Debate contribution: RAISE Programme: North Belfast
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 12 May 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- RAISE Programme: North Belfast
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937691
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Yes. Concerns were raised, and we provided transparency on the data that was used. I assure the Member that a wide range of indicators, including free school meal entitlement, were used to shortlist the super output areas for potential inclusion in the programme. The methodology for the selection of RAISE localities reflects the findings and recommendations from the 'A Fair Start' report that was published in June 2021. There was a sound rationale for the methodology. I am delighted that we have a regional geographical spread. Interestingly, some councils that made representation might well not have got any funding had we not taken the approach and methodology that were taken to provide a regional spread. Now, after reflection, some settings or areas that wish to include some areas that do not strictly fall within the clearly defined red lines, if you want to call them that, will have the flexibility to do so, albeit within the funding allocated to those areas. If they decide to include some other provision from outside the area and if it is a close neighbour, there will be flexibility, and that reflects the concerns that were raised with me. Now, having allocating the funding, we need to see the programmes come forward so we can get the money into our communities to be effectively spent. Having secured the funding, I want to go back unashamedly to the Irish Government and say, "We need continued funding for this", so let us get on with the work.
250 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: 0.04 (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 (0.83).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.83 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.96 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:23 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.