Debate contribution: Fort Hill Integrated College
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
- Fort Hill Integrated College
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5244305
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I cannot. Just to correct the Member: I did not take away Fresh Start funding from schools. When it came to Fresh Start, the United Kingdom Government identified £500 million, and they carried out a process for integrated schools to be identified for new builds. That funding was then allocated to the Strule Shared Education Campus project, delivering for 4,000 pupils. What was my response? When schools such as Fort Hill and others were left high and dry by the UK Government, I brought them into my Department's conventional capital programme, and it is my Department that continues to take forward that work. Therefore, far from what the Member alleges, which is that I took money away, I actually stepped in to protect schools such as Fort Hill. That was the action that I carried out, and I will continue to make the case. However, when the Alliance Party and others are around the Executive table, will you prioritise prisons and prisoners and provide things such as a canteen in Magilligan, or will you prioritise pupils? I say this to the Alliance Party: give the priority to our pupils. I look forward to your ministerial colleagues in the Executive supporting me when it comes to our schools.
207 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: 0.10 (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 (0.79).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.05 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.79 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.10 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.96 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.04 |
| 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 13:56 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.