Debate contribution: Integrated Education: North Down

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 13 January 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

13 January 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Integrated Education: North Down

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4738420

Read the official Assembly record

Text

When I take decisions on development proposals, I work within a very clear legal framework. Integrated education is defined in the law. I am under a legal duty to encourage, facilitate and support the development of integrated education, and I take that duty extremely seriously. However, I am prohibited legally from approving the transformation of a school to become an integrated school unless it is likely that the school will provide integrated education. Section 1(1)(a) of the Integrated Education Act 2022 states:

"'Integrated education' means the education together, in an integrated school, of— those of different cultures and religious beliefs and of none, including reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic children or young persons".

In the report to me, departmental officials concluded that a figure of 3% Catholic children did not satisfy "reasonable numbers" at present. However, I did not just consider the current religious balance. I considered whether it was likely that the schools could achieve reasonable numbers from the minority community at some point in the future after transformation. Given the community breakdown in the area and the availability of other well-regarded options for Catholic children, including Catholic maintained and other integrated options, I was unable to conclude that that was likely. I did not vote for the 2022 Act, which confirmed the requirement for reasonable numbers of Protestant and Roman Catholic children, but I am obliged to obey it.

I have acknowledged, in taking the decision, that some people will be disappointed by that decision. I recognise that, for the two schools concerned, the principals and those parents who voted to allow the process to get to my desk will be disappointed with the decision. However, I am absolutely reassured by the commitment of those two schools and, indeed, all our schools across Northern Ireland that they want to provide an inclusive education system that is open to all. I am confident that both those schools will be able to provide that inclusive education system. I have undertaken to write to every parent. I will finalise that letter, send it to the two principals of the schools and ask them to share that with the parents, so that I can directly engage with them rather than doing so through the filter of the media and, indeed, at times, the misrepresentation by some people in the House, including the Member who brought the question. She mischaracterised the decision but also said things about north Down, including that I had stopped those who want to have an integrated education. I encourage the Member to speak to other schools in Bangor. Some principals have written to thank me for the decision that I took and to say that it was the right decision. They have all assured me that they provide inclusive education in their particular sector. There is an inclusive ethos in Bangor. That will be found not just in those two schools but in other schools, and I commend the Member to visit them.

I thank the Member for the question. To all parents who are very invested in the education system, I would say this: continue to be so, and put forward your case. However, decisions that I have to take are not predicated solely on parental choice and parental demand. I took decisions last week to close down some schools. The parental demand was to keep them open. The demand of the principals of those schools and the representation that I subsequently received about the decisions that I took last week to close those schools was to keep them open. If parental choice and parental ballots are the determinative factor, why was that not voted for in the legislation that Members passed in 2022? If that is the legal basis on which a Minister must take decisions, the Member who introduced the legislation should have put that requirement in it. That would then have been the legal framework by which a Minister has to abide. I also say to the Member that I have approved five schools to transform to integrated status. I look at each case individually, and there have been examples during my time as Minister of Education where I have supported that transformation. I declined a request for transformation to become an integrated school from, I think, St Eugene's in Omagh on grounds of sustainability. A number of factors come into the framework in which I have to apply my decision-making process. Fundamental to the case in north Down was the test set out in the 2022 legislation that was voted for by other Members in the House, which stipulated a requirement for there to be a "reasonable" number of Protestant and Catholic children.

I referenced that in my earlier response to Ms Hunter. The test of "reasonable numbers" is set out in legislation. I know that the Member was not here when the Assembly voted for that legislation, so I can give him a bye ball when he indicates that he is baffled by the decision. I will not extend that to some of his colleagues who authored the legislation and put that requirement in law. I am absolutely meeting my duties with regard to the integrated sector, just as I am when it comes to shared education and Irish-medium education. I support all sectors. I have made it clear that I am here to support all sectors in our education system, but I have to take decisions on the basis of development proposals that come forward. In those two schools, less than 3% of the pupil enrolment identified as Roman Catholics, which means that 97% identified as either Protestant or other. Just 3% identified as Catholic. The legislation that the Assembly passed stipulates a requirement for the numbers of Protestant and Catholic children to be —

Reasonable is right. When taking that decision, you look at a school with less than 3% of one group. In north Down, 11% of the population is Catholic. In Bangor, 9% of the population is Catholic. The schools did not meet that level, so they did not reflect their locality. As I outlined to the Member who asked the question for urgent oral answer, it did not appear likely to me that the proposal would meet that level in the future either. I have to take such decisions. I appreciate that they will not always be agreed to by other people. When those decisions are taken, Members will ask, "Well, what is reasonable?". Members are right that "reasonable" is not defined in law. If you look at the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), however, you see that it aspires to an intake of 40% Protestant, 40% Catholic and 20% other for integrated schools. If you then look at the —.

Sorry.

It is important that we appreciate that the responsibility for taking those decisions rests with me, as Minister. I must be satisfied that the process has been followed and that the statutory tests have been met. My officials advised that the numbers for those schools did not meet the current test for a reasonable number. That is in the report. That was the conclusion that the officials reached; it is contained in the advice that was given to me, which is now publicly available. I had to determine whether it was likely that the reasonable number could be reached. As I have outlined, it was my view that it was not likely to be met, because of neighbouring schools and the demographics of the locality. That allows me to conclude the point, Mr Speaker, on which you asked me to stop. NICIE aspires to a composition of 40% Protestant, 40% Catholic and 20% other. The Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 is also relevant. It outlines a need for 10% minority enrolment in the first year of enrolment for the school to qualify as integrated, which it should then seek to grow. The conclusion that I reached on those two schools was rationally based on the legal framework that I have to operate within.

I thank the Member for her questions, which speak to the wider issue of how people want to frame this debate. I have been in controlled schools, Catholic maintained schools, integrated schools and Irish-medium schools. I have been impressed by all of them in that they seek to be inclusive and open to all. That is something that everyone wants in their school system. I have never met a principal who has said, "We are here only for this particular type of community. Others aren't welcome". I have never met a principal who has said that. I would love to hear someone here say that they have met a principal who wants an exclusive and segregated system of education in their school. I would want to know about that so that, as Minister, I could challenge them, because I want our schools to be inclusive and open. The Member is right to highlight some of the information and statistics for controlled schools. Those are important points for us to consider in the broader debate. Let me take Integrated College Glengormley as an example. In 2022, it had an enrolment of 4% from the Catholic population. Nearly three years later, it has achieved 5% enrolment from that community. It is an official integrated college. Of the controlled post-primary schools, 28 have a higher percentage of pupils from a Catholic background than that school in Glengormley, which is officially called an integrated college. There are 67 controlled primary schools that have a percentage of pupils from a Catholic background above 6·4%, which is more than the percentage in Central Integrated Primary School in Carrickfergus, to give one example.

Controlled schools are inclusive. So, too, are maintained schools, Irish-medium schools and schools from other sectors that I have been to. Those schools strive for an inclusive education system.

The Member is right. The point that I have just made is that schools strive to be inclusive. There are 73 schools in Northern Ireland that are officially integrated with a capital I. There are many hundreds that are not integrated with a capital I. Of the 73, one Catholic maintained school has transformed to integrated status. Some Members on the Benches opposite — Ms Hunter submitted a question for urgent oral answer — said that people need to go integrated. I have not seen some of those Members campaigning in their constituency for schools to become integrated. The evidence shows that, of the 73 that are integrated, one came from a Catholic maintained background. I caveat that by pointing out that St Columbanus' College in Bangor, which is a Catholic maintained school, has a high number of pupils from the Protestant community in it and far exceeds many officially integrated schools as being integrated but not with a capital I. As a parent and as Minister of Education, I do not want our children going to school looking at the colour of people's skin or the creed or religion that they hold to; I want them going into a shared environment in which they respect one another's differences. I see that taking place in hundreds of schools across all sectors.

It is an important point to make, because, when the decision initially entered the public domain, there was commentary that I had gone against the majority of the parents at the schools. Yes, that is the case for the majority of those who balloted, and I have set the context as to where parental choice sits in the legislative framework. It is not in the 2022 Act. When it came to it, for Bangor Academy, it was 40% of parents of pupils at that school. It is important that we frame the facts appropriately and do not misrepresent the situation, as some did. It was not just Members who did so, because some in the media also framed the issue in that context, ignoring the legislative duties that I, as a Minister, have to undertake. I have covered in a number of responses what it is to be an integrated school on the basis of the 2022 Act and the statutory test of "reasonable numbers". I have highlighted what it is to be integrated on the basis of the information on the NICIE website: 40%, 40% and 20% other. The guidance that the Department held, which related to the 1989 Order, talked about 10%. That was the guidance that the Department produced. I think that any reasonable person would conclude that less than 3% is not reasonable for passing the test that is set out in law, which was introduced and passed by Members of the House.

I thank the Member for her question. There seems to be, again, an inability to understand the decisions that I have to take. Article 92(6) of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 states:

"The Department shall not approve a proposal under this Article in relation to a school unless it appears to the Department that, if the school were to become, or be established as, a controlled integrated school, the school would be likely to provide integrated education."

The 2022 Act then went on to spell out in law what integrated education is. In section 1(1)(a), it is defined as including a reasonable number of Protestant and Catholic children. The legislation passed by the Assembly sets the test. It was the Alliance Party that brought the legislation through, and I trust that it understood what it was doing. I certainly understand it, and it is my duty as a Minister to make sure that the law is followed. It is within that framework that I have taken the decision that I have taken, and the basis of that decision is laid out in the publication of the development proposal, which is available to any Member who wishes to access it.

The Member articulates a frustration that I have heard from principals in schools that are not officially designated as integrated. Some of that is a result of the language used by Members from, in particular, the Alliance Party. They talk about segregation, and, in the promotion of one sector, they denigrate others. It is not necessary to do that. As Minister of Education, I have sought to support all of our sectors, and the decision-making processes that I have followed, including funding new builds for integrated schools, not least Central Integrated Primary School in Bangor, and taking forward other integrated schools that the UK Government let down when it came to their Fresh Start funding, are evidence and demonstration of that. I brought those schools into my Department's capital programme. The UK Government abandoned them, and I moved in to protect them and am taking forward those proposals. The evidence shows that I have been a Minister for all sectors, but we should not run down some sectors to promote others. That is why I am frustrated that, when we take forward, for example, the Strule campus in Omagh, which is a world-defining intervention by the Executive, bringing together 4,000 young people from various sectors, the Alliance Party has opposed it at every step of the way because it does not regard shared education as being integrated education. It is campaigning actively against a landmark, iconic shared education programme in a town that bears the hallmarks of our Troubles. The Alliance Party is against it because it does not neatly suit the particular approach that it wants to take to education. I will be a Minister for all of our sectors.

I have heard the language used of there being "a headcount". I do not want to be involved in a headcount. I do not go into schools and look at people and think to myself, "I wonder what they are". Who was it that legislated for a headcount? It is the 2022 Act, brought in by the Alliance Party. Its Members shake their heads. Let me quote, because they clearly do not know the legislation that they brought in. It speaks to the question that Mr Chambers has raised. Section 1(1)(a) defines integrated education as:

"those of different cultures and religious beliefs and of none".

However, it did not stop with that. There is no full stop. It went on, and the Alliance Party specified in law:

"including reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic children".

It was the Alliance Party that brought in a deliberate headcount as part of the test. It was not me; I voted against it. The question now for Members and for those who want to promote the integrated sector — I will absolutely take my responsibilities seriously in that regard — is that, if they no longer want it to specify Protestant and Catholic children, the Member should not have included it in her legislation, because that is the statutory test that I have to take decisions on.

The Member has just demonstrated his agenda when it comes to such issues. He does not say, "Minister, can I thank you for the work on Millennium Integrated School?". I know that he has an interest in that school in particular. He does not say, "Minister, you came and visited the school and have taken that project forward. The UK Government let that school down, but, Minister Givan, you stepped in and helped the school that I campaigned for in my constituency". The Member again wants to misrepresent this and deliberately frame this into something else that, as I have outlined for the past 30 minutes, cannot stack up in any shape or form. To be honest, going into even more detail with the Member's questions only gives credibility to a question that has no credibility.

Again, I appreciate that the Member wants to frame this in a way that I do not think can stack up. I have outlined all of the evidence that formed the decision-making process that I have had. It is not helpful, on issues with this kind of sensitivity, that some Members seek to frame their responses in the way that Mr Tennyson and Mr O'Toole have in asking their questions. There are legitimate questions that people will want to ask about those specific two schools, and I have outlined the decision-making process that I followed in reaching the decisions that I have taken. I have also demonstrated that I have been a Minister who has approved schools wanting to transform to integrated status. I have supported schools from the Irish-medium, Catholic maintained and controlled sectors and will continue to provide that support, just as I have been out and opened schools from the integrated sector and been very much welcomed. That is the right thing, and it is the approach that I will take. I will respect all of the sectors. I will seek to be a Minister for all of them. I understand that there will be some decisions on which even my colleagues on these Benches will not agree with me when it comes to making difficult decisions on schools. That is the responsibility that I have to carry as a Minister, and I seek to do it with integrity and absolute sincerity in the decisions that I reach. I cannot answer for how other Members want to deliberately misrepresent and frame the responses that they are now trying to put out in the public domain.

The Member makes an important point when he highlights what it is to be an integrated school. I have now outlined the responses on that. I have outlined the number of schools that are very much inclusive and open to all. The integrated sector has a specific objective that it wants to achieve for a school to be officially integrated. If the message that is coming through now is to set aside the test for reasonable numbers of Protestants and Catholics, and that is no longer what the integrated sector aspires to, I will facilitate that conversation. I am happy to have that conversation with the integrated sector. However, that would be a departure from the historical establishment of the integrated sector, which spoke exclusively of 40% Catholic, 40% Protestant and 20% other. It would bring in all those schools in the controlled and maintained sectors that are inclusive and, as I demonstrated that the evidence shows, are more integrated, based upon the headcount that the Alliance Party supported in its legislation, than some other officially integrated schools. We should have that conversation. In the past, NICIE brought forward concerns that some schools that have transformed will not meet the inclusive nature through the numbers of Protestant and Catholic children. Therefore, the sector has raised concerns about schools that do not meet those kinds of numbers. I am happy to facilitate engagement if Members and the integrated sector are now saying that they want to move away from that. I am happy to have that conversation.

I thank the Member for the question. Obviously, the report looked at the issues on transformation. It looked at the case for change that both schools had to put forward to specify how they would address the disparity in numbers in order to close that gap. The case for change that was put forward did not demonstrate how they would address that point. If, for example, Bangor Academy wanted to take forward an approach in its admissions policy to prioritise children from a maintained primary school, it could do that without being an integrated school. If it wanted to increase its Catholic population, Bangor Academy — not me; the academy — could change its admissions policy. The academy can take that decision. It does not need to wait for me to say, "Yes, you can do that". The academy could do it now. Other schools that have also taken forward transformation have, for example, set up stalls at local events, such as Gaelic football events. They bring in speakers from other denominations. They include things like the Irish language. Again, Bangor Academy can go ahead and introduce those different aspects if that is what it wants to do. It does not need to wait for me in order to do that; it can go ahead and do it. There are things that schools can do and take forward so that change can happen. Bangor Academy is in a position to change its admissions policy if it wants to do that. That is entirely a decision for it. I will support it in that decision. I, however, must take decisions that are based on the law, which is the law that the Member's party colleague brought through the Assembly that sets a statutory test for reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic children. That is the framework within which I must take decisions.

I thank the Member for the question. I have visited schools in the Member's constituency with her. A representative of one of the controlled schools spoke passionately about the diversity in the school and the frustration as a result of some wanting to frame her school as not being diverse when there were 25 or 26 nationalities and languages in the school. That absolutely diversity-rich school has broken down any barriers to attending it. That is what I encourage all our schools to do when I visit them: if your school is in a particular locality and some people feel that they cannot go to it, you need to ask yourself why that is: "What barriers may put somebody off from attending our school, and what should we look at trying to change in order to make our school attractive?" Many of our schools already put that into practice. I support the delivery of shared education programmes; indeed, I am under a duty to support them. Schools engage in shared education, which takes place in many ways. Whether in sporting or educational exchanges, shared education is a way for those to happen. There are good examples of that taking place, and I encourage that. As I highlighted in my answer to the previous question about transformation, there are schools that can make changes, and Bangor Academy is one of them. It can change its admissions policy, if it wants to, to give preferential treatment to children from maintained primary schools. That is a decision for Bangor Academy. It can take such decisions.

I thank the Member for the question. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the Member, who, frankly, has said some outrageous things in the media on these issues. She should retract many of her comments. I advise her to do so, but, if she does not, that is a matter for her. Some of the approaches that she has taken and the language that she has used about people and schools are, frankly, outrageous. I have provided great detail in the report behind the development proposal. That is available to the public. I have responded to many of the questions that the Member, in particular, submitted. I turned them around very quickly. All that I will say to the Member who brought in the legislation is that she should have fully understood what she was bringing in when she included a requirement for "reasonable numbers" of Protestants and Catholics. It was the Member who brought in a headcount approach, not me. The Alliance Party brought it in. I will continue to discharge my duties, as I have been doing, in all sectors of our education system. The Member and the Alliance Party may want to reflect on the legislation that they brought in. The Member, rather than behaving in her juvenile fashion, with the facial expressions and so on that she is exhibiting —

— should take the matter —

— much more seriously and ensure that her language reflects the sensitivity and the seriousness of the issues.

4,316 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:43 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.

Challenge this classification