Debate contribution: For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
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
- For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4937743
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for the question. It is important that there is absolute clarity on the matter: the Education Authority, not my Department, provides the operational guidance to schools. Therefore, it, first and foremost, needs to ensure that its guidance complies with the Supreme Court ruling. I am clear on the approach that needs to be taken in light of the UK Supreme Court ruling. In my response to the original question, I outlined where we need to be on those issues. As my officials continue to review the implications of the UK Supreme Court ruling, we will take further steps in that regard.
105 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: 0.06 (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).
- 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 | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.56 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | 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 | 0.43 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.30 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.14 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.11 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
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.