Debate contribution: Supreme Court Judgement on Christian Religious Education and Collective Worship

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 24 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

24 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Supreme Court Judgement on Christian Religious Education and Collective Worship

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5254421

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Last week, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant legal decision on religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland. I will consider the judgement in full before determining any essential remedies that respect the law and safeguard the role of religion in education. The judgement focuses on religious education that is taught as part of the school curriculum and on collective worship that is held in schools, mainly through assemblies and services. The court held that arrangements for religious education and collective worship in this case breached rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It further determined that the core syllabus for religious education does not provide teaching in an objective, critical and pluralist manner and that collective worship is similarly not conveyed in such a way. The court did not strike down the existing legislation, however. Religious education and collective worship can therefore continue in schools, and they are legally required to. Indeed, there is a legal obligation that they must continue. Article 21(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 provides:

"In a controlled school, other than a controlled integrated school, the religious education required by paragraph (1) shall be undenominational religious education, that is to say, education based upon the Holy Scriptures according to some authoritative version or versions thereof but excluding education as to any tenet distinctive of any particular religious denomination and the collective worship required by paragraph (1) in any such school shall not be distinctive of any particular religious denomination."

The case is not about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. Historically and today, Christianity is the main religion in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the court has explained that it is within the Department's margin of appreciation in planning and setting the curriculum for the greater part of religious education to focus on knowledge of Christianity. This is a complex judgement that cannot be ignored. It is important, however, to understand fully the issues before acting. I have requested further legal advice in order to understand the judgement's full implications and will issue comprehensive guidance to schools on both issues in the coming weeks to ensure consistency and legal compliance. I will write to schools within the next few days on the matter.

I will respect the decision that the UK Supreme Court has taken. A different decision was taken by the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court is exactly that: the supreme court in the land. The Member rightly makes a point about the wider European Convention on Human Rights and its implications. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the case had gone to the European Court of Human Rights. Having looked at some other European countries and the way in which they operate, I think that we can draw parallels with other European countries that would be in defence of the system that we have in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I will work through what is a complex judgement. I have clearly articulated that the underpinning legislation was not struck down as a result of the judgement. I have outlined the basis on which the law exists in Northern Ireland, and I will seek to provide a remedy to the court judgement that is in line with the law. It is important to state that it is as a result of devolution that I am able to deal with the issue — imagine if it had been a direct rule Minister or a Minister from another political party in the Chamber. However, it is not; it is a Minister from the Democratic Unionist Party who will respond to the judgement and ensure that our Christian ethos in our schools is maintained.

Our approach will involve the responsibility of looking at the core syllabus on religious education in the curriculum. The responsibility rests with me to establish the appropriate panel on which there are persons of interest related to religious education. That, historically, has meant people from the four main denominations: three Protestant; and one Catholic. I will get advice from my Department in due course and move forward with appointing an appropriate body that will look at the curriculum. That will then be subject to public consultation, and I will lay an order on the process for what the curriculum looks like. Where collective worship is concerned, it is clear from the judgement that Christianity can, and will, continue to be the primary religion that shapes the ethos of our schools. There is a valid issue for the inspectorate when it comes to how we inspect what is being taught in the curriculum and how collective worship operates. Again, I will take advice from officials on how we can seek to enhance the inspection process. I cannot envisage how the example that the Member highlighted could happen in Northern Ireland. It is certainly not something that I would support, nor do I think that there are schools that would support it. The judgement does not create the opportunity for it. It is important to state that there are those who have sought to frame the judgement in a way that suits their own particular objective, which often comes from an overtly hostile position towards the Christian ethos.

The Member is right. Hopefully, no one in the Chamber will seek to cast a spell on me. I have the quotes of what was said on 'The Nolan Show', and I may refer to them in these exchanges. When the Chairman of the Education Committee was asked about the teaching of witchcraft and paganism, he did not rule it out.

I understand why the deputy leader of the Alliance Party wants to laugh that off. It is no laughing matter for a lot of parents in Northern Ireland that the Alliance Party is not able to rule that out. It demonstrates the underlying hostility that exists towards the Christian ethos in our schools. The role of the Department in the creation of the curriculum is set out clearly in article 11(1) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which states:

"Subject to paragraph (2), the Department may by order specify a core syllabus for the teaching of religious education in grant-aided schools".

However, article 11(2) includes a requirement that the syllabus:

"was prepared by a group of persons ... appearing to the Department to be persons having an interest in the teaching of religious education in grant-aided schools".

Therefore, I will have to sign off on any syllabus before it becomes law. I will appoint the appropriate persons, who have an interest in the teaching of religious education. They will carry out the work of reviewing the curriculum, and that will then be subject to a public consultation.

It is helpful that we have been able to shine a light on what the initial response of Alliance was to the judgement. The Chairperson of the Education Committee has now helpfully clarified that he does not want to have witchcraft or paganism being taught in our schools. I wish he had done so when asked by Stephen Nolan:

"Do you think witchcraft should be taught in a school or not?",

Mr Mathison replied:

"I am not speaking to you as a theologian, nor do I have any strongly held views around paganism or witchcraft".

Well, I am glad now that he has expressed a view that is strong: he does not support witchcraft or paganism. We could have avoided some of the commentary that took place afterwards had he been clearer on that particular programme. On the substantive point, when it comes to the inspectorate, as the law currently pertains, the four main Churches are involved in setting the curriculum under the law. They are also responsible for carrying out inspections when it comes to the teaching of religious education in our schools. I am not convinced that that has been carried out effectively over the years, and the court has drawn upon the area of a more effective inspection process. I would need to engage on what that would look like, because, obviously, where the four main Churches have a role in the curriculum, and will continue to do so, there needs to be a role in how that inspection process will be carried out. I do not have a predetermined view as to how ETI, for example, could incorporate that work within its functions. I will have to look at that because the legislation currently does not allow for the ETI to carry out inspection of religious education because of the distinct way in which the law is framed in respect of the Churches and their role in forming the curriculum and then inspecting on it. That is something that I will certainly look at over the course of the next weeks and months.

Yes, I will. I intend to write to school leaders in the next number of days on the next steps. The courts will be understanding that it will be reasonable for us to be able to fully assess how we can comply with and provide a remedy to that judgement. I have sought further legal advice on that, and we are working through the various remedies that may be reflective of the changes that could be necessary. I have made it clear that the law has not been struck down: it is still there. That pertains to the current teaching of the curriculum and collective worship. Indeed, it would be unlawful for any school to stop collective worship as a result of that UK Supreme Court judgement, because the law has not been struck down. Therefore, schools should continue with their current practice, but, obviously, we will work through the various outworkings of the judgement, and I will provide guidance to schools within a number of weeks. I intend to give them a clear view on it in within the next number of days, and that will be followed by guidance.

When it comes to the broader piece around the curriculum, I intend to take forward a review of the curriculum in line with the judgement when it comes to RE. It will take a number of months to set up the body, carry out the work of the review and put in place a framework for religious education in the curriculum. Then we will want to carry out a public consultation to seek the views of everyone in society, including those who are hostile to religious education. Those people should be able to engage in that public consultation. The responses will, ultimately, come to the Department before I sign off on the legislative approach, by way of an order, around the syllabus.

Pragmatism and common good, yes, very much so. I have listened to the voices that have been expressed over the past week on the issue. I understand that the judgement related to one specific school and the approach that it had taken, by way of the ability to opt out and withdraw. We need to look at what a meaningful withdrawal is if parents choose that they do not want their children to participate in collective worship. How do you ensure that there is an effective withdrawal process? What the judgement does not say is that you need to change the Christian approach to collective worship. It does not say that. We will look through all of this with a pragmatic view to the approach, but I also say to Members that a lot of the religious denominations have not reacted negatively, per se, to the judgement. They welcome the opportunity to look at the curriculum. Indeed, in its intervention to the UK Supreme Court, the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC), which is the representative body for a lot of the Protestant denominations, said that it would welcome the opportunity to review the curriculum. I have listened to the Catholic Church, which has said that it welcomes the opportunity to engage in the process, including in the 'Irish News' today, saying that the Catholic Church has a very clear position that it believes that its cultural Christian Catholic ethos should be retained, protected and promoted within the Catholic maintained sector. I can understand that approach. It is in line with the convention rights for parents to bring their children up within the ethos of the school that they wish. All those things are complex, but they need to be handled sensitively, and I will certainly do that.

It will. I will write to schools within the next number of days — my sign-off on the letter to schools is imminent. We will provide guidance. My intention is to do that before the end of this calendar year, by way of interim guidance as to the approaches that we should seek to take, but there is more work to be done on the wider core syllabus when it comes to the curriculum around religious education. That will take more time to do with the processes that need to be set up.

I have outlined the approach that we will take, and I think that it is important again to make clear that the judgement did not say that there should not be a Christian ethos within our schools. Indeed, it said that that can and should continue to be the primary ethos in our schools. That has been misrepresented by other organisations.

Well, I am pleased that the Alliance Party now wants to clarify its position. It should not have taken the confusion around witchcraft and paganism for the party to have to do so today. Others will be able to draw their own conclusions about the Alliance Party's social policies and approaches to education. I know where Alliance is on those issues, and the vast majority of people know where it sits on them. That is why, in public commentary, different views are expressed by MLAs who want to be able to withdraw and give parents the right to withdraw from those activities. Michelle Guy has made her point, and I have outlined how we will comply with the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the points that have been made. It will be complied with in line with the legislation. The legislation was not struck down as a result of the court judgement.

I very much confirm that schools can continue with their collective worship and assemblies. Indeed, it would be unlawful for schools to stop collective worship and assemblies from taking place, because the law has not been struck down. If any school has been contemplating doing that, they should not, because that would be unlawful and would rightly be challenged by any parent of that school. In the controlled sector in particular, there is legislative underpinning for collective worship, and there are distinct legal approaches around it. When it comes to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), boards of governors have greater responsibility for such matters, but, for controlled schools, it is the legislation, not boards of governors, that underpins collective worship. Governors have to comply with the law in that respect. Now that the matter has been given greater public awareness, some parents will ask how often collective worship takes place in their school, what its nature is and whether it reflects the legislative underpinning that states that it ought to be from a Christian ethos. The issues are being debated much more widely among the public, and there will be much greater interest in the way in which schools operate. As Education Minister, I say to all our schools that they should comply with the law, and the law is that collective worship should continue.

A parent's right to opt their child out of collective worship should not, nor will it, trump the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents to have their children engage in collective worship in a Christian ethos. Members and parents are entitled to their individual position on the matter, but the judgement does not require that one parent's right to opt out their child should mean that there is no form of collective worship from a Christian perspective in a school. As I take forward the approach on this, it will be for me to appoint persons of interest who will look at the issue and review the curriculum. They will carry out their work, and there will then be an opportunity by way of public consultation for everybody, including atheists, humanists and those who have a different approach, to feed into that process. They will be able to do that through the public consultation, and I will welcome their input to it. That will be reflected on and considered. The curriculum will then be finalised, and we will follow due process when it comes to my responsibilities on the matter.

Yes, the process has been going on for a number of years, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. The costs have not yet been finalised, but the Department has had to set aside a significant amount of money — hundreds of thousands of pounds — for the legal costs associated with the case. That is funding that will be spent not on parts of our education sector but on meeting those legal costs. The final figure is yet to crystallise.

I will respond to Members when they put forward their positions, but when one's position on the matter is confused — I am not yet clear on the SDLP's position — it is only right that we try to get some clarity. I do not think that anybody will be able to second-guess the approach that I will take on this matter. However, when other Members are not able to answer very basic questions about paganism and witchcraft, we should ask those questions. Alliance has now provided clarity and said that it does not regard those as belief systems that should be taught in our education system. The whole situation could have been avoided entirely had it answered those questions only last week.

I thank the Member for his question. The case was, very clearly, not about secularism in our education system. The court has clearly stated that religious education may be provided in schools. Nor was the case about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. The court has explained that the greater part of religious education may focus on knowledge of Christianity and that the Department retains responsibility for setting and planning the curriculum for religious education. We will continue to comply with the law, but we will do so in a way that preserves the values that have underpinned our education system for many years.

We will comply with the law in that respect. The legal framework that exists around this is very simple for Members to follow. The process that we have to take forward sits entirely with the Department, so I will continue to take that forward. My view that the Christian ethos is the primary faith that should be reflected in our education system is not an outlier. My thinking is entirely representative of mainstream thinking in Northern Ireland on that. It is Mr Tennyson's party that is out of step with where people in Northern Ireland are on such issues, not me.

Yes, they absolutely should. I heard a bit of chuckling at the question. We have parents contacting schools and demanding that nativity plays be cancelled, not just in light of the Supreme Court judgement. It has been happening for years. There are parents who are vocal and active about saying that we should not have things as minimal as nativity plays in schools. The Member asks a valid question and one on which principals have reached out to my Department and other organisations for advice. I can give him a categorical answer: nativity plays can continue to take place in our schools.

3,340 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Qualifying Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:01 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