Debate contribution: Causeway Academy: Capital Funding
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 18 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Causeway Academy: Capital Funding
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244218
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I have engaged on the issue not just in my Department but with the Education Authority as the proposer of the new school and as the body responsible for taking forward the capital requirement of £20 million that was indicated for the day-1 costs associated with the single site. I will continue to engage on the issue. When the decision was taken, the decision maker at the time — it was not me — did not anticipate such a cost being associated with finding a single site for day 1. Other schools operate on split-site solutions, so it is not unusual to do so as we continue to work towards providing a single-site facility. If we really want to address capital needs, we should not look just at those of the proposed new Causeway Academy. I have 114 projects in the major capital programme. Of those, 42 have been completed; six are on-site; 14 are at the technical design stage; 14 are at the early design stage; and 38 are either at the feasibility stage or on hold. The projected time frame to complete that list runs to decades, and that is before we add Causeway Academy. If Members are serious about providing solutions, as, I believe, they are, we need an Executive that will allocate capital funds on the basis of their priorities so that I can take forward the demands that Members rightly make on behalf of their constituents. We cannot do that if funding does not follow what people articulate in the Chamber.
256 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).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.92).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.92 | Yes |
| 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 | 0.85 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.15 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:52 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.