Debate contribution: Schools: Amalgamation Support
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 2 February 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Schools: Amalgamation Support
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5356599
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for her question and her ongoing advocacy for Carrickfergus Academy. It was one of 28 major capital works that were announced in March 2022. However, it was subsequently put on hold due to budget pressures. The project was restarted in February 2024. I moved it forward, along with a number of other schools, as part of the first tranche. Edmond Shipway was appointed as the integrated consultant team in March of last year. The technical feasibility report, which explored options for the provision of suitable accommodation and outside space for a school with an approved enrolment of 1,250 pupils and five specialist provision classes was submitted to the Department for consideration on 18 July last year. The options explored in the report were the refurbishment and extension of existing school buildings as well as a new-build school option on each of the school sites. The education advisory branch concluded its review of the report on 6 November, and a business case is being prepared by departmental economists. I assure the Member that, once the business case has been approved, the preferred option will be progressed to the design stage.
193 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: 0.02 (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 (0.68).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.68 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | 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 | 0.77 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.22 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:20 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.