Debate contribution: Review of Religious Education: Update
Debate contribution by Mr Paul Givan on .
- MLA
- Mr Paul Givan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 March 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Review of Religious Education: Update
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5465513
Read the official Assembly record
Text
The Member is right to highlight the inaccuracy in respect of the comments that Mrs Guy made around RE. She went on to make a number of other misinformed comments, but I will respond to those later in the week. The characterisation, as the Member described it, is completely inaccurate. My Department did not push the case to the Supreme Court, and my personal level of involvement in the legal proceedings is minimal. The genesis of the RE judicial review was in November 2021, well before my time in office. The case that was taken by a child and their father was heard by the High Court, with the judgement handed down in July 2022. At the time, the then Minister of Education, Michelle McIlveen, instructed the Department to appeal that decision. That appeal was heard in October 2023, and the outcome was handed down in April 2024. Whilst the High Court concluded that the impugned legislation was in breach of the applicant's rights, the Court of Appeal found that there was no breach because of the existence of the unqualified statutory rights of the parent to have their child excused wholly or partly from attendance at religious education, collective worship or both in accordance with their request. Following the Court of Appeal judgement, which largely found in favour of the Department, it was the applicants, not the Department, who applied to the Supreme Court. The Department was a respondent in the case. The Supreme Court hearing was held in May 2025. In advance of the hearing and based on the views of counsel, I agreed to a cross-appeal in respect of issues not adjudicated on by the Court of Appeal in Belfast. That involvement falls well short of having:
"pushed his own department to take a case on religious education all the way to the Supreme Court."
Not for the first time, Mrs Guy is wrong.
317 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: 0.17 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.96).
- 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 | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.07 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.23 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.36 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.17 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.96 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.03 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.95 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.04 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:07 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.