Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am pleased to have Fergal McFerran here for a briefing as part of the Committee's inquiry into relationships and sexuality education (RSE). Fergal is from the Children's Law Centre (CLC). He has been at the Committee before. This is familiar territory. Fergal is the policy and public affairs manager for the Children's Law Centre.

Without further ado, I am happy to hand over to you, Fergal, to make any initial remarks or opening presentation. We are, regrettably, on a bit of a tight timescale with some of our RSE briefings, so, if we could aim to keep opening remarks to around five minutes, that would be really helpful, so that we have plenty of time for members to follow up with questions. Unless there is anything else to add, we will make a start.

Mr Fergal McFerran (Children's Law Centre): Super. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, members. I thank the Committee for the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations. I want to begin by making it clear that the Children's Law Centre entirely supports the Committee's decision to undertake its mini inquiry into relationships and sexuality education in order to examine what reform may be necessary to ensure that all children and young people have access to a fit-for-purpose curriculum that can keep them and others safe, support their development and meaningfully prepare them for life.

When we have had opportunities to hear directly from young people about the issues that they care about and would like to see change on, either formally through research or informally through other settings, relationships and sexuality education or issues that are directly linked to it are almost always, overwhelmingly, raised and have been for quite some time now. Young people should be active participants in their education, not just passive recipients of it. When they tell us, quite consistently, that it is an area of their education that needs attention, we have a responsibility to act. That ask, directly from young people, and the need to understand RSE through the lens of children's rights are the primary motivation of the Children's Law Centre's work on the issue, and why I am here today.

The Committee has already received our written briefing, so I do not intend to take much more time on introductory remarks. I am aware that you probably want to get straight to questions. I will make some brief key points before handing back to you, Chair.

The first point is, to be clear, that our view on these issues is informed by international human rights standards, particularly those that are set out by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, to which we have had a particular reporting role. While the convention has not been comprehensively incorporated into domestic legislation, we need to remember that it is the most ratified human rights treaty in history, and, for the UK's ratification of it to mean something, we need to apply it in practice and on a consistent basis.

The second point is to reflect CLC's general view of RSE provision, which is that all children and young people should have access to comprehensive age- and developmentally appropriate evidence-based education on relationships, sexuality and sexual health, including scientifically accurate education on sexual health, reproductive health and rights, covering prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion. We believe in the necessity for and wide-ranging benefits of mandatory RSE in the curriculum to meaningfully fulfil children's rights and to make a valid and valuable contribution to efforts to safeguard children from harm and to end violence against women and girls.

The third point is about current provision. Our view is that, while pockets of good practice may exist, RSE provision in Northern Ireland appears generally to be inconsistent, inadequate and failing to meet the needs and expectations of many young people, including LGBTQ+ young people and those with disabilities. We have been particularly concerned, if not necessarily surprised, by evidence that has been given to the Committee that the existing minimum entitlement is not always provided. That position is not sustainable. While we do not yet have a settled view on how that should be addressed, we are clear that the flexibility of the curriculum, the autonomy of schools and the capacity and confidence of teachers have all contributed to the clear need for more substantial reform in that area. We are also clear in our view of the need for RSE to be seen as an equal and valid part of the curriculum when compared with other aspects of the curriculum.

Finally, on more recent developments, specifically the mechanism for parental withdrawal, our view is consistent with the most recent recommendation of the United Nations committee that no such mechanism should exist. The reality, however, is that a mechanism now exists for specific elements of the curriculum as a direct result of the regulations that were introduced by the former Secretary of State. While we are absolutely clear about it being essential that parents play a guiding role in their child's education and development, we are equally clear on the fact that the provision of a blanket opt-out fails to recognise the increasing capacity of young people to make decisions about their own lives. We are particularly concerned that the mechanism that has been introduced fails to properly understand children's rights and best interests as a primary consideration in the provision of RSE and that it creates an unwelcome imbalance such that those whom the change impacts on most — the young people — have the least influence.

We are also concerned about suggestions, made in evidence that was given to the Committee, that, beyond the specific opt-out provided for in the new regulations, other informal or potentially non-legally defined arrangements may well be operating without any oversight or accountability. We recommend that the Committee seek further clarification on that.

I conclude and welcome questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Fergal. I welcome the fact that the Children's Law Centre is so clearly supportive of the Committee's running the inquiry. All the parties unanimously agreed to hold the inquiry. It was disappointing to hear it being categorised in the Chamber earlier in the week as some sort of "pet project" of one party or another. That said, we have heard a lot of evidence on how important RSE is, particularly in relation to safeguarding and healthy relationships. We have certainly heard loud and clear from young people about how important an issue it is for them. I maintain that it is entirely appropriate for the Committee to look into it.

Your written briefing is thorough, but I will pick up on a couple of points. You covered the issue of parental opt-outs for post-primary pupils and specific opt-outs around some of the new areas of minimum content. I do not want to rehearse things that we have already gone over. I am thinking more about the practical outworkings of the opt-out provisions. What is your assessment of the guidance that DE provides to schools? To what extent does that guidance ensure that the voice of the child or young person is heard? Is it clear what a school should do if a young person clearly states that they do not wish to be withdrawn?

Mr McFerran: I think that the process that now exists as a result of the guidance given to schools probably gives a bit of helpful ambiguity to schools, if I am being honest. There is probably a fear as well that, for year 12 pupils, in respect of whom there is the capacity to seek the views of the child directly in terms of seeking their consent to be withdrawn, it is unclear how that works in practice and how that will be monitored effectively so that schools are actually compelled to provide the Department and, subsequently, the Assembly, through the required report, with information on how that is operating in practice. We have concerns that it requires the ability of year 12 pupils to advocate for themselves, potentially against the wishes of their parent. We think that, actually, that meaningful process of seeking the views of the child needs to be incorporated more broadly beyond year 12, because the blanket approach has completely ignored the developing capacities of children at ages beyond that as well.

To be clear, however, we agree with the committee's recommendation that an opt-out should not exist. In practice, we have concerns about how the mechanism operates and how it will be reported on and recorded.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful, thank you.

I want to ask about an issue that is connected to that but is a slight different aspect to it. When the Department briefed the Committee at the outset of its inquiry, very clear reference was made to the fact that there is no statutory provision to opt out of any other aspect of RSE. That is a point of fact. It was acknowledged, however, that schools undoubtedly come to informal arrangements with parents on a case-by-case basis. Do you have a view on whether that is appropriate or whether there is a need for better guidance for schools on what to do when there is no statutory provision but parents seek to opt their child out of any element of RSE provision?

Mr McFerran: When we heard that said in evidence to the Committee, we were concerned. We knew, anecdotally, that it was happening to some extent, but we were unsure about the scale or what elements of the curriculum it related to. If it is happening, we need to be clear about how it is being monitored and scrutinised and that there is a consistent approach. Safeguards and checks need to be put in place around it. That said, if it is not provided for by law, it is unclear how it is lawfully happening. I encourage the Committee to seek further clarification about what the Department is aware of with regard to those "local arrangements" — I think, that is what they were referred to as — in practice, because we do not have clarity about what aspects of the curriculum they relate to, whether mandatory aspects of minimum entitlement or non-statutory aspects. It would, therefore, be helpful to have clarity on that issue. If children and young people are entitled to statutory curriculum, they should be receiving it.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. In any final report emerging from the inquiry, the fact that there is potentially a grey area around local arrangements — you are right that that is the phrase that was used — is something that we might want to put forward as needing a bit more attention, a closer look and more guidance. I was struck that the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC), when it presented to the Committee, was very clear: it does not think that anybody should be opting out of anything other than the ones where the statutory provision is provided for, and that was very much from a safeguarding perspective. That was an interesting perspective on that and is something that the Committee will, no doubt, take away.

I have asked all my questions, Fergal, so I will bring in the Deputy Chair.

Mr Sheehan: On a similar theme, I remember a school principal actually boasting on the radio that, despite the directive from the Education Minister at the time, who was John O'Dowd, that tuition for the transfer test should not be taught during school hours, he was doing it. Is there a possibility that some schools, despite any directive or direction, could do the same and allow their students to opt out or, perhaps, even whole classes to opt out? We have heard a lot about the ethos of schools and how sometimes that ethos does not chime with part of the RSE curriculum. Do you foresee difficulties in that regard?

Mr McFerran: On your first question, the evidence points to the fact that many young people are leaving education without having received the minimum entitlement that they should be receiving. That very much indicates to me that there are instances in which it is not being taught or young people are being allowed to not attend that aspect of the curriculum. That is an issue if young people have an entitlement to education. The minimum content order and what is currently in the curriculum in relation to RSE is quite light. It is not an awful lot in terms of the expectations that young people tell us that they have for what they want RSE to be.

It is unfortunate that we have got to a situation where RSE is seen as being separate and different from the rest of the curriculum. It is as crucial to the development of a child as everything else that they will learn in school — in fact, more so. If we think about the wider societal benefits to young people receiving comprehensive RSE — for their safety and development and in preparing them for life, particularly with the pressures and issues that young people face today — it is crucial that they receive what is required by law in the minimum content order and, arguably, more, as it needs to be revised, because young people tell us that they want their RSE to reflect the lives that they actually live.

On your second question in relation to ethos, ethos will mean different things to different people. For some, it will simply mean religion. For others, it will mean a broader set of values, and religion may be part of that. We have to be honest in recognising that, for certain young people in education today and for those who have since left, ethos is probably the thing that made them feel isolated in their education. I do not see comprehensive RSE that meets the needs and expectations of children and young people as contrary to ethos.

I see ethos as important to children in their relationship with society, their family and everything else that they interact with. If we say that comprehensive RSE, whatever that might include, is important for the development of a child to protect them and others, it should be taught irrespective of the ethos of the school.

Mr Sheehan: How should the Department deal with schools that do not provide the minimum standard or that allow opt-out in circumstances where there should not be an opt-out? How does the Department deal with that?

Mr McFerran: That is a more complicated question. Part of it is about inspection regimes, and part of it is the cultural shift that I referred to and whether RSE is on a par with other parts of the curriculum. I am conscious of the briefing that you just heard: physical education has not always been seen as comparable to other parts of the curriculum. RSE is crucial, and, when we think about the ultimate priority that we all share to safeguard children and young people from harm, the cross-Executive commitments on ending violence against women and girls, the experiences of discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ young people and a range of other issues, it is simply not good enough to stand by and let the current situation sustain itself. RSE in its minimum content form, which needs to be built on, absolutely should be taught. Our preference in dealing with that is to recognise the issue with the confidence and capacity of teachers and the over-reliance on other providers to deal with that. All those issues will have to be dealt with to get to a point where RSE is taught comprehensively and consistently across Northern Ireland.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you.

Mr Baker: Chair, I echo your comments. I was very disappointed in the Minister's comment that the inquiry was a "pet project". RSE is very important, and our young people have clearly articulated that. It was disappointing, and we are doing a lot of other work in conjunction as well.

Fergal, thank you very much. Is there a danger that the level of flexibility built into the legislation is jeopardising the delivery of fact-based, scientific, inclusive and appropriate RSE in the curriculum?

Mr McFerran: When you refer to the legislation, do you mean the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Mr McFerran: OK. If we were assured that it was working and young people were telling us that they felt that they were getting what they need, we would be reassured that the flexibility had been working appropriately and that young people's rights to and expectations of the RSE that they require to prepare them for life were being fulfilled. The problem is that there is quite a substantial body of evidence to tell us, as you have reflected, that young people from all kinds of backgrounds say that what they currently get is inconsistent between schools, does not properly prepare them for life and does not give them the information that they need on a range of issues. Whilst I understand that some have come to the Committee and made the case for a flexible curriculum, the autonomy of schools and the benefits that those things have in our education system, if young people tell us on a sustained and consistent basis that the RSE provision that they receive is not good enough, not consistent and inadequate, we have to do something to address that. If the flexibility of the curriculum, the autonomy of schools and other issues are part of the reason why that is happening, we have to have a serious conversation about trying to deal with that.

Mr Baker: There are concerns about the misinformation that parents are subjected to through social media. Does the Department do enough to counter that misinformation?

Mr McFerran: I was not entirely surprised by some of the misinformation that we saw last year, around the time of the Department's consultation, following the former Secretary of State's introduction of regulations. I was surprised that the Department issued a letter to try to correct some of the misinformation and to call it out. We welcomed that, and we contacted the Department to say that it was important that it had done that, that we were encouraged by the fact that it had done it, and that we would support it, where we could, to ensure that the message was reiterated. We need to see more of that. There will always be those who misrepresent what we are trying to achieve. We need, collectively, to be clear that the overarching priority of a comprehensive and inclusive RSE programme is to protect our children and young people from harm and to improve society.

Beyond that, more probably could be done. In our consultation response, we stated that the Department needed to give thought to what resource would be required to combat misinformation in a meaningful way on an ongoing basis. However, we have seen no evidence that that conversation has happened or that thought has been given to that. I cannot say that it has not, but we have seen no evidence that it has.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mrs Guy: Danny kind of stole one of my questions. [Laughter.]

Mr Baker: Sorry.

Mrs Guy: I will repeat it somewhat. People are mischaracterising RSE and boiling it down to phrases such as just sex education. You touched on the fact that it is much broader. Generally, you described how important RSE is and how it encompasses safeguarding, keeps kids safe and gives them the tools that they need to spot dangerous relationships. It is about that idea of protection. You covered that in your last answer.

You said that you did not have a settled position, but, if there was a review of minimum content or if, perhaps, RSE could be brought into the general review of the curriculum, what would you like to see as an expanded and perhaps minimum content for RSE?

Mr McFerran: First, we would welcome clarity on whether RSE will form part of that review of the curriculum that the Minister has committed to. It would be important that it did not replicate work, but, if there was an opportunity to consider RSE as a part of that, it should.

On your specific question, others, such as colleagues in the NSPCC, the Rainbow Project, HERe NI and other organisations, have given a fair summary of some of the things that should be considered as part of minimum required content. We have been giving it some thought but are conscious that we either amend what exists or start from scratch. Therefore, I would be reluctant to give you an absolute answer, because we do not have a settled position on what should be in there. In saying that, I have, in our written briefing and in what I have said so far, suggested a number of things that, we think, would be important in terms of consent and healthy relationships, identifying harmful behaviours, safeguarding and gender-based violence — those types of issues — as well as what has already been added to the curriculum by the Secretary of State to comply with the CEDAW recommendations.

All those things are important, as well as others, and a more detailed analysis and conversation probably now need to be had to determine what should be in the minimum content. The priority to determine what that is has to be what children and young people tell us that they want in the curriculum. That forms an important basis for any reform that follows. In our research that was conducted in 2022, we asked young people in a survey, which had just over 1,000 responses, whether the RSE that they received was adequate. Only 35% said yes. That was quite a low number. Some replied, "I don't know", but the vast majority said no. That in itself is an indication of young people being clear about the types of things that they want to receive. The survey did not go into the level of detail of "tell us what you think", but others are considering that work, and it would be important for that to be done.

Mrs Guy: What are your views on external providers coming into schools to deliver content?

Mr McFerran: External providers have become an important part of ensuring that RSE is taught at all, because of, if I am frank, the total inconsistency and willingness of some schools to provide it themselves. Some schools seem to rely on external providers now. Some external providers will, without a doubt, provide an exceptional service through the content that they provide. I want to put that on record: I do not want to cast aspersions on what external providers necessarily provide in schools. However, without a doubt, concerns have been raised about what has been taught by some external providers and the safeguards that are in place in relation to whether it is right or appropriate for certain things to have been said or taught. In my view, that is an issue and a challenge. Really, we should skill up teachers and provide them with the confidence and capacity to have those conversations in school. For the most part, the reason why I say that is that, more often than not, pupils will have the trust and confidence in their teachers to go to them with issues if they have them. If teachers are trained appropriately and feel confident to teach RSE in a meaningful way, and in a way in which pupils have confidence, it is likely that pupils will be able to come forward with whatever issues they may have if they cannot find that support at home or in other places. It is important that, if external providers continue to be part of the delivery of RSE, they complement what happens in schools, not necessarily replace it.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. Thanks for the work that your organisation does. You do a lot of valuable work. Thank you for your evidence. I should have said that at the start.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Peter, you had indicated.

Mr Martin: That is great. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Fergal, for coming along. I will read out a comment from page 9 of your briefing paper. You referred to the issue previously.

Obviously, that refers to stuff that came in through the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 around abortion. I want to ask about how that sits with the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 2 states:

How do you reconcile the article 2 right of a Jewish, Sikh, Christian or Muslim parent with your view that they should not be able to withdraw their child from RSE, particularly with regard to the CEDAW stuff on abortion, if it does not conform to their religious beliefs?

Mr McFerran: To be honest, you have probably heard the answer that I will give from other people who have been before the Committee. It is an evolving area of law, but I think that it is entirely appropriate that, on the balancing of human rights, which is often the case on some of these things, as has been proven by the High Court in Wales, it is entirely possible to have a comprehensive RSE curriculum, without the ability of a parent to withdraw their child from it, that does not infringe on their ECHR rights. We take our lead from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the general comments of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and its concluding observations, as well as what children and young people have said. If we are saying that there is curriculum that is mandatory, which is so important that it is part of the legally required minimum that children should receive, I find it difficult to rationalise why it would be appropriate, in any circumstances — I am happy to be told by anyone what, they think, those circumstances are — that a child should be withdrawn from it.

Mr Martin: I understand the evolving jurisprudence to which you have referred. It is just about that challenge. Clearly, some of the UN guidance that you have referred to is not in UK primary law. The Human Rights Act is. As such, article 2 gives significant rights to parents from different religious faiths to do exactly that if they feel that teaching would be contrary to their beliefs. I am quite happy to park that there.

I do not want to get into the Chair's bad books for extending this one, too, but I have one more question for you, if that is OK. It leads on from some of the stuff that you said. The clue is in the title: it is the Children's Law Centre. Clearly, there is a range of views on some of the issues that we are talking about, including from children. How does your organisation in particular seek to reach out to and engage with children of faith on their views, which might be contrary to some of the views that you have outlined today, if you understand the question?

Mr McFerran: I will make two points. First, we are a multidisciplinary centre. I often describe our front door as our advice team. We have an advice and legal team who provide free, independent advice, support and representation to children and their families on a range of issues every day of the week. We might deal with anything up to around 3,000 to 4,000 issues annually for young people from right across Northern Ireland. In the past quarter ending in September, we dealt with over 800 individual issues ranging from education and special educational needs to access to services, mental health and a range of other stuff. Those came from people from across Northern Ireland and from all backgrounds, which reflects the people who come to CLC for help, support and advice. We provide that help, support and advice irrespective of people's background. I know that that does not answer the specific question that you asked, which I will come to, but it is important to contextualise it, because we also receive referrals from all kinds of people and organisations, including MLAs of all parties and none, which is a reflection of our commitment to supporting children and young people of all backgrounds.

To answer the specific point, I do not think that it is right to say that some of what we may say is contrary to what children and young people of faith and belief may necessarily say. I say that because the figure that I quoted to Michelle was that only 35% of young people in our survey said that the RSE that they have been provided with was adequate and around three quarters of the total population of young people who responded to the survey said that they were a young person of faith. The majority identified themselves as Catholic or Protestant and a small number as of other minority religions and beliefs. The evidence of young people calling for change to RSE provision in Northern Ireland is not just from a homogenous group of young people who may all think the same thing. It is from a diverse population of young people, including young people of faith and belief.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are no other indications from members, so that brings the evidence session to a close. Fergal, thank you for your time.