Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You are very welcome. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Joining us from the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC), we are pleased to have Dr Andrew Brown, the chair of the TRC, from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. We have Dr Anita Gracie, board of education member from the Methodist Church in Ireland, and Dr Rebecca Stevenson, representative of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). You are very welcome today at the Committee, and we thank you for taking the time to give evidence to our inquiry into relationships and sexuality education (RSE).

The approach with all other witnesses has been that we are happy to open up for an initial presentation. We have received your briefing paper, which was appreciated and gave us plenty of material to get started with. Please take up to 10 minutes to make any introductory remarks that you want on the evidence that you are presenting today, and we will then move to questions from members. We will try to stick, as far as possible, to five minutes per enquiry for each member. I ask members to work with me on that, and, from the witnesses' perspective, if there is one member of the panel who is best placed to answer a question and take it, that can help us to get through the evidence session. If I do cut any enquiry short because we are running out of time, please do not take that as any personal offence. We generally struggle to get through in the time that we have, as members will have a lot of questions. You are very welcome, so I hand over to you for opening remarks, and we will take it from there.

Dr Andrew Brown (Presbyterian Church in Ireland): Chair, thank you very much. I thank the Committee for inviting us to give evidence. We hope that it will be helpful and that we can put some light around your questions as to the views of TRC on this matter.

My day job is as a lecturer in education. Part of what I do in my Christian faith and service is to be involved with faith in education. It is a huge passion of mine. I was, for eight years, the chair of education for the Presbyterian Church. That took me on to the executive of the Transferors Representatives' Council. I am now in my third year of chairing that.

Dr Anita Gracie (Methodist Church in Ireland): I am also a lecturer in education and religious studies. I am the secretary of education for the Methodist Church in Ireland. Therefore, I am its representative on the TRC. This is very much within my area of research and interest.

Dr Rebecca Stevenson (Presbyterian Church in Ireland): I work as the public affairs officer for the Presbyterian Church. I am also its education secretary, which also takes me on to the TRC.

Dr Brown: I am going to take you through some of the highlights of our paper rather than go through the paper itself. You have all been through it, and I am sure that you have many questions. We represent the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church in Ireland in matters of education in Northern Ireland. We were established in 1943. We work closely with the Department of Education, and we hold statutory rights under the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, where we have a role of governance in controlled schools. We are also an organisation that lobbies on behalf of the interests of controlled schools, along with the Controlled Schools' Support Council. Controlled schools comprise 49% of all the schools in Northern Ireland. They maintain a non-denominational Christian ethos, which transferor governors help to uphold.

We emphasise our commitment to supporting excellent RSE in schools while respecting the needs of young people. RSE should be taught in a sensitive and inclusive manner that reinforces other policies, such as anti-bullying, safeguarding and pastoral care. We stress that RSE should not only provide biological and legal information but allow students to explore moral and ethical considerations, such as those related to abortion and early pregnancy prevention.

No aspect of RSE can be taught in a morally neutral environment. That is key to our concerns. We argue that RSE is inherently shaped by world views that involve moral and ethical judgements about relationships and sexuality. Therefore, RSE must consider the whole person — physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually — and should be taught in a way that respects the school's ethos. Lessons should be delivered in a safe environment in which students can express their personal views without fear of repercussion.

We support a flexible approach to the RSE curriculum that allows teachers to tailor content to meet the specific needs of their students. However, we are concerned about the content that was mandated by the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which will not be a surprise to you, because we felt that it imposed certain directives on schools. RSE teaching should remain responsive to local community needs and reflect the ethos of each school, particularly when addressing sensitive topics, such as abortion and sexual activity.

Every school is required to have a policy that outlines its approach to RSE. That policy should be delivered and developed collaboratively by governors, parents, teachers and other stakeholders, and should reflect the school's moral and religious values. We stress the importance of parental consultation when creating or updating those policies, especially on sensitive issues. Policy should also consider trauma and mental health issues, which may not be adequately addressed in existing guidelines. Schools should review and update their RSE policies regularly to reflect changes in society, especially concerning social media's impact on young people. We call for consultation when significant changes to RSE policies are proposed. That will ensure that all members of the school community, including pupils, are involved in the decision-making process.

We acknowledge the progress that has been made in developing RSE resources, particularly through collaboration with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA). We thank CCEA for the sensitive way in which it has done that. As part of our partnership with schools and communities, we support the use of CCEA's RSE hub, which provides resources for teachers, but we ask that those resources reflect different world views, such as the Christian belief in the sanctity of life, or that of abstinence from sex until marriage.

The TRC stresses the importance of professional development for teachers who are delivering RSE and calls for fully funded, regular training. We also advocate transparency when using external providers for RSE content, ensuring that those providers align with the school's ethos and that parents are informed about what is being taught. Whilst we suggest that issues around RSE should begin at home, we strongly believe that RSE should be grounded in the ethos of individual schools, particularly those with a non-denominational Christian ethos. We argue that it cannot be taught in a value-neutral way, as discussions around relationships and sexuality inevitably involve value judgements. Schools should have the freedom to teach RSE in line with their Christian ethos, which they believe nurtures the holistic well-being of students.

On abortion and contraception, parents should be fully informed about the content and approach of RSE classes and should have the right to withdraw their children from lessons on those two areas. We support a balanced approach where parents' rights are respected without compromising the educational needs of students.

We recognise the importance of teaching about consent and healthy relationships to protect young people and to prevent sexual violence, particularly against women and girls. We emphasise that students need to understand consent to ensure their own safety and to treat others with respect. We acknowledge the relevance of the Gillen review and support RSE's role in fostering respect and understanding in relationships.

In conclusion, our response to you reflects our commitment to high-quality RSE that respects the Christian ethos of controlled schools. We advocate an approach that allows young people to explore moral and ethical issues in a safe environment that is tailored to their individual needs and is supported by school policies. By grounding RSE in the values of the school and involving parents in the process, the TRC believes that RSE can foster healthy, respectful relationships that prepare students for the complexities of modern life. Thank you, Chair and Committee.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for that, and thank you for the written briefing that preceded it. It was very thorough and detailed, and it has given us a lot to work with. That is appreciated.

I will make a start. Given how detailed your initial briefing was, there are a lot of areas that we could cover. At one point, your briefing sets out the view that young people should be encouraged to engage with RSE "as critical thinkers" — that is the phrase that is used — and that RSE should be delivered reflecting:

In your presentation today, you also emphasised the primacy of schools being free to deliver RSE in line with Christian ethos. Do you, at the TRC, see any conflict or tension between those two positions? With that in mind, are you able to set out what you see as good practice in RSE delivery that balances that range of ethical and moral viewpoints and the freedom to deliver RSE in line with a school's ethos?

Dr Brown: I would suggest that our views are probably completely the opposite in that, for us, critical thinking involves the breadth of world views. One of the things that people are slightly scared of in today's society is that they are potentially only allowed to say what is current, and they are scared to voice their opinions in case they are perhaps politically incorrect. One of the issues that is dear to our heart is that, in considering how to help students and, indeed, teachers to be critical thinkers, they have to look at the different stances and viewpoints around this. You cannot take a neutral stance on RSE, nor can you take a neutral stance on anything in education. It is more than facts. It is more than biology. It is more than the law. It is about world views and examining those world views. That is what creates critical thought.

As a teacher, one of the things that I wish to promote is critical thought in the classroom. As you will know, Chair, classrooms are very different places now than they were when I was at school, and perhaps even when some of you were at school, when the teacher was the pedagogue who simply transmitted knowledge and the pupils, like sponges, absorbed that knowledge. Teachers are facilitators of teaching and learning now, so they create opportunities for learners and create opportunities to facilitate the learning process and opportunities for students to become independent in their learning. If that is not critical thinking, then I do not know.

Anita or Rebecca, would you like to say anything?

Dr Gracie: In the modern classroom, just because we are teaching from a specific ethos does not mean that that viewpoint or world view is necessarily given primacy in the classroom and discussion. You probably remember doing GCSEs and that sort of thing, and the idea of balance in essays. In all these discussions, teachers are, sometimes, playing devil's advocate. It is one of the accepted pedagogies within a classroom discussion. That is to challenge children and get them thinking about, and from, other viewpoints. In none of our schools do we advocate simply looking at it through one particular perspective, whether it is a Christian perspective or other. We present them with as many opinions as we can and, as Andy said, facilitate them to come to their own conclusions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. That is what my question was trying to draw out: where does it sit? The balance of world views is very clearly set out at one point in your briefing, but then there is a big focus on ethos. It is just about trying to understand how that plays out. I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I want to understand correctly your view of good RSE. You have used the phrase, "excellent RSE". We have met before: that is a phrase that you like to use. We all want to see excellent RSE delivered for our students. If I have understood you correctly, your view of good RSE is setting out the range of views on an issue — the broad sets of opinions that might be out there — but, ultimately, students can make their own critical decisions and are free to express their views, whatever they may be. [Inaudible.]

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is very helpful.

One of the things that I want to draw out beyond that is that, if we are looking at it in that context, the use of such phrases in the discussion as "fact-based" or "scientifically accurate" can become sticking points. Leading on from what we have just discussed, would the TRC be comfortable with an approach to RSE that sets out some of the undisputed facts — I know that there can be disputes around what are facts — around the legal framework on abortion; the options that are available to protect your sexual health; the options to prevent early pregnancy; the different family types; and the sexual identities that some people identify as? Is that something that you feel, in a school context, is appropriate and should be on the table, but then a broader, moral framework can be put around it for future discussion? Would you feel comfortable with fact-based RSE or scientifically accurate RSE? Do you want to expand on any of that? I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.

Dr Brown: You do not need to. Of course; we live in a multifaith and multicultural society. It is a society that consistently and continuously evolves, and, while we, as Christians, believe that our message stays the same through biblical truth, we respond to that. There are different ways in which people live as families, and there are different ways in which people find themselves attracted to others. If pupils were not made aware of that, it would be a sad state of affairs that they did not understand. As long as it is about that element of the facts before we get to the moral framework around it, or the moral lens, perhaps, through which we look, and as long as the "fact-based" is fact and not promotion of a particular lifestyle. Of course, it is factual to say, "If you do not have sex, you will not get pregnant". That is entirely factual. However, I go back to one of the points that I made earlier: there might well be teachers out there who are scared to say that. Bex has some figures from the strategy. If one looks through some of the stuff on RSE, one will see that there seems to be almost an implication that teachers should recognise that children, at certain stages, below the age of 16 are sexually active. Other organisations have done some figures around the fact that those numbers are steadily decreasing, but there are teachers who might well be scared to say, "Abstinence is entirely OK". Bex, do you want to say something about the government strategy?

Dr Stevenson: The sexual health promotion action plan 2008-2013 was drawn out of Stormont. One of its goals or targets was that 92% of young people between the ages of 11 and 16 would not become sexually active. In follow-up research, we found that that 92% statistic was still accurate in 2010, but, currently, I cannot find a follow-up to that. That would be in keeping with strategic objective 5 in the sexual health action plan, which is about excellence in RSE and the RSE curriculum.

Dr Brown: OK, so facts are there to be taught, but our view is very much that we need to be careful around promotion and making assumptions about things that may not be true. Are we happy enough?

Dr Gracie: Yes.

Dr Stevenson: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): My final question is this: does the TRC have a view — you have referenced abstinence as an element to this — about young people who may be sexually active? Do you have a view about the role of RSE in promoting good sexual health or options for contraception for young people? I am not saying that it should be promoting sexual activity but that it should address the reality for some young people that they will be sexually active. Do you have a view on RSE's role in that space?

Dr Brown: The view is that RSE's role is vital, regardless of whether children are sexually active or not. They need to be taught about consent, respect and what a healthy relationship is. I do not think that it matters whether someone is sexually active or is not sexually active. The presumption is that many or most young people will be sexually active at some stage. I am sorry — Anita.

Dr Gracie: I was just going to suggest that, as Churches, we have no objection to, for example, teaching about contraception. That is one of the things that is being added as a health protection. Again, that is not on the assumption that all children are, then, going to use it before the age of 16. We would lay that out as part of the health objectives, and certainly as a safety concern and a concern for everyone's future education. Absolutely. We have no worries about laying out the facts of where and how it can be procured.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is clearly all in the context of legal ages of consent and all those things, which are absolutely critical in education.

Dr Gracie: Absolutely.

Dr Stevenson: If I may add this: a 2021 Westminster report discussed that excellence in RSE does not necessarily encourage sexual exploration but is about teaching young people healthy boundaries — what consent is and what that looks like — so that they can make informed and healthy decisions as to when it is age-appropriate for them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am conscious that I have taken up time. There may be some other stuff around engagement with parents and young people that other members can pick up.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for the presentation. Andy, I want to follow up on Nick's line of questioning about what is factually or scientifically accurate. Let us take the scenario that it is factually accurate that some people are attracted to people of the same sex. It is factually accurate that there are same-sex relationships and so on. You said that we need to bring what is factually accurate to the table, but then we have to bring a moral framework as well that reflects the ethos of the schools that you represent.

One of the difficulties in that is that the moral framework that some people would bring would say that homosexuality is, to quote, an "abomination", that it is sinful and that it is wrong and so on. In the schools that you represent, would that type of attitude be brought to the table?

Dr Brown: May I answer your question in an alternative way?

Mr Sheehan: In whatever way you want. [Laughter.]

Dr Brown: Let me give you an example of an organisation that I know about, because somebody contacted me about it. The organisation went into a school during Anti-bullying Week to meet a group of sixth-formers. This was in — well, it does not even matter which area it was in Northern Ireland or what kind of area. Within the first five minutes, the pupils were asked to raise their hands if they thought that homosexuality was wrong. Some of the pupils raised their hand. That was during the first five minutes. The person who was leading the workshop turned to them and, in front of everybody, said, "You are bullies". That was during Anti-bullying Week. Those young people had their own world view. I do not know whether it came from a faith position, but they had their own world view that gave them their view of homosexuality. A visiting group that was also going to be involved in the delivery of RSE told them categorically that believing something made them wrong or made them bullies.

Everyone in our school communities — everyone — will have a different view on issues of sexuality. That is why our concern is that we have to take the facts with the moral compass and understand that the issues are so sensitive that we cannot just get into biology, legality, right and wrong. We have to take everybody's moral standpoint into account.

Dr Gracie: There is also the fact that the primary part of our ethos is respect for the person. Everything that we teach should fall within that overarching idea of respect for the individual and care for the child. Any bullying, as Andy described it, or homophobic remarks should not be allowed in the classroom and should be moderated. Teachers are taught specifically how to manage class discussions, whether in RE or learning for life and work (LLW), or in personal development and mutual understanding (PDMU) in primary school. They do not allow, should not allow and are taught how not to allow objectionable and disrespectful views but that everybody is important no matter what their choices are. That is very much the idea. The ethos of the school is care for the pupil and that the pupil should be at the heart of everything that we do. No disparaging or disrespectful comments are recommended.

Mr Sheehan: I have no difficulty with that. Homophobic abuse should not happen in the school setting. Getting back to the main point of the question, my difficulty is that, if the ethos of the school says that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and an abomination, how does that make a young gay person feel in school?

Dr Brown: You are going to jump in here.

Dr Gracie: I will talk a bit about ethos. Our schools have a non-denominational Christian ethos. The teaching that you outlined, which is that homosexuality is wrong and an abomination, is not the teaching of every Christian Church. Among all our Churches, there may be some that teach that, but we do not reflect the teachings of one particular denomination or Church.

Dr Brown: Controlled schools are open to those of all faiths and none.

Dr Gracie: Absolutely.

Dr Brown: A Christian ethos will permeate a given school, but the Christian ethos is based on the cornerstone values that C S Lewis espoused of love, duty, tolerance, respect and inclusivity. I know of no school with an ethos that espouses what you are suggesting.

Mr Sheehan: I accept that, but let me put this to you. A witness at the Committee from the NSPCC and other witnesses have said that there is a wide variety in the quality and quantity of RSE being delivered in schools. We are trying to drill down into whether that is connected to the ethos of the school, which may be hostile to particular relationships or particular topics in the RSE curriculum. There is no question there; I am just throwing that out. OK? Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The only indication I have at this stage is from Danny.

Mr Baker: Thank you. It is just a wee follow-up question from what Pat said. How can you teach excellent RSE in a framework of morality without judgement and not having compassion?

Dr Brown: How can you teach it without judgement?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Dr Brown: You cannot. In everything that we teach, there is judgement. There is a value judgement and a moral judgement. We go back to the Chair's point about critical thinkers. Children —.

Mr Baker: When you talk about science and you bring morality into it, that brings in judgement.

Dr Brown: Of course.

Mr Baker: How can you have excellent RSE teaching, then?

Dr Stevenson: It goes back to the point about critical thinking. It is about teaching children to think about everything. RSE cannot exist in a vacuum; that is just not possible. Everybody has a viewpoint that is shaped by the world that they have grown up in or the world that they live in. I am not from a teaching background, so I defer to my teaching colleagues. This is about teaching holistic viewpoints — Anita, I will jump to you; you can probably word this better than I can — and encouraging critical thinking by encouraging pupils to think about all aspects of it. That can be done within the Christian ethos of a school.

Dr Brown: Let me go back to my former point, which is factual: if you do not have sex, you will not get pregnant. Let us say that somebody makes that statement. I would heartily expect that every pupil in the class will make a judgement on that statement. That judgement may be, "I disagree with that". That judgement may be, "That is entirely true, but I do not want to not have sex, yet I do not want to have a baby", or, "OK. That is fine, but it will not stop me having protected sex.". Everyone will make a judgement on that. It would be a very sad indictment of our education system — unfortunately, there are some draconian countries in our world that would promote this — if we expected pupils to simply agree with or obey things that are said to them in the classroom. As we said, the days of the teacher as, almost, the demigod, demagogue, pedagogue who simply said, "These are the facts. You believe this. Go and learn the kings and queens of England or all the flags of the world", are long gone.

Dr Gracie: Bringing judgement into the classroom does not mean that the teacher stands and judges, saying, "You have just said that you are attracted to somebody of the same sex as you. You are wrong in that.". I have never, in my teaching career, encountered a teacher who has said that. They might say, "This came up in class today, and we examined it", but they do not deliver moral judgements. Andy said, "We make judgements", but we do not deliver moral judgements or tell children that they must behave or think in a certain way. We might challenge their thinking. For example, we might look at social media ideas about sex that we think devalue it or make it into the be-all and end-all of all relationships. We might challenge that by asking whether that is actually the case. We will not say to children, "Sex is only to be used inside marriage". If that is what you mean by judgement, it is not happening in our classrooms, but we help children to explore value judgements around those topics.

Mr Baker: You could talk about judgement and no compassion around abortion. We do not know the circumstances or why anyone, whether or not they are a young person, would be in need of abortion. It is about getting back to that scientific and fact-based RSE at the same level for all schools. That is all that I was trying to drill into: the judgement that comes with talking about morality.

Dr Gracie: Absolutely. We should examine all the factors. Our point is that we do not want to give them just scientific information — we can do that in biology. How are pregnancies ended? We can give them biological facts and say, "There are these different ways", and that sort of thing, but we want to explore the consequences for women, before and after — what happens if they make that decision, what happens if they do not and the various factors that might lead to that decision being made — and to encourage those discussions in class. The value of that discussion is that it prepares them for some time in the future when that might become an issue in their lives. They can play around with the decisions in the classroom. Normally, we would say, "These Christian Churches believe that it is wrong, and those Christian Churches believe that it depends on the situation". We might look at other faith's teachings on that topic.

Dr Brown: In the religious education curriculum for Key Stage 4, AS Level and A level, abortion is a key topic that is pulled apart and looked at from all the different avenues. Moral judgements will be made, but the class will explore together the various strands of that: the whys and wherefores and, as you say, the particular vagaries of specific examples of why someone who may never have considered abortion in their life might even be considering it etc. Those things are thoroughly looked at. Thank you for the question.

Mrs Guy: Thank you so much for coming in. I appreciate it. Teachers are really important in the RSE conversation. These are very formative years, and teachers are very influential and can really shape how effective delivery is. In your briefing paper, you state:

How is that handled in your schools? When that scenario emerges, in what ways are schools encouraged to deal with it? Also, what do you think is the best way of evaluating the effectiveness of RSE?

Dr Brown: It is a difficult one, is it not? It really is a tough one. Teachers are expected to deliver the Northern Ireland curriculum from Foundation Stage right through to Key Stage 4 and A level. A level and GCSE years are different, in that they all split into specific subject-particular curricula. From Foundation Stage to Key Stage 3, teachers are expected to deliver the curriculum, but they are not expected to deliver all of the curriculum. The Minister said that in answer to a question in the Assembly a few months ago. There is an understanding that teachers may not be expected to deliver everything, but the fact of the matter is that teachers are professionals. I do not know whether you folks are talking to the teachers' unions about that at all. I hope that you are. They will have their own view on the issue, but a number of things have been suggested over the past couple of years that the teachers' unions probably have a very clear view on. Talking to them might be very useful, but that is me wearing another hat.

Teachers are professionals. A lot of the questions from Pat, Danny and others were about moral judgements. Teachers will have their own views in their hearts and minds about things, and they will deliver the curriculum. However, on a school-by-school basis, if a teacher has a huge moral issue with something, they will speak to their boss about that. We firmly believe that it is a difficult area to teach. It is probably one of the hardest areas to teach. It is embarrassing to teach it, and it can be awkward. Try teaching RSE to a group of third years, folks. It is icky. It really is. Teachers need to feel that they have been properly upskilled. That is being done in the initial teacher education colleges. They need to feel that they have places to which they can turn. We have the CCEA guidance and the RSE hub. Teachers need to feel that they have somewhere that they can go if they feel awkward, just as they would about any part of their life as a professional. That is their line manager or their principal.

There was a second part to that question, Michelle, I am sorry.

Mrs Guy: I want to come back on what you just said, though. Are there circumstances in which you would, for example, go to a third-party organisation outside the school —

Dr Brown: Of course.

Mrs Guy: — to deliver certain aspects, if there is any resistance from the teaching body about doing that?

Dr Brown: I am not sure that you go to a third party because there is a resistance in the teaching body. You would go to a third party because they are an expert in the field. We know that there are experts in the field and organisations that come in and deliver RSE, and that is because of what I said: the subject can make some people feel uncomfortable. I am not talking about their morals, faith or world view. I am talking about the nature of the stuff that is in it. There are organisations out there. As we said in our documentation, those organisations need to have the sign-off from governors. Governors need to know where they are coming from, what their world views are and how they fit in with the school's overall ethos. They need to be sympathetic to that. Let us not forget that no one knows the educational needs of a set of pupils better than the class teacher, so it needs to be taken into consideration when an external body comes in that that teacher needs to be there, needs to be running point on it and needs to be able to oversee what is going on, not least so that they can follow up afterwards on issues that have been discussed.

Mrs Guy: My original question was about how you handle the teachers wanting to opt out. Would you have a teacher teach part of a curriculum, get to the bit that is difficult and withdraw at that point?

Dr Brown: If someone has better expertise there that would—.

Sorry, Michelle, I will stop there because Dr Gracie has a class at 4.00 pm. Thanks, Anita, for coming. That is how dedicated she is. She runs from Stranmillis up to here and back down to Stranmillis. Wednesday afternoon is supposed to be sports afternoon, but there you go. Sorry, Michelle.

Mrs Guy: We will go on to the second part — we have covered the first part — which is more about the evaluation of RSE and the effectiveness of its delivery in the classroom. How do you think that that should best be done?

Dr Brown: Any curriculum that is set out to be followed by all schools — that really comes at Key Stage 4 with GCSEs and A levels — is constantly being reassessed by the awarding body. We currently have a scenario where, apart from the mandated elements from the Secretary of State, the curriculum for RSE is developed in a partnership process at individual school level. There is guidance under PDMU or LLW, but curricula should be evaluated at school level. That is done because of the understanding of the school and the teachers of the needs of their pupils and the sensitivities around their local community. As I said, no one knows better than the locals.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May I come in on the role of the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) in RSE?

Dr Brown: Yes, ETI's role is to come in. We are at the Education Committee, so we will fly the flag, if we may. The view of the Churches is that ETI should be coming in to inspect RE. There, I have said it.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is good to get that.

Dr Brown: We have been asking for that for quite some time, and, Chair of the Education Committee, we have been asking for the RE advisory group to be back up and running. I know that there are only so many staff in CCEA and that they have been dealing with RSE matters. So, if you could finish the mini-inquiry and get them back to their jobs so that we can get an RE hub up and running, that would be brilliant.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is noted and, certainly from my perspective, welcomed. Thank you. That is great.

Mr Brooks: On a personal note, I welcome that. Saying that a secular or even atheistic approach is not a neutral position is a helpful and factual observation. So often in the modern world — not in this Committee; I am not having a dig at anybody in particular — a secular position is held up as though it is a neutral position, but it is just one of many varieties of world view out there. I think that it is right to say that you need to engage critically with these ethical debates. You can have all the facts, but, if you do not engage with the many other viewpoints out there, whether that is a faith, atheistic or secular approach, you are not really preparing the child for real life, because, once they leave that school, they will be out in the real world.

I want to focus in on a couple of issues that we talked about with other witnesses. To be clear, I have said this many times now: sometimes we talk past each other in these discussions, in that we avoid the bits that are most divisive and instead talk about the things that we are all agreed on. That leads to misconceptions. Are the schools that you represent perfectly relaxed and happy with the safeguarding teaching that should happen in our schools as part of an RSE approach? We had the NSPCC in earlier talking about its Talk PANTS and Speak out Stay safe initiatives. Is there any resistance to those programmes in your schools?

Dr Brown: Gracious, no. I can tell you that Talk PANTS is taught at Stranmillis to our student teachers as well. It is a superb scheme, as are the others. There is no resistance at all to safeguarding being taught.

Mr Brooks: It is good to have that on the record.

Dr Brown: It was a quick answer to your question.

Mr Brooks: The Chair will appreciate that.

Dr Brown: We will call The Daily Mile folk who are sitting outside, two of whom are my colleagues.

Mr Brooks: We had the Catholic Schools' Trustee Service in last week, and its representatives spoke about the need, where there is an opt-out, for that opt-out to have more flexibility and not to apply across the year, because, as we have just said, parents might not want their child to be removed from lessons covering safeguarding issues. They are concerned about specific aspects of the programme, but, quite often, children will opt out and then miss the entire year's classes on that subject. Do you share the view that there is that need for flexibility around opt-out?

Dr Brown: I will be very careful that I do not say something that undermines anything that my brothers and sisters from the Catholic Schools' Trustee Service said. There is no opt-out in RSE except for that which has come in following the Secretary of State's decision. There is no opt-out, nor should there be. Our view, as the Churches, is that there should not be an opt-out. RSE is too import. All the issues that we have discussed, such as consent, respect and safety for women and girls, are core and vital. The opt-out is for specific reasons around abortion and contraception, and that is because they are hugely sensitive issues for people who follow a religious world view. As Anita said, Christians have different views, and the denominations have different views. If I taught in a Catholic maintained school, how on earth could I stand up and teach about abortion? The Catholic Church is very clear on that. We have to be very sensitive. Those are the two issues, David, on which there is an opt-out. We firmly believe —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May I come in there?

Dr Brown: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David is referencing a concern that was raised by the witnesses last week: if you opt out, maybe because you have an issue with abortion, that opt-out applies in blanket form across the whole RSE curriculum for the year.

Dr Brown: As you know, Chair, it does not, nor should it.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is what was suggested.

Mr Brooks: It was surprising to me, so that is interesting to hear.

Dr Brown: Perhaps the reality of what may have gone on in school life is that, if there is a timetabling issue in a post-primary school or if a parent has contacted a school to say, "I need to opt out on these sorts of things", it has become easier, on a school-by-school level, that that child opts out of period 3 on a Tuesday morning, or whenever it happens to be. Maybe that is what it is. Apart from that, I cannot see how a parent would opt their child out.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Perhaps we can get clarity from the Department on that.

Mr Brooks: I have a more general question. Do you think that, during the debate around RSE, we are, at times, bringing more heat than light? Some who take a non-faith point of view, or certainly a non-faith-in-schools point of view, believe that there is some kind of indoctrination going on where teaching is almost similar to a church sermon. Likewise, some who take a more conservative position believe that the opposite is occurring and that schools are being used to indoctrinate their children in a different way. Perhaps both need to be a bit more understanding of the other's approach.

Dr Brown: Absolutely, David. I could not say it any more clearly. Schools are not Sunday schools. I think about the different things that we represent, as transferor representatives, such as supporting the writing of the RE curriculum, for instance. RE is not about teaching religion to children and young people; it is about teaching children and young people about religion. It is about what religion teaches us. It is about how religion helps us to answer the big questions in life. I sometimes think that there is a world view at the moment, which causes us great distress and concern, that our role, as Churches involved with schools that we used to own and have transferred to the control of the state, is one where we go in and control the puppet strings or something. I say this to transferor representatives as they are thinking about going on to boards of governors: we go in to serve. We do it in a voluntary capacity. Some of us put hours and hours and hours and hours into this. Some of us deal with hugely sensitive issues around children and young people and industrial relations. We are doing this on top of our day jobs. I do this on top of mine.

What is our reward for it? I ask you all this question: what do you think my reward is for being a transferor governor? I get a front row seat at the school play at Christmas. That is my reward. I do this — Bex, Anita and the rest of us do this — because we feel called to do it. This is our service, and our Churches feel called to support our schools.

Apologies to those of you who have heard me say this before, but, in every parish, village, town and city in this place in which we live, there are two constants in every community: the local church and the local school. For 100 years, there has been a symbiosis between the two. If you go to the local schools and ask the principals about that relationship, they will tell you about halls that have been lent, personnel who have been properly checked out, help and money that have been given, resources that they have that they were unable to get elsewhere and things bought for nurture rooms. I spoke to someone recently about someone in their congregation who gave a substantial amount of money to the church for the use of the local school. It was a little private fund for families who have issues. Believe you me, in lots of areas in Northern Ireland, as you well know — they are your constituents — there are folks out there who have to make big decisions about heating or eating, and there are schools administering funds that are given by churches.

That is the reality of what we do. Nobody is going in there for power or for proselytisation.

David, you are quite right. On the other side as well —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Time is running short, and you are going a wee bit off topic from RSE. I need to draw the list of questions to a close.

Dr Brown: We have seen, over the past year or year and a half, where the same has been true of an RSE agenda. I hope that you can assure me, in the same way as I assure you of our support, that there is no agenda with RSE and that we all want the same thing: we want excellent and high-quality RSE.

Dr Stevenson: If you go back to the introduction, you will see that it is about meeting the needs of young people and helping them to explore their own moral and personal views and beliefs. Yes, we advocate a Christian ethos in schools — we do not hide that — but we are encouraging and helping young people to explore their own needs.

Mr Brooks: Thank you for your answers and for all that you do.

Ms Hunter: Thank you both for being here. I recognise that this is a topic that has a lot of diverse opinions. It is helpful for the Committee to hear those different perspectives. I have three questions, but they are very short. My first one is this: can you tell us which pupils or young people you spoke to ahead of coming here today?

Dr Brown: We did not speak to pupils or young people, because we are presenting to you the view of the TRC executive.

Ms Hunter: I recommend a Secondary Students' Union of Northern Ireland (SSUNI) document called 'Let Us Learn' about RSE. It is really good. It is crafted and shaped by pupils who talk about the kind of things that are currently absent from RSE and the things that they would like to see included.

Dr Brown: I can say, though, Cara, that my niece is the current president of the SSUNI.

Ms Hunter: Who is she?

Dr Brown: Lauren —

Ms Hunter: OK, very nice.

Dr Brown: — and she is the North Antrim Member of the Youth Parliament. So, whilst not having officially gone to speak to pupils

she and I have interesting debates and discussions about this. I know that you know her well.

Ms Hunter: Yes, I know Lauren. Thank you.

My next question is about the more specific matters: a deep dive into contraceptives and other things. The morning-after pill can be taken three to five days after intercourse and can delay ovulation. Does the TRC have a perspective or opinion on how the morning-after pill should be talked about with regard to RSE?

Dr Brown: No, Cara. We deal with the policy issues and the policy writ large. It is the job of schools to get into the detail of the delivery of a specific area within a lesson.

Ms Hunter: Danny touched on the different ethical and moral challenges around the topic of RSE. When it comes to issues such as abortion on the grounds of being a victim of rape or incest, does the TRC have any opinion on that? When it comes to ethos and RSE, should that be left to schools?

Dr Brown: I need to give you the same answer on that, because I am aware that, today, the three of us — now the two of us — are representing the denominational interests of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland and the Church of Ireland.

As you can imagine, there is a whole range of different views within each of those denominations. Bex, Anita and I may well have different views on these things, and we could have different views from many of our own denominations. We therefore have to stick to what is our remit here today.

Ms Hunter: Do you have an official stance?

Dr Brown: Bex will give you the PCI one.

Dr Stevenson: I could give you the Presbyterian Church's stance, but I am not sure that that would be appropriate. I am here as a representative of the TRC. We represent non-denominational Churches. I understand your question, but there is so much nuance in it. That is part of what we are here to discuss. You cannot polarise these debates or turn them into black and white, because you lose the nuance. That may be where there is a loss of respect in the conversation. I can certainly have a conversation with you afterwards and discuss the Presbyterian Church's position, but I am not sure that it is appropriate for me to do that as a representative of the TRC.

Ms Hunter: I would find it a morally awkward to bring up morals when it comes to rape victims and abortion. Thank you for being here today. As I said, there are diverse beliefs. We had a really good conversation with the NSPCC earlier about this kind of education as prevention. It is my personal belief and my party's belief that every child should have access to it.

Mr Martin: I have two questions. The importance of the Christian ethos is reflected several times in the documentation, which, obviously, we read. How important is a Christian ethos in your schools?

Dr Brown: It is at the very core of everything that we do and are in our schools. It is at the core of all schools in Northern Ireland. I apologise if I leave out smaller sectors, but each of the three main sectors was founded on Christian principles and remains that way. It is not about Bible stories; it is about the cornerstone values that I spoke about. It is about respecting those who disagree or do not hold those values, while understanding and firmly believing that those values are and have been for millennia the cornerstone of our society.

Mr Martin: That was nice and short, Chair. I hope that you are impressed.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am happy with that.

Mr Martin: For my second question, I will pick up on a theme that my colleague Cara talked about. We had the NSPCC in, and we talked about a whole range of issues with it. There are lots of things that we agree on, including consent, safeguarding, online safety and preventing violence against women and girls. You nodded at all four. The inquiry's terms of reference state that we should:

There are a lot of areas on which we agree. Do you think that it is really important that those four areas are included in an RSE syllabus in schools and taught in our schools?

Dr Brown: Absolutely. They are clearly part of that. We have said throughout this discussion that those are clear things that pupils should see and experience, not opt out of.

Dr Stevenson: They are all necessary for young people to understand what healthy relationships look like and to be able to make judgements that are based on what they have learned about themselves and the world in which they live, and not necessarily because it has been taught to them at a family level or based on the world view with which they have been brought up. It is about allowing them to make an informed decision.

Mr Martin: Or what they see on the internet.

Dr Stevenson: Yes. Exactly.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That concludes the evidence session. Thank you — please pass on our thanks to Anita — for your time this afternoon. All these evidence sessions will be drawn together into a final report, and key themes will emerge. We are very happy to engage on other issues. You referenced RE as one that the Committee might want to look at in the months ahead, once this inquiry has concluded. Thank you again.

Dr Brown: Thank you very much, Chair.