Is the stipulation “that parents do not object” sufficient to allow parents and children to prevent members of the clergy, possibly from particular denominations, having access to their schools for purposes of instruction? Would parents who object be unduly burdened by the process?

(5) Schedule 4 of The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 sets out the statutory rules for the Membership and Composition of Boards of Governors of Controlled Schools. The Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC) represents the Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church in Ireland and Methodist Church in Ireland. TRC make nominations to controlled school Boards of Governors in NI. Transferor representatives have a guaranteed voting plurality on the boards of controlled primary and secondary schools other than grammar and integrated schools.

Researcher David Bell notes that “the TRC recruits, trains and supports over 1,800 transferor governors for a role it associates with maintaining Christian ethos, describing education as enabling children to reach their ‘God-given potential’ within Christian values, while the PCI describes distinctly Christian education as permeating the curriculum”. Bell argues that “the post-JR87 response addresses curriculum and withdrawal but leaves those governance conditions largely intact. Reform of the governance architecture, including an independent statutory compliance function and reconsideration of Schedule 4 [of the 1986 Order], warrants assessment alongside inspection and teacher education”.

Bell argues “curriculum, guidance and inspection reform may be insufficient unless the governance conditions under which RE is implemented are also examined.” Does the Department admit that TRC’s permanent plurality on boards of governors may prevent the provision of religious education that is objective, critical, and pluralist?

Catholic Maintained Schools

Catholic maintained schools remain able to teach religion and collective worship on an explicitly denominational basis and JR87 explicitly excluded Catholic Education from its remit. For its part, representing the Catholic church, Bishop Alan McGuckian was quick to assert that ‘this ruling applies to a controlled grant-aided primary school and does not apply to Catholic schools’ (his emphasis). For the Bishop, the idea that Christianity should be given no priority in all schools “is simply ungrounded, unreasonable and illogical” on the supposed basis that the Judaeo-Christian world view is “the value-based foundation for all that is good in western society”.

In our view it is almost impossible that the denominational and confessional curriculum delivered in Catholic schools could be at the same time “objective, critical, and pluralist”.

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act places a statutory duty on public authorities, including the Department of Education, to operate with ‘due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity … between persons of different religious belief’. In addition, Assembly legislation, must not enable discrimination on grounds of religious belief. Deb et al note that “it is difficult to see how the reform of the legislative arrangements underpinning Religious Education and Collective Worship which did not extend across primary and secondary provision in all schools, not simply controlled schools, would meet these requirements”. The Catholic maintained sector will have to change in accordance with this extant legislation and given the nature of the Assembly, this catalyst to changes to Catholic religious education may be litigation in the courts rather than legislation by elected representatives.

As Deb et al state, ”schools, as public bodies operating under the duties imposed by section 6 of the Human Rights Act, find themselves exposed to potential litigation if they do not modify their practice in light of the judgment.”