Debate contribution: Religious Education and Collective Worship in Schools
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- 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 5362429
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am happy to look at the information and collect the data on withdrawal, because that information would be helpful. I suspect that it would point to the very small numbers who engage on the matter. In the Member's other comments, he highlighted that religious education should be open to all, but, if the solution to making it open to everybody is that we must accommodate those who do not want religious education or collective worship in our schools, it would not be open to all. That would deny it to the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and their children. I do not support what the Member presents, and I do not believe that the wider population would support the position that he has adopted.
127 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: 0.22 (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 (0.66).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.79).
- Subject area: Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice).
- 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 | 0.54 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.14 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.23 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.18 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.17 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.66 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.22 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.79 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.16 |
| 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.