Debate contribution: Religious Education and Collective Worship in Schools

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on 3 February 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Givan

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

3 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Religious Education and Collective Worship in Schools

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5362343

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On 19 November 2025, the United Kingdom Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the case of JR87 concerning religious education and collective worship in a Northern Ireland school. On 24 November 2025, I gave the Assembly my commitment that I would return at the earliest opportunity to set out my response. Today, I honour that commitment.

As Members will be aware, religious education and collective worship are legally compulsory in all publicly funded schools in Northern Ireland except nursery schools. The JR87 case examined whether, in one school, the teaching of RE and the arrangements for collective worship complied with the rights guaranteed under article 2 of protocol No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, read alongside article 9, as incorporated through the Human Rights Act 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the original case judge's declaration that, in that case, the pupil's rights had been breached and the current core syllabus did not in itself ensure that religious education was delivered in a manner that was objective, critical and pluralistic. It should be noted that the court's findings related specifically to the circumstances of the pupil involved and to delivery at the applicant's school. It is essential to be clear about what the court determined and, equally, what it did not. The court did not strike down the legislation that governs RE and collective worship. That legal framework remains firmly and intentionally in place. Schools therefore must lawfully continue to teach RE and provide collective worship. The judgment does, however, identify areas of concern in which action is now required. Three issues in particular demand attention: ensuring that the core syllabus for religious education is objective, critical and pluralistic; ensuring that the right of withdrawal from RE and collective worship is practical and effective and does not place an undue burden on parents; and ensuring that a robust inspection regime is in place to monitor and uphold standards in RE. I will address each issue in turn, starting with revision of the core syllabus for RE. Religious education in all schools must include the core syllabus specified in article 11 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. The syllabus sets out core matters, skills and processes to be taught. The court found that the Department of Education, having assumed responsibility for setting the core syllabus:

"must take care that information or knowledge ... is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner."

I have therefore decided that it is necessary for the Department to revise the core syllabus. While the court recognised that schools can deliver RE lawfully, where they incorporate broader material beyond the core syllabus, I do not believe that it is reasonable to leave schools to interpret the judgment alone. Different approaches in different settings lead to a heavy burden for schools. The absence of nationally agreed core content standards would also ultimately lead to significant disparities in the nature and quality of RE across schools. The time is now right for a review of the syllabus. It has been nearly 20 years since it was last revised, and a wider curriculum review is already under way. Further, a wide range of stakeholders, including the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC), have indicated their support for revision of the syllabus, and there is wide recognition of the need for clarity, consistency and modernisation, reinforcing the need for change. In addition, I am especially mindful of the need to safeguard religious education as an important academic discipline in the curriculum. A useful and enriching knowledge of Christianity and, more widely, the world's main religious and philosophical traditions, studied with academic rigour, will be the ambition of the new syllabus. In that way, we will equip young people with the essential knowledge to understand a vital phenomenon that continues to shape today's world: religious tradition, belief and practice. All subjects across the curriculum should introduce pupils to disciplines of thought that provide powerful knowledge beyond their immediate experience. RE should exemplify that principle. RE is also about engaging pupils with profound questions of meaning, identity and ethics. It develops analytical skills through interpreting texts, evaluating arguments and understanding historical and cultural contexts. In doing so, RE prepares young people for life in modern society and cultivates qualities that are essential for democratic citizenship. A revised syllabus will reflect those ambitions, ensuring that RE is taught objectively, critically and pluralistically. The revision of the syllabus will therefore, above all, strengthen RE as an academic discipline. Let me be clear, however: as upheld by the court, Christianity will remain central to the revised syllabus. The reality of Northern Ireland’s historical, cultural and legal context means that Christianity should and will continue to be the primary focus of the revised syllabus. It will give continued recognition to the historical role of Christianity in Northern Ireland’s education system and society. While religious diversity is increasing, Christianity continues to shape our cultural norms, public holidays and civic life. A curriculum that ignores that reality would fail to prepare pupils for the social and historical context in which they live. Subjects should introduce pupils to powerful knowledge that helps them to understand the world. In Northern Ireland, that includes understanding the Christian tradition, which has profoundly influenced literature, art, law, ethics and political history. Today, I have published terms of reference for the review of the RE syllabus. That review is separate from the review of the wider curriculum, which is now well under way. To take the work forward, I am appointing Professor Noel Purdy OBE, director of research and scholarship at Stranmillis University College, to chair the new syllabus drafting group. Professor Purdy is a leading educational expert in Northern Ireland and has contributed extensively to educational policy, research and public discourse. I am confident that he will bring academic rigour and significant experience to the process. Mrs Joyce Logue, a former principal of Long Tower Primary School, will serve as the vice-chair of the group. Joyce is a long-serving and deeply respected educationalist and will ensure strong professional leadership and practitioner voice. My officials will invite an open call for applications to join the drafting group from experienced primary school teachers and RE subject specialists in schools across Northern Ireland, who will contribute their expertise to this important task. There will be representation from every school sector. That approach reflects my commitment to transparency, professionalism and broad educational input. I also want to emphasise that extensive engagement with a consultative group of the main Churches will be a central element of the process. Their historical role in education and their continued contribution to school ethos and community life means that their voices must be heard and respected. There will also be extensive wider public engagement through an open call for evidence and focus group discussions with key stakeholders including children, young people and parents. I hope that the drafting group will provide me with a new draft syllabus that is consistent with existing statutory obligations and the recent judgement by the summer of 2026. I anticipate that the new religious education curriculum will subsequently be consulted on, with the new regulations being made in the autumn and the new syllabus implemented from September 2027. In the meantime, my officials have written to schools today to remind them that, in delivering RE and using the current core syllabus, they should include additional objective, critical and pluralistic material to ensure that there is no breach of European Convention rights. My Department will also issue interim guidance for the 2026-27 academic year before the summer. The current legislation provides for an unqualified right of withdrawal from religious education and collective worship. I have concluded that it is neither desirable nor easily achievable to bring about fundamental changes to collective worship. Therefore, I believe that meeting the requirements of the judgement will involve ensuring that the right of withdrawal is consistent with all necessary requirements. In this case, exercising the right of withdrawal was not considered straightforward either for the parent or the school, as no pre-existing alternative arrangements were in place and the parents had to negotiate with the school before withdrawal, which created complexity and risk. The court concluded that the right of withdrawal must be practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory. Exercising that right should be simple and frictionless. There should be pre-existing arrangements that are ready to be implemented to avoid the need for discussions with parents that risk them feeling that they need to disclose their own religious or philosophical convictions. Today, I am publishing guidance to support schools to meet those requirements and to ensure clarity and consistency across all schools. Parents must be informed about the right of and arrangements for withdrawal when their child is admitted to the school and again annually.

There must be no undue burden on parents. In short, withdrawal must be straightforward, stigma-free and supported.

The right to withdrawal will involve a simple and confidential procedure via a standard form, without parents needing to provide reasons, justifications or declarations of their own beliefs. The school must grant the request promptly, without negotiation, approval processes or delays. Partial withdrawal from specific topics or activities is permitted. There must be no stigmatisation of the child. Children should participate in meaningful, supervised alternative activity such as independent study, reading or play, integrated discreetly to avoid singling them out. In circumstances where an effective right of withdrawal is in place, schools will be able to continue with their existing practices and routine in regard to collective worship. The Supreme Court also criticised the current lack of inspection of religious education and collective worship. To address that gap, I intend to introduce legislation in the current Assembly term to ensure robust, transparent and accountable inspection arrangements for religious education and arrangements for withdrawal. I will bring a paper to the Executive over the coming weeks and will ask for their full support in taking forward that important legislation. That will support the implementation of effective processes for withdrawal and the further enhancement of religious education as an important and high-quality element of the curriculum. This is a measured and responsible response to the Supreme Court judgement. I am taking three key steps. The first is a new religious education curriculum, developed under the leadership of Professor Noel Purdy, supported by Joyce Logue and experienced subject specialists. That process will involve extensive consultation, including with the Churches. The second is guidance ensuring that the right of withdrawal is meaningful, straightforward and fully compliant with legal obligations. The third is legislation to introduce inspection of religious education and arrangements for withdrawal, ensuring transparency and building public confidence. Finally, the court made clear that this case was not about secularism or removing religion from our education system, nor was it 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 most important religion in Northern Ireland, and that reality will continue to be reflected in our curriculum. There was also no challenge in this case to the principle that collective worship in schools in Northern Ireland may focus on the Christian religion or that, in Catholic maintained schools, the focus of collective worship may reflect the distinctive character of the Catholic tradition. This statement and the changes proposed are a product of a judgement of the Supreme Court. It is not my intention to bring about changes to the arrangements for religious education and collective worship beyond the terms of that judgement. I know that there are others who would take a different approach and would seek more far-reaching changes. There will, no doubt, be those who seek a mandate for such changes at the next election. That is the place for such changes to be determined. However, if such changes are to be introduced at some point in the future, they will be for another Minister and another term of the Assembly.

I addressed some of those points in the early commentary, but the Member highlights the issue of how we address division. Key to Christianity is respect, tolerance and greater understanding. That is why it has enriched our society for many, many years. It is why those within Church leadership have often been to the fore of seeking to get peace and reconciliation in our communities. The Member is right about how we should take forward religious education and the way that it should foster that spirit of respect in our society. I am confident that, under Professor Noel Purdy and Joyce Logue, and when we appoint the subject specialists, we will be able to enhance the religious education curriculum. It has been over 20 years since such an exercise was carried out, and I welcome the opportunity that it presents.

The reference in RE to Holy Scriptures will not be changing. It is not required to change. When we talk about objectivity, the key point that came through in the court judgement is that schools, in order to provide the necessary level of objectivity, should be indicating what Christians believe in the same way that they indicate what followers of Judaism and Islam believe. That came through in the court judgement, and it will be reflected in the approach. Ultimately, however, when you are teaching what Christianity teaches, it is based upon —. I do not use the term "Holy Scriptures". It is a matter of terminology. People refer to "the scriptures", "the Bible" or whatever term they want to use. However, that will be retained because, obviously, the fundamental underpinning of Christian teaching comes from the Bible.

Obviously, we want every child to be able to attend religious education. It is beneficial. When I was at school, I was able to learn about other religious beliefs, which helped to enrich my understanding, particularly of other countries because you get a better grip of the historical and cultural influences that religious teachings have had in them. The key issue is objectivity and how the learning is presented in schools. That will be reflected on as part of the development of the curriculum. We can now get on with establishing the subject working group. I have identified who will lead that group, and we will make the relevant appointments to it. That will then be developed. There will be an opportunity to engage on that. Specifically, the Churches will retain a unique role in their aspects of the curriculum. However, there will then be a public consultation, and everybody across society will be able to have an input into what that curriculum should contain. It will then be for the Department to take that forward, and, subject to the normal processes, give it statutory underpinning.

I thank the Member for his question. He is right that the way in which the Supreme Court was misrepresented by those who take a hostile view towards Christianity caused unnecessary concern. I sought to allay those fears as quickly as I could, but they have continued with those who have engaged with the process. I trust that what I have said today will continue to allay those fears. There are those who wish to pursue a secular, humanist-type approach to religious education, but that will not be happening in Northern Ireland. The Churches will continue to have a role. Extensive engagement with a consultative group of the main Churches will be a central element of the process. The group will contain nominees from the Catholic Church and the Transferor Representatives' Council, which has representatives from the three Protestant Churches that transferred their schools to the state. The historic role of the Churches in education, and their continued contribution to school ethos and community life, means that their voices must be heard and respected. The consultative group will contain nominees from those bodies. They will be able to engage as the subject working group develops the curriculum.

The Member is right: there is considerable growth outside of the three main Protestant denominations in various different evangelical churches and denominations. They will have an opportunity, as will everybody, to participate in the public consultation. There is a unique historical context in that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Church of Ireland and the Methodist Church led on education. They recognised the value of having children educated. They developed schools, and then, when Northern Ireland came into being, they transferred those schools to the state. The Catholic Church equally valued education, and it retains its specific role in education. It is right that we not only acknowledge that but celebrate it. They should have a role. However, that is not to the exclusion of other Churches; they will be able to have input into the process.

I am very clear about how that should be handled. As I outlined in the statement, it should be a very clear and simple process. It should not be subject to negotiation if parents do not want to go into it or have a discussion; they have an unqualified right to withdrawal. However, if children are not taking part in collective worship, they need to have a meaningful purpose. I have been in school assemblies where some children have participated in certain elements and have then withdrawn from a religious aspect. That is where you have a partial withdrawal arrangement. The withdrawal mechanism has to be effective. Ultimately, the right of parents should be facilitated by the school. The process will be much clearer and simpler, and it will be done in a way that does not stigmatise. The other issue is that, in addition to the legal requirement on schools to ensure that collective worship takes place, I have asked them to hold an assembly without a religious component at least once a month that celebrates other aspects of the school in which everyone can participate.

They absolutely can. Indeed, they are legally required to do so. That should be taking place. All publicly funded schools, with the exception of nursery schools, have a legal requirement to provide daily collective worship. That legislation was not set aside by the courts. That is why I welcome the opportunity to provide an inspection process that will make sure that all schools provide collective worship. People have had some concern about Christianity's being taken out of our schools. Far from it; this ensures that Christianity remains central to our schools and collective worship. However, we also need to make sure that all schools comply with the law when it comes to collective worship. The inspectorate will be able to monitor that and provide information to us in that respect.

Members will have read the court judgement. It has helped to inform the creation of the subject working group. That is why it is being led by Professor Noel Purdy and Joyce Logue, and we are appointing subject specialist professionals from within the education sector. Churches will have a key role in that, but the court was also critical of the previous way in which the curriculum was drafted: it was drafted directly by Churches. Therefore, I have sought to find a way to make sure that we respect what the court said whilst respecting the important role that the Churches have. That will ensure that there is due recognition, and then there will be wider public consultation. I do not anticipate any circumstance in which the curriculum would be drafted by the subject working group and the Churches — we have engaged with the TRC and the Catholic Church — would not have a role. I do not envisage any circumstance in which I would put out a curriculum for wider public consultation without having the support of the Churches for what is contained in it. Then, when we put it out for public consultation, everybody will be able to participate in the consultation process.

I have outlined how the religious education aspect of the curriculum will be taken forward. In regards to collective worship, I made it clear in the opening statement to the House that you cannot change that collective worship approach whereby a Christian minister or priest participates in a school assembly. We cannot expect them to say that what they believe is, however, somehow disagreed with by other religious beliefs. It is not practical or, in my view, desirable for that to take place in a collective worship scenario. That is why there will be no change to collective worship. When I look at the Catholic Church and see what happens in Catholic schools, I see that they have to have the Catholic ethos respected, whether or not I agree with it. Parents have a right to choose the school in which they want to have their children brought up. That is protected under European Convention rights. Therefore, we are striking, in my view, the right balance: we will develop the religious education curriculum appropriately, but, when it comes to collective worship, there will be no change. However, that is where we have to have an effective withdrawal mechanism that does not stigmatise and that respects the unqualified rights of the parents without negotiation or discussion. There should be meaningful purpose for the children in those cases. We have then, at least once a term, a wider celebration of an aspect of school life where no child should feel that they need to withdraw.

There was some criticism in the court judgement that, for inspection of religious education to be carried out, it required the express approval of boards of governors. That is not the case for other subjects, and, therefore, we seek to correct that. When we develop the curriculum for religious education, we need to ensure that it is academic and powerful. In order for us to monitor that, some form of inspection must take place. Historically, under the law, there was a responsibility on the Churches to carry out the inspection of RE. In practice, that was not happening, or, if it was, it was happening very much on the periphery. It is therefore right that an element of the inspection process should incorporate religious education. Inspection of religious education would also mean being able to monitor the effective application of the withdrawal policies that would operate in schools. It would also mean being able to report that schools were complying with the law and making sure that collective worship was taking place in our schools.

The answer is an emphatic yes. They can. I gave those assurances very quickly after the UK Supreme Court judgement. Today, I have outlined in further detail the way in which we are responding legally and proportionately to that judgement. It is absolutely the case that schools can continue with the practice of collective worship, as has been the case. We now need to have an effective right of withdrawal in place, however. That is the way in which we are responding to that court judgement.

Without having to rely on a UK Supreme Court judgement, I hope that all children feel empowered to be able to engage. I certainly was. My RE teacher would tell you that RE was probably one of the subjects in which I was most participative. Young people should feel that they can engage. That should be happening irrespective of the court judgement. I have outlined how we will take forward the curriculum review and have addressed the issue of collective worship. That is a proportionate way in which to do it, but it does ensure and will ensure that Christianity remains the central tenet of religious education in Northern Ireland. That will continue to be the case.

3,949 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:23 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