Debate contribution: CCEA Qualifications
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 21 October 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- CCEA Qualifications
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5197521
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I did not realise that we had that in common. There is stakeholder engagement for young people to feed in their views. The consultation is open to everybody to do that, and of course that will all be taken into account and considered. This is not the first time that I have had some disagreement in my house. The mobile phone policy was another one on which I had interesting debates in my house. By way of example, I visited St Ronan's College in Lurgan, one of our largest schools in Northern Ireland, which is participating in the mobile phone pilot scheme. Some of the pupils who had had apprehension and did not agree with the scheme are now very much advocates for it. I appreciate that sometimes people cannot see what benefit the change will deliver until they have experienced that change. That certainly has been the experience of those pupils at St Ronan's in respect of the mobile phone pilot scheme that is being rolled out there. Therefore, that will all be taken into account, where young people can feed into it. However, I appreciate that, until you feel and see that change and the outworkings of it, there will be an apprehension about what it means.
209 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).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.54 | No |
| 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 |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.73 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.09 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:33 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.