Debate contribution: North/South Ministerial Council: Education
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statements
- Heading
- North/South Ministerial Council: Education
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4913998
Read the official Assembly record
Text
That is a really important question. It is not a matter that was expressly on the agenda for that particular sectoral meeting. However, it is an area that my officials and I are engaged on in looking at the barriers that inhibit people from Northern Ireland from accessing universities in the Republic of Ireland. The way in which they look at A levels in comparison with the process and qualifications in the Republic of Ireland is an issue. It suggests that there is a real challenge when it comes to the portability and recognition of the qualifications when accessing higher education institutions in the Republic of Ireland. The deputy First Minister has also been looking into that area and has raised the issue with the Taoiseach. I have every sympathy when it comes to that. It is an area on which we should try to make progress on behalf of young people, whether they are staying here in Northern Ireland or going to Great Britain. Likewise, it appears that it has become more difficult to access universities in the Republic of Ireland, and that has an impact on young people. We are undertaking a piece of work to identify a resolution to the issue and to try to make sure that the barriers to accessing higher education in the Republic of Ireland can be addressed.
As a Department, we engage with young people on any initiatives that we take forward, ensuring that any programmes that we develop have input from young people. That is at a strategic level, but schools have the autonomy to bring services in to help in the area of mental health and well-being. Having engaged with young people, schools are well placed to know, in the process of developing their approaches and policies, what types of services may be the most beneficial to those particular young people. It is important that we recognise the fact that schools have that autonomy and the ability to bring in support where they feel that it is necessary, tailoring it to the young people at their school.
I will clarify that, if it was not clear. The process for identifying the 15 RAISE areas was identified and followed, and we have provided transparency around that. Some groups, particularly in West Belfast, said that there were some areas that they may wish to be included, and there has been a degree of flexibility to allow that. However, that is still done within the funding envelope that was awarded on the basis of the criteria that were used. Where there is a connection that, strictly speaking, falls outside a zoned RAISE area and another school or community wants to be involved, there is some flexibility for those RAISE areas to do that. They will, however, do it with the resources that they have. Again, I put on record that no school is being provided with funding as a result of the RAISE programme. It is a project-led funding stream. It may be that, in certain RAISE areas, a school comes forward with a project, and that project is funded. There may be some RAISE areas in which no school comes forward with a project but a project is led by other community-based organisations. The funding follows the project. No school will get any automatic funding as a result of the RAISE programme.
560 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: 0.05 (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 (0.81).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Education structures, integration and community division.
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.81 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.52 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.41 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.04 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:28 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.