Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome David Smyth to the Committee this afternoon. He is the head of the Evangelical Alliance in Northern Ireland (EANI). We will conduct the evidence session in the way in which we have conducted all the previous ones, which is that you give a presentation at the outset. I ask that it be up to 10 minutes long. It should be on anything that you want to say that is in addition to the material that you sent through to the Committee in advance. We will then move on to questions from Committee members, the answers to which will form part of the Committee's inquiry and bring to it your perspective on and experience of the provision of relationships and sexuality education (RSE) in Northern Ireland as it stands and what future delivery might look like. David, we will stick to around five minutes a member for questions, so bear that in mind when you are answering to make sure that we get around everyone. Cathy and Cara joined us late, so we have a couple more members to get around now.

That is all from me by way of introduction. I am happy to hand over to you, David, for your presentation.

Mr David Smyth (Evangelical Alliance): I genuinely thank you, Chair, and members of the Committee for the invitation to be here.

The previous time that I was before the Committee for Education was to give evidence on the collapse of support services for families of children with severe autism and special educational needs (SEN). I want to continue to press you, as a Committee, on those families' needs.

As a stakeholder locally, we have engaged with the Education Authority (EA), the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) and the Department of Education on a wide range of issues that relate to education over the past decades. Last year, following the then Secretary of State's announcement that he was introducing new regulations on the teaching of access to abortion and contraceptives, there was a lot of confusion, misinformation and scaremongering. By way of response, we held four in-person events, in Belfast, Dungannon, Enniskillen and Portstewart, with around 1,000 parents, grandparents, teachers, governors and others attending them. It is fair to say that there was significant interest and some concern across the Christian community. Some groups called for the teaching of RSE in schools to be stopped, but, to be clear, that is not our position. We have concerns about some of the content and about some external providers, but our approach to RSE is to encourage parents and carers to engage positively with their child and with their child's school.

We take a similar position on the teaching of RSE in schools to that of the Transferor Representatives' Council (TRC), which gave evidence to the Committee a number of weeks ago. RSE is important, and it should be age-appropriate, scientifically accurate and delivered, like every other subject in a school, within the school's ethos. We commend the many teachers, including Christian teachers, who have been faithfully teaching RSE and sensitive issues such as abortion for many years.

The debate is often framed as being one of religion versus RSE, and there can be fear and suspicion on both sides about the ulterior motives of the other. We try to approach the debate with humility. We are still figuring out how we approach some of the complex issues, and we are looking to find common ground. To be clear, in the day that is in it, we are not looking to fight a culture war in which children are the casualties. There is so much common ground between Christians and non-Christians when it comes to teaching about healthy relationships, consent, preventing violence against women and girls, sexualisation and concerns about social media, sexting and pornography. Let us be honest: those things have changed the world dramatically.

In June 2021, Ofsted published a report that found that sexual harassment, including online sexual abuse, had become normalised for children and young people. The report found that 88% of 15-year-old girls had been sent a sexual picture or video that they did not want to see and 80% of girls had been put under pressure to send a sexual image of themselves. That deeply disturbs me, as a dad of boys and girls, and I know that it is the same for my friends and family members who have no faith.

Lots of people are also concerned by some of the stories that they have read in the media about some content in RSE lessons. We particularly draw the Committee's attention to what is being taught in relationships and sexuality education in our schools. A report commissioned by Miriam Cates when she was an MP details some examples of age-inappropriate material being taught in RSE on issues such as sexual practices that may be dangerous or even illegal, such as choking and chemsex. There are also instances of scientifically inaccurate material that confuses and conflates biological sex with gender identity and teaches that children can choose to become a man or a woman or both or neither. Again, there are common concerns among many parents, regardless of any religious beliefs that they might hold.

There is so much common ground, but there are some specific areas in which the views of evangelical Christians and many Catholics and Muslims are distinctive: for example, on abortion. Our 'Good news people' research report proves that to be the case. When people — people from the general population — were presented with the statement:

92% of classical evangelical Christians disagreed or strongly disagreed, versus 34% of the general population.

Let me be clear, however, that we are not saying that such things should not be taught, nor are we saying that Christian theology should be forced on anyone. The real disagreement, I think, is about how those sensitive issues are taught, in order to allow for a diversity of beliefs. For example, what exactly is age-appropriate and who decides that, which scientifically accurate facts are we talking about and, ultimately, what constitutes harm?

We are talking about RSE today, but it is sometimes helpful to step back from a contested issue and look at the bigger picture: the philosophical stories that we are living in that give shape and meaning to the issue that we are discussing. Atheist writer Yuval Noah Harari says:

I happen to believe that there is a God and that rights flow from the inherent dignity that he gives to humanity, but I simply say that to make the point that there is no such thing as scientifically or morally neutral RSE. Embedded in every approach to RSE are certain stories and beliefs about the meaning and purpose of our lives, about our relationships and about our sexuality.

I sense suspicion in some quarters that Christian ethos equates to indoctrination or brainwashing, perhaps for good reason in the past in certain instances. Good RSE, however, is about helping young people understand and think well about relationships and sex identity and how that plays with their moral beliefs and values. State schools are not Sunday schools, but it is their Christian ethos that shapes their pastoral care for every young person, whatever their beliefs or sexual orientation, and their holistic approach to character formation in education, not just transferring information. Holding to a particular moral or theological viewpoint does not mean that Christians stand in condemnation or judgement of others. It does not mean that Christians are so fragile that they cannot bear to be exposed to other people's beliefs or values. Dialogue, discussion and critical analysis are vital.

We need to be careful not to create new secular blasphemies. Is it secular blasphemy to believe that a man cannot biologically become a woman or to disagree with a woman's right to choose abortion because she finds out that she is having a girl? Would a Muslim teenage girl or a young man who would like to go into the priesthood be shunned for expressing such views? We canvassed some young people aged 18 to 24 who had been through RSE in more recent years than I have. One said:

Several young people, in conversations with me, have said that it is much more difficult now to come out as an evangelical Christian in school than it is to come out as LGBT. There is a question about how people with no faith are accommodated in a school with a Christian ethos, but I simply make the point that there is also the opposite question about how young people of faith can be accommodated in a school in which the culture is maybe quite antagonistic to their faith.

I will just highlight some distinctions, after which I am happy to take questions. There are important distinctions to be made between what is bullying and what is disagreement about facts and ideology and about identity and behaviour and between what is pastoral care that is appropriate for the needs of a specific young person and what is taught as normative on the curriculum to all young people.

Thank you so much for your time and for all that you do in the service of the public. Please be assured of our prayers for you during these delicate discussions.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, David. There is a lot in your presentation, and I am not sure that we will have time in our session to cover everything that it has highlighted. You have probably correctly indicated that views on the issues are not necessarily aligned across the Committee, and your presentation may draw that out.

I will begin by asking a straightforward question. Do you think that the current RSE landscape in Northern Ireland is satisfactory? Your written briefing suggests that you think that the right balance has been struck and there is really no need for reform. Have I understood that correctly?

Mr Smyth: It is difficult to strike the balance between standardisation and what should be on the minimum curriculum and giving schools the flexibility to address the particular needs and culture of their community and their ethos. As I understand it, at the minute, the Department of Education requires that each school have in place its own policy for the delivery of RSE, that the school consult pupils, parents, staff and governing bodies and that that should reflect the school's moral and religious principles and its ethos.

Our research shows that 50% of people in Northern Ireland identify in some way as a practising Christian. Northern Ireland is therefore a peculiar place in these islands when it comes to religious identity and practice.

Reforms are needed. Everyone has some concerns about some of the content that is being taught and about some of the external providers, whether they come at it from a Christian perspective or a very secular one. Those are some of the areas on which there can perhaps be some more guidance.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): May I come in there? You say that it is difficult to strike a balance. The presentation on the academic research that we heard just before your presentation is consistent with a lot of what we hear from the research in the space and with what we hear directly from young people. The phrases that they use are, "RSE in Northern Ireland is inconsistent", "It's delivered too late" and, "It lacks practical, relatable content". Those are familiar themes that we hear from young people every time we engage with them on the issue. I therefore wonder how you reached your assessment, if, ultimately, that is what young people who are receiving the content are saying. Your organisation seems to be suggesting that it thinks that the balance is right at the moment and that we have RSE largely where we should have it at in Northern Ireland. I am just trying to work out how we strike the balance, because the assessments are worlds apart.

Mr Smyth: Yes. Life is changing at a rapid pace. Social media and technology are changing everything, not just for young people. There is AI. The stuff that we now have to try to help young people deal with and contend with is really challenging. The reality and landscape is probably moving faster than we can keep up with.

Our view on RSE is definitely not one of covering children's ears and hoping or pretending that everything will be OK. It is appropriate that we inform them about what is going on, particularly when it comes to safeguarding, violence and safety: all those things. Where we are concerned about the balance is where the curriculum is so standardised that there is no flexibility for individual teachers or schools, within their ethos, to deliver RSE in a way that, they feel, is appropriate for how they deal with pastoral care, life and culture in their school.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Again, correct me if I am wrong or if I have picked up any of what you said incorrectly, but, from your oral presentation, you seem to me to be setting out a view of RSE that expresses a concern that there are teachers somewhere who are effectively trying to change children's minds in order to push an agenda of some sort. You referenced concerns about content: I am not sure, but I think that the Miriam Cates report that you referenced was not focused on Northern Ireland.

Mr Smyth: It was England and Wales. Absolutely.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to clarify that point of fact. There is no reference to Northern Irish material in that report. There did, however, seem to be a thread running through your presentation that it is about minds being changed. Is there another way to look at it from your organisation's perspective? Is there any space in which to deliver RSE that is fact-based, not based on moral values, and takes the controversial issue of abortion and explains the law on it and the services that are available? That is not to say, "You should go and seek an abortion" but rather, "Here is the law". Those sexual identities exist in Northern Ireland. Those family types exist in Northern Ireland. It is therefore about making sure that there is space for that material to be delivered. There are indisputable facts that can be delivered without changing minds and that leave young people to make up their own mind. Is that not something that, as educators, teachers should be comfortable with doing, or do you hold the view that there needs to be a more instructional approach taken?

Mr Smyth: I am very comfortable with most of what you say, and I am happy to clarify that the Miriam Cates report applies to England and Wales. To go back to that, what we saw last year is that a lot of parents in Northern Ireland have concerns about stories that they have read in UK newspapers or about stories that have come from across these islands. I am happy to clarify that.

The concerns are there, and, again, they are on both sides. Some people are concerned that children are being taught almost a Bible study in RSE, but we see no evidence of that. On the whole, there are lots of people who are trying to do a really good job with RSE delivery. I do not disagree that some of the delivery may be patchy. These are awkward, difficult issues, and some people in some schools are better resourced than others, so there is work to do on that area, as evidenced by the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) report and the Human Rights Commission (HRC) report. When teaching, for example, the law on abortion or on different sexual identities, when that is taught and how it is taught, there should be a space for it not to be ideologically driven. It should be taught, and then there should be space to open up the discussion to help young people reflect on how they might respond, given their particular views, their developing political beliefs and their developing moral beliefs. We want there to be that space for all young people to respond to the facts that are being taught.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have one final question, and it is one that I have probably tried to ask everyone who has presented to the Committee. We are looking at what RSE looks like in Northern Ireland and at what it might look like in the future, if there were to be any change or reform. Is there any aspect of the current minimum content at any stage of a child's educational journey that, your organisation feels, needs to be changed by imposing any new minimum standards for what children need to learn?

Mr Smyth: I will flag one concern for us about the changes that came into effect last year. Again, it is about how it gets taught. Children have been taught about abortion and access to contraceptives for many years in Northern Ireland. In many ways, the legislation had been taught really well in lots of places. I would have a concern, as many people would, if teaching access to abortion were interpreted to mean, "Here is a flyer with a number for where you can get an abortion" or, "If you speak to the school nurse, you can be referred directly to an abortion provider". That would open up a whole other range of issues, so that is certainly not how I would understand teaching about access to abortion within legal parameters. I would be concerned if what is meant by "comprehensive" is that the teaching is linked to the provision of services.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You have concerns about that aspect. Is there anything that we need to add or that we need to do better? Is there anything that we should teach our kids that we do not?

Mr Smyth: Teaching about technology and the speed of change is probably needed. Some of the apps that are being developed, particularly ones that use AI, are quite frightening. Technology has so much potential, but it can also be abused in many ways. I am not sure that, as adults, we fully understand how much such technology shapes and affects us, so some teaching on tying in RSE with digital responsibility is important.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is worth looking at.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks, David, for your presentation. Your written briefing states that it is important to acknowledge the world view when discussing RSE. What is your definition of "world view"?

Mr Smyth: It is about our assumptions about what is good, true or beautiful. There is a lot of common ground that we all share, but there will be distinctions. From a Christian perspective, there are certain hot-button issues. If that is where we keep the conversation, we might not understand why there is a clash and just put it down to prejudice or bigotry. We need to take a step back to understand where the person is coming from and why they believe that something is good. Taking a step back to understand the world view is important. It is healthy to do that on a lot of issues.

Mr Sheehan: Will you give me an example of that?

Mr Smyth: Everyone has a world view. Some people live out an atheistic world view where there is no God. They give meaning, purpose or value in life to themselves, and the highest authorities are human laws and courts. Another world view might be that I am not here by accident and there is a purpose to life. In that world view, if someone suffers injustice and does not get justice in this life, there is still meaning and purpose in pursuing that. There are any number of examples of religious and non-religious world views. My point is that we all have a world view.

Mr Sheehan: Are you suggesting that, in the delivery of an RSE curriculum, different world views have to be brought to the table when issues are being discussed?

Mr Smyth: I do not expect any teacher to teach every world view, but it is important to teach information that is scientifically accurate, factual and age-appropriate and then create the space for discussion, where people feel that they can bring their world view to the table. We have seen so much polarisation in society, so it might help if we are able to talk about why people believe that some things are harmful and other things are good.

Mr Sheehan: The concern is that the vast majority of schools here have a Christian ethos. The difficulty arises where RSE is delivered in a school with a particular ethos that is the world view of the person delivering the curriculum: that will be the only world view that is brought to the table. For example, many of the Churches in the North see homosexuality as sinful. How can you deliver a curriculum that talks about relationships, same-sex relationships and so on without bringing a moral framework to bear on the discussion? If the teacher delivering the curriculum has a Christian ethos and a view that homosexuality is wrong and they bring their world view to the classroom, is that the right way for the RSE curriculum to be delivered?

Mr Smyth: No. Christians have distinctive views on sex and sexuality. At the centre of those is our understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is a symbol of God's relationship with his people. Theologically, that is how we understand it. Christians' belief about marriage being between a man and a woman does not mean that we hate people who are gay or wish to discriminate against anyone.

Mr Sheehan: I am not suggesting that you do, but the view is that it is wrong and sinful. In the past, some said that it was an abomination.

Mr Smyth: The Bible also calls pride an abomination, and it is important to note that. I want to come at the issue with humility and answer your question. Holding one moral or theological viewpoint does not mean that Christians automatically stand in condemnation or in judgement of someone who does not agree with them or lives in a way they may not agree with. I expect any teacher who is a Christian to teach RSE without imposing their moral views.

When I talked about world view, I was primarily talking about there being space in the classroom for pupils to bring their world views into the discussions or for teachers to open the discussions up and say, "Some Christians believe this, and some people believe something else". It would not be appropriate for a teacher to impose their beliefs as you described. If that is the concern, that is not what I was saying.

Mr Sheehan: I have a final question. If a teacher brought their own view — let us say an evangelical Christian view — into an RSE discussion on same-sex relationships, it would be much more difficult for a young person to contradict that and voice their own view, because the relationship between a teacher and a pupil is unequal.

Mr Smyth: I agree. I also think that, if a teacher who was not a Christian ridiculed Christian views and said, "Obviously, anyone who thinks that same-sex relationships are sinful is bigoted and homophobic", a young person in the classroom who held that view would think, "I am not sure that I can say my views". Great discretion, responsibility and trust are required in the teacher's relationship with the pupil and between the school, the pupil, the parents and the teacher. I hope that that is happening in a relational way.

There are also protections in employment law for people with particular religious beliefs or gender-critical views that have been tried in the courts. It is a complex area of law, philosophy and religion. Our hope is for the classroom to be a place where lively, robust and good-spirited discussions can happen and everyone feels included, even if they disagree profoundly.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for that.

Mrs Guy: Hello. Thank you for coming. I appreciate your time. I liked the way that you started the conversation with the idea of finding common ground. That is the right spirit in which to come to these discussions.

My first question is about whether you agree that the current RSE curriculum is not adequate. You referenced:

etc as topics that you are comfortable with. Are you comfortable with the topics that you listed forming part of the mandatory minimum content for RSE?

Mr Smyth: RSE is trying to do a lot of things; a lot of things get put in the RSE trolley. Why do our schools teach it? It is about trying to help young people to be safe; to be well informed; to understand the law, their bodies and other people who are different from them; and to be tolerant, inclusive and respectful. There are loads of personalities — each young person is different — and some people are going through a lot. There is a lot of common ground around consent, violence against women and girls and all those issues. There is much more common ground than there are distinctions and divisions. I want to be upfront and honest: sexuality and abortion are the areas where there will be the biggest distinctions. We do not say that those issues should not be in the minimum content of the curriculum, but it is about how they are taught sensitively.

Mrs Guy: The reason for a standardised approach is to make sure that all kids get the same information. It is also important for safeguarding and rights that every child gets the same education. Are you content that RSE has a safeguarding role and that topics of that nature are taught as a minimum across all schools in a standardised way?

Mr Smyth: At the moment, we have minimum content in the curriculum. We need to have some room to allow the teacher to take cognisance of the class before them and the culture of the school that they are in. It is about holding both. There is a tension there. As far as I understand it, in Northern Ireland —.

Mrs Guy: Is it a contradiction to say, "We agree there should be safeguarding and minimum content, but there are certain things that we'll remove from certain kids' experiences and how they're being taught"?

Mr Smyth: No, there is the teaching of RSE. The way in which it is taught in one school might look a little different from the way in which it is taught in another school, but the issue is still being taught at the discretion of the teacher, who knows their children best.

Mrs Guy: So you do not want a standardised approach.

Mr Smyth: I do not want someone to read the same script in every classroom across Northern Ireland. That is not the best way to approach the issue.

Mrs Guy: I do not think that teachers teach with a script as it is, but there is a curriculum, and there is content that everyone has to be taught. Teachers choose how they teach it, but they do not choose to remove or exclude certain things; they teach the curriculum. That is the point: there would be a standardised curriculum, and all kids would receive the same information. Parents could then have confidence that a child in one school is getting the same information as a child in another school. Societally, that is a benefit when we are trying to prevent things such as violence against women and girls, ensure that there is safeguarding and protect kids from abuse. Standardisation is really important to that. There could be an undermining of the safeguarding outworking if you say, "In certain circumstances, we could dilute that ourselves without anybody interfering", and you would have complete autonomy to do that.

Mr Smyth: I do not think that we are that far apart on that.

Mrs Guy: There may be a crucial difference.

Mr Smyth: Safeguarding is a big concern for all parents. Many parents might be concerned about exposing young people to some things through a particular style of teaching and that opening them up to experimentation. Some of the examples that I gave of topics from England — I get that they were from England and not Northern Ireland — were topics that were not appropriate to teach some young people. It is good to be aware of risks and dangers, but encouraging some young people to experiment in certain ways is not helpful. Some people might say, "Actually, that's a safeguarding risk". There are Christian parents who will say, "We want to protect our child from sexual assault and sexual abuse. We want to raise young men who are never going to go in that direction". However, if there is no agreement on how we teach some of those things, there will be concerns in the opposite direction.

Safeguarding is an area on which we and the Transferor Representatives' Council are agreed. Parents have no automatic right to withdraw their children, but they can request that their child be withdrawn from classes on particular issues. That should not apply to safeguarding issues. However, the parent knows their child best. If, God forbid, a young person has had experience of sexual abuse or sexual assault, their parent may understand that their going into a class to hear about that is not appropriate. We just need to be careful. My concern about standardisation is that the approach becomes so standardised that it does not allow the teacher, who knows the pupils well, room in the classroom to deliver the lessons in the appropriate way.

Mrs Guy: You are content that, when it comes to abuse, for example, kids get the information that they need to protect themselves from such scenarios. Conversion therapy is a form of abuse. Do you agree that LGBT kids sitting in a classroom should get information on that in RSE to protect themselves from those practices, so that they are able to spot them and understand how to protect themselves?

Mr Smyth: Will you define "conversion therapy"?

Mrs Guy: I am thinking of the practices where children who are LGBT are put into settings where they are told that that is wrong and where certain practices come into play to convert them out of that. That is a form of abuse, because, of course, they cannot change their sexuality; they are who they are. You can see the damage that could be done to someone, if they were told that they were inherently wrong . We have established that we want to protect kids from abuse and safeguard them, so that might be an appropriate area for RSE to cover.

Mr Smyth: There should be no coercion or attempt to change someone in that way, but we need to be careful regarding the orthodox teaching of all of our Churches on sexual relationships in marriage and celibacy outside of marriage. I completely get that that may not be a popular view, but, if a young person who has faith wants to live in accordance with their beliefs and desires and is trying to hold their feelings and attractions along with their beliefs, prayerful support, counselling or talking with someone is entirely different from a coercive practice that seeks to change the direction or strength of their orientation. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Mrs Guy: That is OK. We have already had situations in the Committee where people have pivoted to things that are not relevant.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are running out of time —.

Mrs Guy: We are not going to go there, but I appreciate your answers. Thank you for coming.

Mr Smyth: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have given a bit of additional time, as I have not seen many indications from members that they want to ask questions. If lots of members start indicating that they want to ask questions, I will have to be a bit tighter on time.

Mr Crawford: Thanks, David, for coming along this afternoon. We chatted briefly about the common ground. There are distinctive issues and a difference of opinion when it comes to sexuality, gender and abortion. I note that the Evangelical Alliance is not claiming that those issues should not be included in RSE, but you raise genuine concerns about the way in which they are taught. How can you reconcile the need for inclusivity in education with the traditional views held by many in the evangelical community?

Mr Smyth: That is a good question. Like many of you and many parents out there, I am raising kids in a complex environment. The world is getting more chaotic day by day. The primary responsibility for raising kids lies with their parents or carers. However, we do not raise them in a bubble or in isolation; we want them to go out into the world. At some stage, they will meet people with whom they disagree. They will come across ideas that might be harmful and all kinds of political ideologies. My concern is that schools should prepare young people for the lives that they live now and their lives in the future. That includes how to protect themselves and keep themselves safe, but it also includes how to disagree well. We have fundamentally failed, as a society, even beyond these borders, in that things are in such a politically polarised state.

I have nothing to fear from young people being taught things. Parents, be they of a non-religious family or not, might want to help their kids by preparing them for the fact that they might hear things in school that, they believe, are rubbish, such as, "There is no God". It is up to parents to set the culture of their home, but it is up to schools to provoke healthy discussion and debate and to promote care, tolerance and respect for kids from different backgrounds and with all kinds of beliefs.

Mr Baker: I have a quick point to make. You have mentioned healthy debate a couple of times. When it comes to RSE, however, young people tell us that they want to stick to facts and science. There should not be room for debate when it comes to teaching RSE, when you are talking about scientific evidence and facts. Why would we debate someone's sexuality or the morality of abortion in RSE?

Mr Smyth: Science did not lead us to conclude that violence against women and girls is wrong: that is a cultural value that we hold, and many other cultures in the world do not hold that value. In 2016, there were 5·5 million missing females in the world due to sex-selective abortion. Half of those cases were in India. That figure is from the medical journal 'The Lancet'. Science does not tell us that girls and women are of equal value to men; that is a value. Many non-Christians absolutely hold that value too; it is not just Christians who believe that.

I am saying that we need to start with the facts but we can talk about all kinds of facts; that is really important. Another example is the fact that biological men cannot get pregnant. Some of the ideology out there is confusing for young people. I am happy that we talk about facts, and it is important that we do not dance around them. There will, however, always be a value judgement on what facts we talk about and what values we bring to the table.

Mr Baker: There are places in other parts of the curriculum where you can have healthy debates, but, when we talk about RSE, we talk about it being fact-based. When you start delving into morality, you are not teaching scientific facts.

Mr Smyth: I suppose that you could teach RSE purely as science and say, "Here are the facts; here are the legal provisions for abortion; here are the mechanics of sex; here are all the different ways that people can identify; and here are the facts". Good RSE — it is "relationships and sexuality education" — is about relationships, and the moment that we are on to relationships it is about how we interact with one another and say, "Am I going to respect you even though we might disagree? Am I going to have tolerance for someone else's views? How am I going to treat this person?". Science does not tell me how to treat another human being. It is about facts and values.

Mr Baker: That is fine, if you teach it fairly to LGBTQ people and the trans community. It cannot be that their sexuality is up for debate but relationships between men and women are not.

Mr Smyth: I am not sure that their sexuality is. Maybe it is their beliefs about their sexuality that are, just as my beliefs about their sexuality or their beliefs about my beliefs might be, because they are different. I am sorry: I am not trying to be pedantic.

Mr Baker: That is what I mean. There should not be a debate on that. How you choose to live your life should not be up for debate.

Mr Smyth: That is a political view.

Mr Baker: It is about equality. It is not a political view.

Mr Smyth: There is a view that everybody should be free to do whatever they want to do: "My body, my choice"; "My death, my decision", when it comes to assisted dying; and maximum freedom for each individual. That is a political ideology, and that is OK, but naming it what it is is important.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your presentation, David. I will pick up on something that Danny mentioned.

David, can you teach RSE without any morality or values? Is it the sort of subject — Danny more or less said this — where you could just teach the facts? Can you teach RSE without morality or value in it?

Mr Smyth: You can teach human reproduction and biology. You can teach aspects of RSE without bringing values to the table, but the kind of RSE that we all want, which is about inclusion, respecting people, treating people with dignity and all those things, brings in value judgements. There is also a value judgement in what is not said in the classroom. There is lots that we do not teach about some of the issues.

Mr Martin: May I keep going, Chair? Have I got a whole five minutes.?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You absolutely can, yes.

Mr Martin: I will pick up on some of the research from your written briefing. You mention that 80% of people in Northern Ireland identify as Christian in some way. I assume that that straddles Catholics and Protestants.

Mr Smyth: That is from the 2021 census.

Mr Martin: We talk a lot in the Committee and outside it about ethos. People sometimes think that we should not have a Christian ethos or that having that in our schools is almost a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for schools to have a Christian ethos?

Mr Smyth: Northern Ireland has a particular context that we all know. Without going into the history of the education system and its different sectors, our research and the census show a high level of religious identification.

If, when talking about Christian ethos, we meant that every lesson would teach theology or teach what children must believe or we meant excluding people who do not identify as Christian, that would be entirely wrong. The Christian ethos and values that we are talking about are things like good character, honesty, respect and integrity. Again, it is about that distinction: having a distinctive disposition does not mean that you condemn or judge people who do not agree with you. The distinctive Christian ethos is important to our culture in Northern Ireland. However, I recognise why people might have concerns about that. I know that some people have had bad experiences of faith and of school or RSE, and I get why there is caution or hesitation about that. Christianity should never be forced on anyone. When I talk about the Christian ethos, I am talking about how people are treated, including those who are LGBT and every young person. A Christian ethos means that there is welcome and hospitality. That is what I am talking about. The phrase "Christian ethos" is often interpreted as indoctrination or brainwashing, and I get why that happens.

Mr Martin: The Christian ethos, as you understand it, in our schools — we got somewhere towards that; I think that you were summarising some other views that we have heard — is not necessarily about teaching theology to students. The Christian ethos that we are talking about — you mentioned some of these on your way through, and this is your understanding — covers things like love, respect, honesty and trust. Those are the sorts of components that a primary school might have up on a board, under the heading, "This is what we believe". Is that what, you say, the Christian ethos should be, rather than Christian theological teaching in lessons?

Mr Smyth: Yes. As a Christian, I am called to love my enemy and forgive those who do things to me. When some people think "Christian", they think "twee" and "nice": that is a challenge. The Christian ethos is about the inclusion of everyone. The Christian understanding of family does not just mean the nuclear family; it includes kids in care and refugees and asylum seekers. It is very broad; it is everyone. That does not mean that we will agree with everyone, but Christians are called to love those whom we disagree with and create space for them at the table. That is the kind of school environment that I want for my kids, and I commend my local primary school for providing that. It would be wrong for faith to be forced on someone.

To make it clear, it is not just Christians who disagree with some of what is being taught. Julie Bindel, who is well known, describes herself as an atheist, political, lesbian feminist. She has spent her whole career trying to prevent violence against women and girls. She has a podcast and opens every episode by saying that she is concerned about extreme gender ideology that says that anyone can change sex and that men are women, if they say so. That is not someone who comes from a Christian perspective at all, but she has concerns about the direction of some ideological travel not just in our schools but in wider society. I am, hopefully, representing the views of our membership and of Christians, but there is a lot of common concern among others who do not share my Christian faith.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are no other indications. That brings us to the end of the evidence session. Thank you for your time this afternoon, David. We will take the evidence that we have heard today and feed it into the Committee's consideration of its final report. Thank you for your time.

Mr Smyth: Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.