Debate contribution: Caleb's Cause

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
Caleb's Cause
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4841147

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Member for raising that matter. I will attend and speak at an event on Wednesday evening in the Long Gallery. I met Alma, Caleb's mum, and I absolutely understand her concerns. They speak to the need for many of our Departments, including Education, Economy and Health, to work together on the issue so that, when children and young people come through the formal education process and are transitioning to post-19, the proper support and pathways are in place for them to do that. That has to be achieved through a collaborative approach that includes those three Departments.

100 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

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: 0.04 (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 (0.70).
  • 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.02No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.02No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.01No
Controversy escalation0.03No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.70Yes
Overall judgement0.04At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.45
Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits0.42
Education structures, integration and community division0.09
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.01
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism0.01

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.

Challenge this classification