Debate contribution: Healthy and Respectful Relationships
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 17 September 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Healthy and Respectful Relationships
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4537147
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for raising that, because that was an Executive policy and strategy that I was pleased to see come through and that I supported, particularly the component that relates to education. There is a responsibility across many aspects of society to engage on the issue. Certainly, I will ensure that my Department engages. As we welcome the approval of the strategic framework, there is a need to take forward the action plan. It brings into sharp focus my Department's responsibilities, and we will consider how the curriculum can support the wider strategy, because schools have an important role to play in addressing those issues. My Department is establishing an oversight group with key partners to respond to the year 1 action plan. We will also engage with the Gillen review implementation group in developing the strategy in respect of domestic and sexual violence. As we do that, it will be important that resources align as part of that work.
162 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 (0.78).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.78 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.79 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.11 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:11 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.