Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I formally welcome everyone from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Alyson Kilpatrick, chief commissioner; Julia Buchanan, senior policy and research officer; and Colin Caughey, director of policy. You are all welcome. You have the privilege of being the first organisation to present evidence to our inquiry into relationships and sexuality education (RSE). We look forward to kicking that off. Our slots for the inquiry are a little shorter, as we have a fair bit of evidence to get through. We are looking at the session taking around 30 minutes. You have up to 10 minutes for a presentation, and, in whatever time we have left after that, we will have questions and answers.

Ms Alyson Kilpatrick (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): I hope to able to keep it shorter than that. I will take my watch off. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): If we are getting close to 10 minutes, I may just step in and let you know. I know that, when you are in the flow, it is easy to lose track of time.

Ms Kilpatrick: I have prepared what I want to say — unusually for me — and it should be 10 minutes.

Thank you. You have introduced us all, so I will not take up time doing that. I really appreciate the invitation and welcome the mini-inquiry that you are undertaking. I am chief commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, as you said. My two colleagues, Julia and Colin, are experts in these issues. They will probably answer all the difficult questions and correct me when I am wrong.

You invited us to share observations on RSE in post-primary schools, and we know that that stems from our report, the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) etc. I will begin with a brief overview of the relevant human rights framework. I am conscious, of course, that most of you know all this stuff. If it is too simple, stop me. However, it will be brief, and some scene-setting might be helpful. I will then turn to our investigation and draw out some of the key issues from a human rights perspective. I reiterate that we are looking at human rights standards and nothing else.

Amongst other things, we are obliged to ensure that government and public authorities protect, respect and fulfil the human rights of everyone in Northern Ireland. In 2018, the United Nations CEDAW Committee published its report on the inquiry into sexual and reproductive health rights in Northern Ireland. It made a number of recommendations, one of which was for the UK Government and NI Executive to:

The exact wording is important because that started everything off. The recommendation was later given domestic effect through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. That Act placed a duty on the Secretary of State to address that recommendation, which he did. To inform the development of proposals, the commission initiated its own investigation into the provision of RSE in post-primary schools in Northern Ireland, grounded in the CEDAW Committee's recommendation but also in line with our own powers and duties. At the conclusion of that investigation, the Secretary of State introduced regulations in response to the CEDAW Committee and after engagement with us. Therefore, while we do not take responsibility for it, we were certainly involved in some of the discussion. We do not necessarily endorse everything in it. Among other things, the regulations place a duty on the Department of Education to publish a report by September 2026. We understand that we will be consulted on that. We look forward to that and will certainly give it our best attention.

Access to and provision of RSE engages a number of human rights. Those are detailed in chapter 2 of our investigation report, so I can speed through that. Most relevant is that the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act, and, therefore, there is no question that it must be complied with. It includes the right to education, which is article 2 protocol 1. That also requires the state, when exercising its functions in relation to education, to respect parents' religious and philosophical convictions. On the one hand, you have the right to education, and, on the other, you have the right to respect. In our report, we go into the balance to be drawn. The European Court considered the balance of rights and held that parents may not refuse a child's right to education on the basis of their religious or philosophical convictions. It explained that it aims to safeguard pluralism in education and, furthermore, that the right to an education and the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. That should be read together, so they do not cancel each other out; they are not in competition with each other.

I draw your attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), with which you will be very familiar. The convention, at general comment no.4, notes the requirement for states parties to:

The CRC committee noted with concern the barriers to sexual education, including parental exemptions. In its examination of the UK last year, the committee recommended that the UK, including the Northern Ireland Executive, should:

Its rationale is that comprehensive and accurate RSE is essential to fulfil a range of human rights, including the right to education but also the right to health and even the right to life. RSE also has, as we know, an important role to play in preventing abuse and violence and promoting gender equality. It is not just about the mechanics; it is about protecting children.

We began our investigation in late 2021 and published our report in June 2023. The methodology is outlined in the report, but I will say a couple of words about that because I have been asked about it before. Our investigation focused on the legal policy and regulatory framework for RSE in post-primary schools, as it should because that is our role and remit. It included independent experts' analysis of relevant data and documentation, which we then drew upon. We did not engage directly with students or teachers, nor did we observe the teaching of RSE in schools. Others, such as the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI), do that work, and we were careful not to duplicate their role; we chose not to.

Our investigation found that the curriculum did not meet human rights standards, including, specifically, the CEDAW Committee recommendation. It referenced some positive examples of schools providing comprehensive and scientifically accurate RSE but found that, in the majority of schools, that was not the case. More troubling was the record that, in some cases, materials were not comprehensive, pluralistic or objective; were outdated; and did not reflect relevant changes to the law. Our report, therefore, recommended amending the law — I will not bore you with the quote again — to include the prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion. A compulsory component of the curriculum is key, and implementation should be monitored.

We welcomed publication of the 2023 regulations, but we recommended further action. Therefore, we very much welcome the mini-inquiry. We are keen to work with you in progressing it. We have commenced a follow-up that we will share with you, hopefully, quite quickly. There are some unanswered questions that we will address in more detail, such as whether the Department considers that the duty in the 2023 regulations extends beyond the provision of education and prevention of early pregnancy and termination. We are also exploring how the provisions on the right of a parent to withdraw a child from education or parts of education are reflected in policy and practice. We are concerned that the process for monitoring is not effective. For example, we are unsure if sufficient data has been collected since the regulations came into force. In particular, we wonder if any proper data is being collected on parents opting to withdraw children from lessons. We recommend that that data, including the reasons given for withdrawal, should be collected, and that it should be disaggregated to determine whether any specific groups are disproportionately affected. That is a specific thing that can be done to ensure proper monitoring.

There is a similar but not identical provision in England. In Wales, there is no right to withdraw. The High Court in Wales held that there was no breach of parents' rights. We anticipate further cases, which we will be bring back to you. The right to withdraw is not settled.

We believe that the regulations are a good first step but that schools must be supported to develop their capacity to deliver RSE and that, over time, the provision must be monitored and the data analysed. The Education and Training Inspectorate of Northern Ireland will be central to this, so its recent initiative to improve oversight of RSE delivery is welcome.

I will conclude with these few words. We recognise the debate and apprehension around some of this, but we also recognise that some of that has been fuelled by misinformation or even disinformation about what this entails and what is being recommended. To overcome that and put everyone's mind at ease, it would be helpful if better communication and information were shared with educators, parents and wider society. The Department might want to consider how it can raise awareness of the issues and what is suggested to tackle them, and also look proactively at the benefits of holistic RSE and address the myths and misconceptions that may contribute to parental concern and the withdrawal of children from class. That is not to say that we dismiss that out of hand. Our report stays neutral in relation to a lot of that.

Thank you for the opportunity. I think that that was just about within the 10 minutes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It was, indeed.

Ms Kilpatrick: We will answer whatever questions you have.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you very much. I know it was a lot to ask to squeeze all of that into 10 minutes.

I want to pick up on some of the comments that you made at the end. The Committee was mindful, when these regulations landed at our first meeting a number of months back, that we had had no opportunity to engage with them in any sort of scrutiny process and that the work had already been done at Westminster. We agreed unanimously that it would be appropriate for the Committee to take a focused, evidence-based approach to this issue. It can be an issue that descends into subjective positioning on all sides and angles across the spectrum of the debate, so we were keen to make sure that we take a holistic, broad and evidence-based approach to what the future of RSE, the delivery of that curriculum and any need for legislative reform in Northern Ireland might look like. I hope that our evidence sessions will be characterised by a focus on and a commitment to hearing evidence from the experts. Thank you. It is great to have a rights-based perspective at the outset.

I want to pick up on another statement that you made. Your investigation into RSE was quite clear: you feel that the current curriculum does not meet human rights standards. Could you expand a bit on where you think those gaps are and what needs to be done to our curriculum, on an age-appropriate basis, right from primary to post-primary, to address that gap in its human rights standard compliance?

Ms Kilpatrick: I can answer you in a way that will sound like I am ducking it, but I am not. We know what the basic minimum should be to protect children's right to education: scientifically accurate and comprehensive. The determination of what is comprehensive and scientifically accurate will be for others, because we are not experts in that. However, we do know that it has to include reproduction, reproductive rights, pregnancy and consent — all those things that protect children at school and beyond.

Colin was very involved in the actual drafting of the report. He may want to say something more specific.

Mr Colin Caughey (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): When we commenced our investigation, we were looking at the minimum content order prior to the regulations coming in. There has always been a discussion and debate as to how prescriptive the minimum content order is and whether it covers RSE. Our view, looking at the wording included at Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4, is that it is not explicit enough on certain issues including consent, which is in agreement with the Gillen report; LGBTQ+, which is in line with what the expert panel on the LGBTQ+ strategy have said about the need for that to be specifically referred to; and violence against women, which also needs to be specifically referred to. Those are some but not the totality of elements that, the international human rights system says, need to be included in a compulsory curriculum on relationships and sexuality education.

Ms Kilpatrick: You will see that the experts were concerned at some of the teaching that was going on in some schools. Clearly, it would need to start by addressing that. It would need to ensure that ill-informed messages are not taught to children.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We will have statutory bodies coming in to give evidence. One thing that comes through in their reports and has been stated on record publicly is that teachers do not feel confident delivering this material. There is definitely work to be done in that space. We will want to look at that in our inquiry.

I may as well just go there: the one issue around which there has been most nervousness is parental opt-out. I will preface any remarks that I make by emphasising that I am a parent, so I have skin in the game. It is vital that parents are involved in their children's education. For me, that is an absolute given. You have highlighted the challenge with regard to the intersection between the child's rights and the right to education with the parental right around respect for religious and philosophical convictions, and how that feeds into the opt-out provisions.

Clear and explicit opt-out provisions were built into the provisions in the new regulations that were brought in by the Secretary of State. From your organisation's perspective — a rights perspective — where do you think that sits with regard to respecting the rights of the child? Does it provide enough protections in that regard? Do you have a sense of how we square the circle around the conflicting rights in that space? That is where the conflict seems to come up when the issue is debated. It would be good to see a space where those rights do not clash and could be seen as complementary. I am interested to hear your views on that aspect.

Ms Kilpatrick: That is a very good way to ask that, if you do not mind my saying so, because human rights law allows what it calls a margin of appreciation. It allows for different views according to member states' preferences and otherwise, so long as the rights are not undermined entirely. Therefore, there is scope. I talked about the right to education. There is a provision that says that it is a parent's right to have their child educated in a certain way, but a child has a right to be educated. Parental views cannot strip a child of their rights. Julia will talk a wee bit more about that. She has looked into some of the case law in a bit more detail than I have.

Human rights is often a balancing exercise. Sometimes, it can come down to judgement. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has a slightly different view from the European Court of Human Rights at the minute, but we expect the law to change very slightly. We are not in a position to say categorically whether parents should be allowed to opt out. We would say that it depends on whether children are still being educated comprehensively and scientifically accurately. It also depends an awful lot on the age of the child, obviously, and on the capacity and competence of the child.

I will let Julia answer the rest of that, and then I might come back in on where we stand as a commission.

Ms Julia Buchanan (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): As Alyson said, it is an evolving area of jurisprudence. It is still a bit of a grey area. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is really clear that there should not be any option to opt out. It sees that as a violation of the child's right and that the child's right is paramount.

Mr Butler: Where did you get that from, Julia?

Ms Buchanan: The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In its concluding observations from last year, it was clear that there should not be opt-outs. However, the European Court and the European Convention, which is incorporated into domestic law, are a little bit less clear. Effectively, at the minute, the jurisprudence indicates that, while a state may make provision for a parent to withdraw their child from RSE, a parent does not have the right to withdraw their child. That has been interpreted differently. England has a right to withdraw. In Wales, the High Court determined that there should not be an opt-out. Both are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); both approaches are fine at the minute. That could change if a child, group of children or children's rights representative body were to take a case in a Council of Europe member state. There is a chance that that jurisprudence could develop further. One of the main ways in which to strike that balance is to listen to the voice of the child. The UNCRC has lots of guidance on that as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Julia, do you think that the scope in our system to hear the voice of the child is prevalent enough, given the opt-out provisions that were introduced in law earlier in the year?

Ms Buchanan: I think that our investigation — Colin will correct me if I am wrong — found that there was not enough room for children to contribute to the development of the curriculum. We have not seen any of the data on the opt-out yet. I appreciate that it is still in its really early stages. We do not know how much that withdrawal is being used. The guidance that was issued in the circular in January is not really clear. It says that a year 12 student must consent to being opted out. It does not really explain what happens in the situation where a year 12 does not want to be opted out but their parent does.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I think the phrase is "not object".

Ms Buchanan: OK, "not object".

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That gave me a bit of pause when I looked at this.

Ms Buchanan: Yes, you are right.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): A pro forma stating, "My child does not object" is provided, and the parent just signs it.

Ms Buchanan: It is not a proactive voice.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I fully agree that parents should absolutely be heard in this space. Parents should never feel that any curriculum is being imposed on them or their child. However, to have a blanket statement that, "My child does not object", without some capacity for the child's view to be heard does not feel like a balance. It would be good to see if that could be strengthened.

Ms Kilpatrick: There is a minimum content order that determines the minimum amount of education that a child receives and the content of that education. This is no different in many ways. In Northern Ireland, the opt-out applies only to prevention of early pregnancy and termination of pregnancy. It does not appear to rely on opt-out on some of the other issues that we talked about, such as consent. This is not religious education (RE), where there is a place for ethos, beliefs and all that. A child has a right to education, and there is the right for the state to determine what that education should be. There is a limited right for parents to remove a child from education, because, ultimately, the child has a right to be educated. There is a little space, somewhere, where it has to be negotiated. The European Court of Human Rights would say that it is up to the states to determine that, so long as the fundamental right of a child to be educated to a certain standard is not undermined.

I do not pretend that this is easy, although, in some ways, it is very simple. All children of a certain age are entitled to information that will protect their health and life. No parent should deprive them of that. However, parents also have a right to influence what information their child receives.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We would probably not be having the inquiry if it was easy. It is undoubtedly complex.

I will try to practise what I preach and bring other members in. Thank you for that.

Mr Sheehan: I want to continue this conversation, maybe coming at it from a different angle. If the legislation introduced here did not allow for an opt-out, would your organisation have any human rights concerns?

Ms Kilpatrick: I can sense that Colin is dying to say something. As far as I am concerned, there would be concerns, yes, because parents have a right to respect for their beliefs and how their child is educated. However, in Wales, a court has tested that and found that it was not incompatible. It is as long as they are considered and balanced. Ultimately, it is perfectly proper and compatible with human rights to say that the child's right to education trumps the parents' right to respect. It does not mean that any information about anything —

Mr Sheehan: Alyson, in that judicial review in Wales, which found in favour of the Government and against the parents, what precedent or law was the court using when it came to that judgement?

Ms Kilpatrick: Very similar. The legislation introduced there was no opt-out for parents. It was the parent of a child of post-primary age, I think, who took the judicial review. The court looked at the domestic legislation, which did not give an opt-out, and compared that with the Human Rights Act and the convention, which says that parents have a right to respect. The court said that, when developing that legislation, all the relevant factors had been correctly balanced and taken into account; that the education from which you could not opt-out was the basic, scientifically accurate and comprehensive education necessary for a child; and that a child, for their own protection, is entitled to an education as they get older. It will take account of things like the age of the child and the content of the lesson.

Mr Caughey: I was just going to emphasise that that is the margin of appreciation. In that case, the High Court in England and Wales looked closely at the case law and found that there were no definitive judgements from the European Court of Human Rights on that topic, so it said that the state — in this case, a devolved Administration within the state — had the discretion to provide or not to provide an opt-out. As Alyson emphasised, they looked at the curriculum that was in place and found it to be scientifically accurate and giving objective lesson plans that were about empowering and educating children and making sure that they were able to face the challenges of the modern world.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Thanks for that.

Ms Buchanan: That judge in Wales drew on jurisprudence from the European Court, looking at article 2 of protocol 1, which gives the right to education. The first sentence is on the right to education, and the second sentence looks at parental rights. She was drawing on that jurisprudence around that right and how that has been interpreted before, and she felt that the opt-out was compatible with what the European Court had interpreted before.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you.

Ms Kilpatrick: Do you want me to say where, we think, it is going?

Mr Sheehan: Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: I am prepared to take a punt, if you do not hold it against me. [Laughter.]

Where, I suspect, it is going next is that there will be further challenges from children and parents. I think that, ultimately, what will be decided is that it remains within that margin of appreciation: as long as the education reaches the minimum standard, which, in our case, we say should be scientifically accurate, comprehensive etc and should cover early pregnancy and termination, the parents can opt out of any additional education. That is where, I think, it is going, given the jurisprudence, but it may not. They may stick simply where they are and prefer to fudge it and just say to states that there is a margin and they can operate within in. However, if a child brings a case, we suspect that it will go slightly further than the European Court has, so far, but probably not as far as the Committee on the Rights of the Child has gone. Is that at all helpful?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful.

David, you had indicated.

Mr Brooks: Thanks, Chair. For me, the phrase "the right of the child to education" seems to be more about empowering the state to impart its view of the issues than necessarily being about the rights of the child. Whilst I am not going to ask a question on it, I am disappointed in some of the report, where the language used around some of the faith ethics and so on seems to be always of a fairly negative tone. That does not respect the balance between the right to education and the right for families to impart their faith.

Ms Kilpatrick: I have the report in front of me. Do you have a particular example, so that we can address it?

Mr Brooks: We can come back to it. I want to move on to questions because we are time-limited, but I just wanted to give my view on that.

In terms of the report, can you give me figures on how many schools — I have a list here — you contacted in relation to the consultation; how many teachers, pupils and governors were contacted and spoken to; and how many RSE lessons you observed in the course of the research?

Ms Kilpatrick: As I said at the start, we did not observe any classes, and we did not speak to children, because there are other organisations that do that. Neither is it our job to assess or to sit on the shoulder of teachers. What we looked at were the human rights standards. We looked at what the law required, whether there was a gap in the protection of children's rights —

Mr Brooks: There is quite a lot of commentary about what is going on in schools, though, and it appears that you have not talked to anybody involved with schools.

Ms Kilpatrick: Oh, no. We have.

Mr Brooks: OK.

Ms Kilpatrick: As part of the investigation — there is a difference between observing and talking to —

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: — and requesting information — we contacted everyone. We received detailed information from 149 schools, including all the lesson plans. We went on to the various well-being hubs and the RSE hub and looked at all that. Therefore, we do not feel ill equipped to comment.

Mr Brooks: No teachers or parents directly? I am just checking.

Ms Kilpatrick: Not directly, no, because others did. If you look at the ETI report, you see that it comments on that. It is its job to do that. It is not our job to do that. It is our job to say what the standards are, and it is for others to meet those standards or to tell us why those standards are wrong.

It comes back to the core of this, if you do not mind me saying. It is about entitlement to education. In some ways, it is what is set out as the entitlement within this jurisdiction. That is all that we are looking at. We are not looking at whether teachers are doing it nicely or not. That is for the ETI.

Mr Brooks: Who made up the independent panel of experts?

Ms Kilpatrick: Some academics.

Mr Brooks: OK. You are not prepared to go further than that on who those academics were.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, I am not prepared to give their names.

Mr Brooks: OK.

Ms Kilpatrick: We have been through this many times, including at the launch and since we have been asked. We have reached an objective and informed decision as to why we will not share the names. I can tell you that they are from University College London (UCL). They are experts. They are independent. They gave us their research findings. This report is ours. If you have any problems or if anybody has a problem with the report, it is with us; it is not with them.

Mr Brooks: Of course. Absolutely. However, without knowing who those people are, we cannot make our own, open decision about what biases or agendas those people may have.

Ms Kilpatrick: If you think that the report is biased, address that with me.

Mr Brooks: I have at the outset. I just want to make the point that we do not know who those experts are. We talk quite a lot on the Committee about how we will be evidence-based and talk to experts and so on. We are all aware that you can find an expert who will say almost anything. They will come from different directions. That will be something for the Committee to discuss. We do not know who those experts are or what agendas they bring to the table. We have just discussed that you have not talked to any teachers, pupils or governors. You have had some engagement with schools. I am satisfied with that response. Thank you very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have gone very much over time on that inquiry, so I will move on.

Ms Kilpatrick: I do need to come back, though, and say that, if there is any evidence that this is biased in any way, you can draw attention to it in the report. If there is anything in the report that you think is biased, draw that to my attention, because we stand over the contents of the report. We chose not to name the individuals because of threats that were being received in relation to that whole space of work. It is not unusual for researchers to be engaged on an independent basis and for us then to reach a view ourselves. This is our view. We are very open and frank about it. If anybody has a problem with it, it is with me rather than them, and we have chosen not to name them. That is where I am leaving it.

Mr Brooks: I accept that, but I do just want to make that point.

Ms Kilpatrick: I understand that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am conscious of time. Danny, you had indicated next.

Mr Baker: Thank you for the report and all the work that you are doing. Can you elaborate on any gaps that may exist in the provision of RSE in special schools and post-16 education?

Ms Kilpatrick: Do you want to take that, Julia? Is that one of yours?

Ms Buchanan: I will just say that it is one of the recommendations for further investigation at the end of our report. Our report looked only at post-primary mainstream education. I cannot really go into much detail other than to say that we recognise that that is an area that needs further exploration.

Ms Kilpatrick: We are aware of the gaps, rather than having identified exactly what needs to be done to fill the gaps. We know that it is not sufficiently provided in mainstream education, so we know that it is probably provided much less in other settings.

Mr Caughey: The Gillen report made recommendations on children with special needs and the importance of their receiving education on consent. In a way, we did not feel the need to duplicate what the Gillen report had already done there. We fully endorse that recommendation that it needs to be looked at and provided for. The minimum content order does not really extend into the post-16 area. I suppose that, logically, looking at it, that sixth-form period would seem to be an important time in a child's education when they should receive RSE. There is nothing to stop the Assembly bringing forward an amendment to the minimum content order to specify that.

Ms Kilpatrick: In England, they looked specifically at that just before children turn 16. Some children may ask for an element of sex education; in which case, it must be provided and the parental opt-out is overridden. That is in three terms coming up to the age of 16. The reason that 16 is so relevant is that it is the legal age of consent. A child is quite entitled to ask for information to protect them when they have reached the age of 16 or above, but that is probably as close as it gets to anything specific.

Mr Baker: Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Are there any other indications? Sorry, Robbie, had you indicated?

Mr Butler: Ladies first.

Ms Hunter: Sorry. Is that OK?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I do not know who was in first. We will have Cara, then Robbie.

Mr Butler: Make it short. Make it brief.

Ms Hunter: I will be quick.

Thank you all very much for a very informative briefing. I just have one question about children who are homeschooled in Northern Ireland. That might be one for the Department, which is coming later. Can you outline the scope or responsibility that the Department has to ensure that children in Northern Ireland who are homeschooled are educated on those vital topics? We talk so passionately in the Committee and in the Assembly about ending violence against women and girls, and I support and endorse every child being taught about that.

Ms Kilpatrick: There is a distinct gap there, obviously. We looked only at state-regulated post-primary schools. We have not looked at homeschooling, so I do not want to speculate on that. I suspect, however, that there would be less prescription in homeschooling than there is in state schools. That raises a range of other matters about taking a child out of school, the quality of their education at home and that sort of thing. If you accept the logic that a child of a certain age has their own rights, however, those rights arguably extend both to being homeschooled and to being educated in a state school or in any other school.

Ms Hunter: Thank you very much. That was helpful.

Mr Butler: Thank you. To be brutally honest, I have not had a chance to read the report yet, but, like the Chair, I have skin in the game and a great interest in this subject from the perspective of having been the spokesperson for children and young people for a number of years and a parent to quite a few children.

The report title refers to:

but, so far today, we have talked only about abortion, the right for children to receive or not receive what is termed "scientifically accurate education" and so on. Alyson, you alluded to the fact that the more critical aspect around which to centre the debate would be this question: what is "scientifically accurate"?

My first question is about the ability to opt out. We talked about parental opt-out, but what about student opt-out at Key Stage 3 or 4? Education is compulsory, but what is the NIHRC's position on pupils opting out?

Ms Kilpatrick: It would depend on capacity, to start with.

Mr Butler: What about at Key Stage 3?

Ms Kilpatrick: You will have to remind me what age that represents.

Mr Butler: The ages of 14, 15 and 16. Bearing in mind that the rights of the child are central to every part of the debate, what if, for whatever reason, those students decided that that is the part that they want to opt out of?

Ms Kilpatrick: A child cannot opt out of education.

Mr Butler: This is years 8, 9 and 10. They choose their subjects in year 10 and decide what they want to be taught, so they have a say in what they want to be educated in. Why, at that point, would the state decide that it will determine that that is the bit that the students are not going to miss?

Ms Kilpatrick: The state has determined what the minimum content should be in state-sponsored schools. A child cannot dictate beyond that.

Mr Butler: Oh, OK. Right. That is interesting. Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: If you know differently, do tell me.

Mr Butler: No, it is an interesting thing to put out.

Ms Kilpatrick: There is a minimum content order that specifies what a school should teach. A child attending a school will be taught that minimum content. You have to look at the reason for the opt-out, the age of the child and the views of the parents. It is not the state dictating —.

Mr Butler: But it is. The state dictates the curriculum.

Ms Kilpatrick: In the same way —.

Mr Butler: It absolutely does, Alyson. It 100% dictates it. I am not saying that I am against it; I think that it should be there and that people should have the information. However, I also fundamentally believe that a child of that capacity should have the right to opt out, if they want to.

Ms Kilpatrick: I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I am not saying that they do not have the right to opt out of some forms of education. I am saying that, as a general principle —.

Mr Butler: I am talking about this specific element of their education.

Ms Kilpatrick: You have to start from general principles, though. As a general principle, the child does not have a right to opt out of education.

Mr Butler: Yet many do.

Ms Kilpatrick: OK.

Mr Butler: That is fine. I will move away from that issue, because I do not want to lock horns with you on that.

Looking more widely at the report, there is another issue. Has the Human Rights Commission done any work on genital mutilation? Is that something about which it has an awareness? We have a much broader suite of pupils coming into our schools, which is brilliant, but, unfortunately, many of those pupils are faced with a disadvantage at the very start of their lives. Has the commission devised a way of tackling that issue and ensuring that it is dealt with sensitively in a revised RSE curriculum? Has it looked at getting upstream to try to prevent that from happening? Sorry to go totally left field on that.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, the —. [Inaudible.]

Ms Kilpatrick: Sorry, do you want to —?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need a brief response, Colin, so that we have time to get around everyone.

Ms Kilpatrick: Can I say just one thing? The commission will say that it is a human rights violation to injure a child. This is where the balance between faith and a child's rights comes in. I will let Colin answer.

Mr Caughey: We highlight the need for the issue of female genital mutilation to be included in the curriculum in paragraph 5.1.13 of our report. That brings us back to the more general point, which is that the regulations have made changes in relation to termination of pregnancy and prevention of early pregnancy, but the scope of other issues that we discuss in our report have not been addressed by way of that amendment. We are keen to pick up the debate in relation to such issues as consent, violence against women, female genital mutilation and the range of other topics that have been highlighted.

Mr Butler: Is there any way that we can get ahead of that in the education piece, because it seems —?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Please be brief, because we have to move on to the next member.

Mr Butler: It is too late to give that information.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Robbie, I told Colin to be brief.

Ms Kilpatrick: It is illegal.

Mr Butler: It is illegal; OK.

Ms Kilpatrick: That is about as upstream as you can get. It is a criminal offence to injure a child in that way in this jurisdiction.

Mr Butler: I will chase that up myself — what is happening behind the scenes regarding the report and what they do with it. Thank you.

Ms Kilpatrick: Whether all parents are complying with it is another issue. That is something that, I think, somebody else is better equipped to monitor. As a principle of human rights-compliance, we agree that it is not human rights-compliant.

Mr Butler: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): When it comes to RSE, I would want to be careful about setting it exclusively as something very, very different from the rest of the curriculum. From the exchange that has just taken place, my feeling is that we are comfortable with the state dictating — to an extent — what a child should learn to be prepared for the world of life and work and that protecting their safety would sit in that space.

Mr Brooks: The fear is that it moves into the realms of morality and faith, which are usually set in the home, whereas other traditional parts of education, such as French, maths or English, prepare you for the world of work.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is unusual to hear about encouraging students to opt out of education. That is an unusual angle for the Committee.

Mr Butler: I do not accept that. That is not a good analysis, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is fine. We maybe need to ensure that we do not separate RSE out as an exclusive, separate thing. It is part of the whole curriculum; that is probably a good starting point.

Ms Kilpatrick: That is an important point. It is not religious education, for example. We do not go near that. We say that there is scope for ethos within schools — we allow for that. Rather than drawing attention to some of the findings of the experts, I ask you to draw attention to our recommendations and findings, which are not prescriptive. We say that there are certain things that should be looked at, but schools and parents should be consulted before the guidance is drawn up. We agree with you in that sense. We are not saying that we know the answers or what children should be taught. We are saying that there is no consistency; the minimum standards do not appear to have been reached; and that to protect children for their own sake, those standards need to be reached. Having discussed it with schools, we are saying that we need to train teachers properly; to get external providers, if necessary; and to listen to teachers, pupils and parents. Others are in place to do that: the ETI can do that.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you for what you have said so far. Were the teacher-training and education providers consulted? Were the like of Stranmillis and St Mary's involved in the process?

Mr Caughey: Yes.

Ms Brownlee: Have both of them fed into this?

Mr Caughey: They were contacted in relation to the investigation; it was highlighted when we were drafting the recommendations.

Ms Brownlee: They have fed in their responses? They were contacted? Yes?

Mr Caughey: They were certainly contacted. I will check on responses.

Ms Kilpatrick: We would have to check exactly how they responded, but they all responded.

Ms Brownlee: That would be great to know.

You touched on the ethos of the school. How is that taken into account in the consultation? How do you see the ethos of the school being incorporated into this?

Ms Kilpatrick: We do not, and we do not say that we do, in the report. We do not claim to know the answer to that. We say that there are other people who are better placed, having considered all the factors and talked to parents and children — all the people whom, you say, we should have consulted. We say that that is for somebody else to consult on, and, before you conclude on this, to do those consultations.

There is scope for it, but the objective test is that it cannot be to such an extent that it undermines the basic right to education. You cannot say, in RSE, that something is scientifically accurate and then say, in RE, that it is wholly inaccurate. There is space for ethos — of course there is. We say that in our report; we respect that. Some of the report's paragraphs focus on some of the research, but I ask you to look at our recommendations, particularly where we do not go in the recommendations. We say that there is still more work to do; this needs to be thought through. Better people — educators and scientists and such — are able to do that. There is a role for ethos but not to the exclusion of a child's rights.

Ms Brownlee: Northern Ireland is extremely diverse now, and we have a lot of newcomer children and children from different ethnic minorities. I appreciate that you do not, potentially, have the answer today, but how is it integrated going forward that we respect and acknowledge the various different elements of religion within RSE?

Ms Kilpatrick: In some ways, the beauty of having scientifically accurate and comprehensive RSE across schools is that it is the same for everybody. The scientifically accurate information that is given should not differ depending on the religious belief. What may differ is their attitude to, for example, abortion or prevention of early pregnancy on faith grounds, but it should not affect the scientifically accurate information that is given to children. That is going to the same whether it is a Muslim family, a Christian family or a Jewish family.

Ms Brownlee: With regard to the scope of your organisation, you talked about the minimum content of RSE and the fact that it is not standardised. It was highlighted in the likes of the independent review that physical education was not standardised and that children were not receiving that across Northern Ireland. Is that something that is flagged with your organisation? Are you looking at that? Is that an area of concern as well?

Ms Kilpatrick: There is only so much that we can do. We were asked to do this work by the Secretary of State initially but led by CEDAW making a recommendation and a finding. We follow where a recommendation or request comes.

If you asked us whether more needs to be done in all sorts of areas of education, I would say yes. However, we are looking at human rights standards, and there was a case for an investigation here, because somebody else told us that it did not meet standards, and we were asked to look into it.

Ms Brownlee: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No other indications? Michelle is indicating.

Mr Butler: This is your maiden question. [Laughter.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No interventions. [Laughter.]

Mrs Guy: It is a really quick one anyway. The report references external providers. What is your view of the fact that 94% of the schools that you spoke to use external providers? Does that have any impact on the quality of the RSE that is being provided? Do you have any concerns about the use of external providers, and did you talk to them as part of this process?

Ms Kilpatrick: I will let Colin deal with some of the detail of that, because he was involved in speaking to them. What I would say is that we do not find against external provision, but, ideally, it should be delivered by the teachers who are seeing the children daily and know the children, the parents and the school's ethos. They can be assisted by external providers. In the short term, we see more of a case for external provision because teachers were telling the researchers that they did not feel that they had the knowledge or ability to do it.

There is a difficulty if there are one or two specific external providers that dictate, in much the same way as objection may be made to the state dictating, the contents of RSE. It has to be about what is delivered to the children. If that is external, so be it, but we would say to equip the teachers who are there and know the children and the parents. They should be able to do it; give them support and training to do it.

Colin can answer the specific question.

Mr Caughey: Our view is that the school needs to be the permanent supportive presence for the teaching of RSE. Research demonstrates that pupils respond best when they are taught RSE by a teacher whom they know and have confidence in. We would be concerned if external providers were being used as a substitute for the school providing RSE. In our report and recommendations, we mention that it could be an add-on. Ultimately, however, the school is the public authority that has been commissioned to provide those services to schoolchildren. I think that the circular submitted by the Department of Education is largely in line with that view.

Mrs Guy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): No other indications? I do not think that I have missed anybody.

Thank you for presenting to us today. It is right at the outset of our inquiry, so you have the privilege of getting in first. We really appreciate your time. I think that all members will want to digest that report in full, and it will absolutely be a key one that informs our deliberations on this going forward, so thank you.

Ms Kilpatrick: We appreciate the opportunity and thank you for listening to us. We are here to answer any further questions, if necessary, and we will, obviously, share any further work that we do.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you.