Debate contribution: Minister of Education: Visit to Israel

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 3 November 2025.

MLA: Mr Paul Givan
Party at the time: Democratic Unionist Party
Date: 3 November 2025
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Questions for Urgent Oral Answer
Heading: Minister of Education: Visit to Israel
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5213335

Text

I challenge the Member or any Member to point out in the press release what the political message was. There was no political message. The objection is that I visited a school in Israel. That is the objection from Members who are opposed to this. There is nothing in the press release that had any political connotation whatsoever. It is an integrated school where Jews, Arabs and Christians are educated together. Those who are opposed to the visit now manufacture this outcry. What I can say is that my permanent secretary and senior officials have carried out a review of my engagements on the visit. They have concluded that review and given a clean bill of health not just to me as Minister but to every civil servant in my Department, whose actions were entirely appropriate. That is the position of my senior officials and the permanent secretary.
I thank the Member for that question. As I said, my permanent secretary has assessed the role of the Department in assisting with the organisation of the trip. My private office liaised with the organisers to confirm travel logistics and to relay my travel requests. That support was minimal and administrative in nature, and, in total, it is estimated to have amounted to less than one hour of Civil Service time.
That limited involvement was deemed to be appropriate given the need to manage the Israel trip within my broader ministerial diary and to cancel other engagements. My permanent secretary reviewed the press release pertaining to the school visit that was published by the Department. He concluded that it had no political content and was directly related to my portfolio, and therefore approved my request.
I note that the Member, who is also the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, did not ask a question — not one question — about the Department. I am here to be held to account as Education Minister for the element of the trip that related to my Education portfolio. I am not here to be held to account by a convicted terrorist who supports Hamas terrorists. You will not hold me to account: I will hold you to account for your terrorism. What has Mr Sheehan done in his past? He has met Hamas and been pictured with Khaled Mashal. What did Khaled Mashal say in respect of 7 October and concern for Palestinian lives? A member of Hamas, with whom Pat Sheehan has been photographed, said that lost Palestinian lives are a necessary sacrifice. Do not give me crocodile tears. You have been pictured with, and support, Hamas terrorists. Sinn Féin needs to get the message very clearly: it is the unionist people of Northern Ireland who have elected my party and put me in this position. I will never be dictated to by Sinn Féin, particularly not by the likes of Pat Sheehan.

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

Assessment

Qualifying Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations

Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.86 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
Criteria met: Identity framing (0.76); Dog-whistle messaging (0.64); Controversy escalation (0.80).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.87).
Subject area: Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations.
The text adopts an antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.

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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.76	Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.31	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.15	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.64	Yes
Controversy escalation	0.80	Yes
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.13	No
Overall judgement	0.86	Above qualifying threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.09
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.04
Adopts it (chosen)	0.87

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.38
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	0.32
Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism	0.14
Education structures, integration and community division	0.14
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.01

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:47 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 reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification