not ministerial amendments. I will give way.”
“I am going to make some progress. I have only been able to start my speech, and Members want me to give way. I will be generous in giving way. <BR /> <BR />I say this to the Minister of Justice: the amendments were tabled not by the Minister but by MLAs.”
“I am happy to clarify that. I am speaking from the Back Benches, which is why I am not sitting on the Front Bench, but I am also the Minister of Education, and I will draw upon my experiences in that role to inform the House. It is important that Members have the opportunity to be informed, but maybe you do not want to know that, last year, 598 teachers and 1,974 classroom assistants were assaulted by pupils. Maybe you do not want to have that information to help inform the decision-making processes. I think that you should have that information, and I will impart it.”
“You had a Sinn Féin Education Minister who was a self-confessed commander of the IRA. Let us get real when it comes to lecturing me about anything to do with my integrity and who I speak for. Sinn Féin can sit this one out. Sit it out. You have no integrity when it comes to talking about children's rights after what the republican movement engaged in. <BR /> <BR />I want to speak from the Back Bench today, but I am also the Minister of Education, and I do have a responsibility to protect children and teachers. My accountability is also to the electorate. Mr Dickson was concerned about how arm's-length bodies in my Department may be able to work with me.”
“Again, I will not be lectured by anybody in Sinn Féin.”
“I am speaking from the Back Bench, although I am happy to speak about my role as Education Minister and reflect on that from the Back Bench. I am quite happy if the Member for Sinn Féin wants to have an interjection. I will give way rather than have her speak from a sedentary position.”
“I appreciate what the previous Member who spoke said when apologising to the public for the antics of her own colleague last night. She was right to apologise on her behalf. Maybe the Member herself can apologise for the behaviour last night.”
“Well, at least the Member has decided to come in to join the debate. I was not sure: one minute, Sinn Féin is in; then Sinn Féin is out.”
“I follow Members from Sinn Féin, who really should just sit this one out. I will not be lectured on progressive politics and defending the rights of children by Sinn Féin. Not from a party and a republican movement that were kneecapping children, breaking their ankles, beating them with baseball bats and depriving them of fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers. They have the audacity to lecture us about the rights of children. Others who have absolute sincerity on the matter have spoken, but there is absolutely no credibility that any word from Sinn Féin will have any influence on me or my party when it comes to children's rights.”
“That is not the way to do things. Can he elaborate on that case?”
“He referred to the Jamie Bulger case, and I noted that, when the Alliance Party Member asked him to give way, Mr Tennyson did not talk about that case. The judge found that those children, at 10 years of age, had perfect competence to carry out a heinous crime and murder. The Member is more of an expert in the area than I am, so will he take time to walk Members through the nature of the crime and the judgement in respect of the ability of those children to have premeditated it and executed it in a way that merited that sentence so that people understand that, in extremity, we absolutely need to have the legislation and the criminal age of responsibility set at the current bar? That is why many of us decided that it would be inappropriate to have an amendment rushed through the Assembly in the way that that was being done.”
“I appreciate Mr Burrows giving way and commend him for the way that he has navigated things in his party.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. I have my name down to speak in the debate on this group of amendments, and I will do so later. I rise to make the point to the Member, and others, that, on this occasion, they regard the petition of concern as something that is frustrating the will of the Assembly. I remind the SDLP that you signed a petition of concern to prevent the sanctioning of Gerry Kelly by the Standards and Privileges Committee when he climbed on the bonnet of a police vehicle. You and your party signed the petition of concern to prevent that. We will not be lectured by the SDLP or others on the POC.”
“It was all right when it was on your side.”