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 5362407

Text

I respect the fact that Mr O'Toole does not seek an assault on Christianity in our schools, but he is wrong to suggest that there are not those in our society who are engaged in an assault on Christianity being taught in our schools and on collective worship. I have spoken to numerous principals who have told me that parents have demanded that there should not be collective worship practices in schools and that there should not even be nativity plays put on. Those principals often feel the pressure that is being put on them by a very small but very vocal minority. I am ensuring that that noisy minority will not be the determinant factor. The majority of people support the current practice of collective worship and of Christianity being at the core of religious education, and I will ensure that that continues. I will ensure that the Churches continue to have a specific role in that process. All people will be able to engage with the public consultation and provide feedback, but I do not want to create the impression that those who would seek to have a secularist, non-religious aspect to religious education will be able to sway me to a different outcome in the matter, because they will not.
I thank the Member for that question. I propose to bring proposals to the Executive over the coming weeks and to ask them to agree to removing the exemption from the inspection process for RE. That would allow for a Bill to be drafted, introduced to the Assembly and enacted before the end of the Assembly term.
Schools will continue to be able to bring in third parties for religious education and acts of collective worship. I trust very much that, when our school leaders and principals bring people into a school, they will ensure that those individuals act responsibly. Indeed, that is the case. If there is evidence of someone having been brought into a school and having said something inappropriate or acted inappropriately, that should be reported through the normal processes, and I would anticipate the school taking the appropriate actions. That is very different from somebody saying that they disagree with a Christian minister coming into a school and putting forward their Christian beliefs. There are those who do not agree with that. If a parent complains that a Christian minister has done that, the school should not empower that parent by having that Christian minister or other organisation removed. That would be to have that minority — that vocal individual — dictate to the majority in the school, and we should not facilitate that.
I am happy to give the Member that assurance. I agree with what he said. The number of people who engage in such hostile activity is small, but that small number can, nevertheless, have a disproportionate impact. We need to be able to withstand that. This approach strikes the right balance in respect of the Supreme Court judgement. It properly respects the Christian ethos in our schools and reflects, historically and culturally, the Northern Ireland of today. I believe that it is the right way to take things forward. Let the working group get on with the job, and let us appoint the specialists to draft the curriculum. We will engage with stakeholders and the wider public through the proper processes and get to a point at which we can bring forward a revised curriculum. Collective worship, as it is currently practised in our schools, can continue. It is legal; indeed, it is a requirement in law.
Part of the issue is that RE has not been subject to wider inspection. We will correct that, and that will help to ensure consistency in the application of the curriculum. We are addressing that. I have provided schools with interim guidance and information to which they can refer. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has material that, in the interim period, addresses the issues that the Supreme Court highlighted around objectivity. Material is available. I encourage schools to access that material in relation to the religious education that they currently deliver. We will put the guidance on a firm foundation when we work through the process of establishing the curriculum.

712 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

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

Flagged on a second assessment, because Jev’s answers did not settle it. The reasons are given below.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.38 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
Criteria met: Identity framing (0.78); Cultural grievance politics (0.69).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.63).
The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.82).
Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
The answers did not meet either automatic 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.

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict: Flagged
Public interest or divisiveness: Mixed

Against the published rubric

Much of the text deals with real policy: removing RE's exemption from inspection, a Bill, a new curriculum, and CCEA interim guidance after the Supreme Court judgment. Alongside this, the speaker frames the issue as a contest between 'the majority' and 'a very small but very vocal minority' of parents who object to collective worship. These parents are described as engaged in 'an assault on Christianity' and 'hostile activity', and as a 'noisy minority' who must not 'dictate to the majority'. This sets the majority against people of no religion or secular views, which the rubric names as populist framing of an equality group. The speaker also says those seeking a 'secularist, non-religious' approach 'will not' sway the outcome, whatever the consultation shows.

Public interest or divisiveness

The material on inspection, curriculum drafting and compliance with the court ruling serves the public interest. However, a substantial part of the contribution casts parents who raise objections, including those using the normal complaints route, as hostile and illegitimate. It also tells schools not to 'empower' them. That contests the place of non-religious families in shaping public education rather than engaging with their rights, so both elements are substantial.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.78	Yes
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.40	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.69	Yes
Dog-whistle messaging	0.56	No
Controversy escalation	0.44	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.63	Yes
Overall judgement	0.38	Between thresholds

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing	0.12
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.06
Adopts it (chosen)	0.82

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice)	1.00
No identity-related subject	0.00
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 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