Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): With us today, we have Danielle Roberts, co-convener from Alliance for Choice and organiser with Reclaim the Agenda; and Dr Emma Campbell, who is also co-convener at Alliance for Choice and a reproductive citizenship researcher at Ulster University. First of all, you are very welcome this afternoon. Apologies for the delay in starting the session. Both of our previous sessions ran over, which has left us chasing our tails a little bit. A couple of members have to leave the session early today, so just be aware that there may be some movement during your evidence session.

At this stage, it is over to you. We have received your submission to the inquiry. We are very happy to hear any opening remarks or a presentation from you. We ask for that to be up to 10 minutes, and we will then move into questions and answers. I will just make you aware that Hansard will record the session, as it feeds into the inquiry. Over to you.

Ms Danielle Roberts (Alliance for Choice): Thank you, Chair. I am one of the co-conveners for Alliance for Choice in Belfast. Alliance for Choice is the largest grassroots campaign for abortion rights in Northern Ireland and was critical to the decriminalisation of abortion. We advocate for abortion rights and accessing justice, especially for the most marginalised who face barriers, including refugee and asylum-seeking women, LGBTQI+ people and those in violent, abusive or controlling relationships.

As the Committee will be aware, the obligation to introduce mandatory, comprehensive and age-appropriate relationships and sexuality education (RSE), as well as ensuring access to comprehensive education on contraception in addition to access to contraception and safe and legal abortion, stems from a Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) committee inquiry that was subsequently written into 2019 legislation. Following a significant period of over three years from the law change, regulations were brought forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Those regulations amended the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and placed a requirement on the Department of Education to act before 1 January 2024 — a deadline that has been missed — so that:

The wording directly reflects the CEDAW recommendations for the UK Government as state party and places a requirement on the devolved Department of Education to act.

RSE also engages the rights of children and young people under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), including the right to access information, under article 17; the right to experience the highest attainable standard of health and to access health facilities, including preventative healthcare, family planning and education services, under article 24; and the right to government protection from sexual abuse and exploitation, under article 34.

In June 2023, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended, in its concluding observations of the UK, that the state party:

We are concerned about the addition in the regulations of a parental opt-out, which was not included in the 2019 CEDAW recommendations. The capacity to opt a child out of parts of the curriculum against their wishes can harm children, especially LGBTQI+ children and those who experience abuse in the home. We note that limited opt-outs are in place elsewhere in these islands. In Wales, a court ruled that parents had no right to withdraw their children from RSE, and the European Court of Human Rights has upheld the child's right to education as a primary concern when balancing rights around RSE. We, too, believe that the rights of children must be paramount in relation to RSE.

We recommend that the Committee review existing research and reports on RSE. We will not labour the point, but we recommend those carried out with children and young people in particular. It is really important to consider the potential of RSE to tackle violence against women and girls. We particularly highlight the 'Every Voice Matters!' report, which found that half of respondents — 50% — experienced at least one form of violence or abuse before they were 11 years old. The 'It's just what happens' report found that everyday violence amongst the experiences of girls and young women who participated in the research was of a "persistent" nature. The report found that they experienced catcalling and street harassment from the age of 10 or 11 onwards and that girls frequently received unsolicited messages and sexual images from a young age. We also note briefings that the Committee has received from colleagues in women's, LGBTQI+, human rights and children's rights organisations and, in particular, the response to the inquiry from the Women's Policy Group, to which we contributed.

We need to teach children and young people to recognise abuse and harassment and equip them with the knowledge to access support. Instead, we have an RSE offering that is described as "basic", "unhelpful", "useless", "biased", "limited", "vague", "uninformative" and "heteronormative" in a 2019 report by Belfast City Youth Council.

As the Committee will hear, young people access abortion services in various circumstances. Under-18s access abortion care locally since the law changed and also continue to be forced to travel to England for care that should be available at home. Locally, in 2020-21, 46 abortions were carried out on under-18s; in 2021-22, there were 54; and in 2022-23, there were 60. In 2022, 12 under-18s travelled to England for abortion care. Six of them were under 16. A further 14 were aged 18 or 19. Eleven under-18s travelled in 2021, and 19 under-18s travelled in 2020.

Dr Emma Campbell (Alliance for Choice): I will talk a bit about the people to whom we speak directly on the phone. Apologies in advance: I have a bit of a primary-school-child-induced lurgy.

I will talk about the demographics. Our doula service, as I will call it, is Lucht Cabhrach. That is where we answer calls from people who are seeking advice and information on abortion directly. We have four doulas, and we help dozens of callers a month, ranging in age from 13 to late 40s. Most are resident in NI; some are resident in Ireland and GB. The majority of callers are looking for information about accessing abortion treatment and, often, for some reassurance. A minority of callers will need a greater level of care, and they tend to take up the majority of our time. Some of the more difficult calls have been from people who have suffered coercive control or violently abusive relationships; from under-18s with no family support; or from people who are struggling due to marginalisation, such as lesbians or trans people, refugees and asylum seekers or even people facing spiritual abuse. As someone who directly attends to those calls, I know that a number of the clients' needs could be addressed by comprehensive and scientifically accurate education on sexual and reproductive health rights, covering the prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion. As I am sure you know, that is one of the recommendations of the CEDAW report. Many abortion seekers of all ages have an unsafe lack of knowledge as to how and when someone can get pregnant, how and where to access contraception and advice on what constitutes a safe and healthy adult relationship. Many clients are unaware of the morning-after pill and of the use of IUDs to prevent implantation up to two or three weeks. Younger clients are often oblivious as to their cycles and what they mean and rarely know how to access the free contraception that is widely available to them, or how to use it if they did. Many post-partum abortion seekers are misinformed about breastfeeding's contraceptive effects, and many callers worry about dangerous anti-abortion myths that have been spread as disinformation. Comprehensive RSE that follows global best practice guards against unwanted crisis pregnancies, abusive relationships and more. In fact, a Brook report stated that young people who do not receive RSE are more likely to take sexual risks, including sex before the legal age of consent and unprotected sex.

I will now talk about three cases, all of which I have responded to in the past six months. Case A was a recent school-leaver who discovered their pregnancy when they were in accident and emergency because they felt unwell. Basically, they did not know that they were pregnant until they went to A&E. They immediately requested abortion healthcare when they discovered that they were pregnant. The nurse attending her failed to provide any information on abortion services. Not forwarding her to someone who will provide that information is a clear breach of conscientious objection. The second nurse advised her against abortion and showed her pictures of her own child, which is another breach of conscientious objection. Those medical professionals should have referred that child to somebody who would have helped her in the way that she wished. She was extremely distressed about the lack of non-judgemental advice. She did not know her rights. She did not even know whether abortion was legal. Had information been provided as part of adequate RSE, she would have been informed and known where to go for help, or may even have avoided that pregnancy in the first place. Luckily, she managed to get in contact with us, and we put her in touch with people who could help.

Case B was a very young teenager who called and was incredibly frightened to be pregnant. She did not know where to go. She did not know anything about her dates because she had only started her period. She had not yet received any RSE at her secondary school. Neither set of parents was able to support the young couple. After they got in contact with Alliance for Choice by googling on the internet, we were able, as well as referring them to trust services, to direct them to the appropriate services and to Common Youth, which has a good reputation of helping people under the age of 25. RSE would, potentially, have saved so many things in that particular instance. Again, it may have prevented the crisis pregnancy from occurring in the first place. It may have prevented those very young teenagers from pursuing a sexual relationship, but, if they had done so, it may have offered them the right information on contraception, which they desperately needed.

Case C was another young teenager in a crisis pregnancy who was whispering on the phone because she was so frightened of her partner. She was scared that, if she had an abortion, he would find out. As she explained her situation, it became clear that she was in a coercive relationship. The partner was a spiritual leader with a great deal of community influence. She had been subjected to spiritual abuse, conversion therapy for her sexuality, coercive control and financial abuse. She had no knowledge of abortion being legal and free to access in Northern Ireland. RSE would, potentially, have informed her of a healthy relationship, affirmed her sexual identity, shown her religious communities that support LGBT people in Northern Ireland and decreased her distress by providing knowledge of abortion access.

Luckily, in all those cases, Alliance for Choice was able to help and put people in contact with those who looked after them properly, but how many other people in a similar situation do not have access to our number or did not google or find us as quickly?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. Members, please indicate if you want to come in at any point.

What is your sense of how equipped or otherwise schools are to deliver the new minimum content that came with the law change? We hear repeatedly from young people that they still do not feel that the provision is comprehensive, particularly in the area of minimum content. Do you have a sense of how equipped schools are? Is there a need to review, revise and update the resources available to schools?

Dr Campbell: We already know that, in the vast majority of schools that bring in outside organisations, a religious-based organisation is being funded. Obviously, that needs to change. There are excellent organisations in Northern Ireland that provide that information and training to schools, such as Common Youth and Informing Choices NI, which has won awards for its RSE in schools for people with disabilities. They are currently invited into some schools, but, unfortunately, those schools are in the minority. The expertise is there. The willingness to engage with schools is there. One of the problems lies with which organisations have, up to this point, been awarded those project funds to go into schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): What is your assessment of the quality of resources that are available on the RSE hub that the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has set up, which may be the first port of call for many schools when they go to deliver that material?

Dr Campbell: One issue that we pointed out in our submission was that it is quite out of date and has not been updated in a while. It still draws particular attention to abstinence. We know that that way of teaching people about relationships and sexuality education has failed. We highlighted a couple of other problems in the submission.

Ms Roberts: The CCEA hub has some good information on it, but the main drawback of the current approach is that the minimum content order is so minimum. We need to have comprehensive, scientifically based RSE that is delivered to every child regardless of what school they are in. It should not be down to a board of governors to decide whether a school will talk about the existence of LGBT people or abortion. Those people and such things exist, and young people in our schools need to know that. Resources are there. The best practice from organisations such as Common Youth and Informing Choices, which Emma mentioned, can really augment what is already there, but the key thing is to ensure that it is comprehensive and that every child is informed of their rights.

Dr Campbell: Danielle mentioned the recommendation in our evidence that teachers should be trained in RSE in teacher training colleges. That is also really important. We understand that not every teacher will want to be involved in relationships and sexuality education, but there are some who will. We already know of teachers who are inviting Alliance for Choice into schools, so we know that there are schools and teachers who are willing to engage. It is just that the funding and opportunity have not necessarily been presented.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will follow on from that. You highlighted in your briefing paper areas where you feel that there needs to be more emphasis. You specifically highlighted consent, for instance, as not being listed in the minimum content order. We have heard very divergent evidence from different sources. For example, this week, in an informal briefing to the Committee, we heard from an academic who was clear in her view that prescriptive approaches to RSE were not appropriate and that schools should have flexibility to make decisions on what they deliver. As I mentioned already and as you highlighted, young people say that they feel that they need a much clearer articulation of what they will get in RSE and that it needs to cover specific topics that are relevant to their lives. How do you respond to those two positions, which are very far apart on what RSE should look like — we should have nothing prescriptive versus the clear articulation from young people of what they say that they need?

Dr Campbell: As with any of these things, you need to look at global best practice. We know that the Netherlands has one of the lowest abortion rates and one of the best RSE frameworks in the world. In 2014, I was in Sweden, and we met some young people who were recent school-leavers. As part of their RSE, they visit the sexual health clinics and the abortion clinics. They do not have any qualms about talking about it, and they certainly do not have any qualms when they need to go and access the help that they need. So, we really need to listen to the young people more than we need to listen to the people who have ideological preferences.

We have to remember that it is very hard for parents to send children to schools in Northern Ireland that do not have some sort of religious ethos. That is not the fault of the parents but due to the limited choice that we have in our education system. There is also a human right to be free from religion, and it is very hard to exercise that right in secondary education. I think that all of us in this room know that that is one of the things that is causing the biggest barrier to universal relationships and sexuality education. The global numbers for teenage pregnancies and sexual health show that the countries that have the best relationships and sexuality education are those where it is started earliest, where it is age-appropriate and where it has access to the best information available.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): This is my last question. Your briefing focused on the new minimum content, and the campaign that led to that being delivered came with the caveat of the opt-out. I will ask an open-ended question: what is your response to the current provision of an opt-out in relation to the new minimum content?

Ms Roberts: The CEDAW recommendations did not mention an opt-out. The UNCRC specifically says that there should not be an opt-out, so it is not in line with international human rights standards to have an opt-out. However, I understand that the regulations have included it. When interpreting the opt-out, the rights of the child need to be paramount, and the role of the parent in this balancing of rights is to ensure that the child or young person can access their right to education and their right to health. A parent's right does not trump a child's rights. In any balancing of rights, the parent's decision to opt out should be narrow, and it should be secondary to the child's being able to access the education on their rights. Rights do not exist just in a document somewhere; you need to know about them. You need to know how to access them, and you need to be able to hold people to account when you are denied them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): In your view, is the voice of the child heard appropriately in the current provisions for opt-out and in the guidance on that from the Department?

Ms Roberts: I think that the consultation had a very slanted view and prioritised the proposed rights of the parent over the rights of the child, and I think that the focus of the consultation on the opt-out did a disservice to what should be the real work of this legislation, which is to deliver comprehensive, scientifically based RSE. The focus on opt-out, I think, was misplaced and disproportionate.

Dr Campbell: When we think of other ways in which we try to safeguard children and ensure that they are in safe family environments, we think about the touchpoints where institutions outside the home are allowed to interact with children in certain ways. It is often a red flag for a child and their safety if they are withdrawn from lots of those institutions. There are the examples that I have given and countless other examples where I have answered the phone to people who are terrified and frightened of their parents, specifically relating to their sexual health, sexual behaviour or sexual identity. That is exactly why we need to not have an opt-out. A parent's beliefs may be very different from those of their child, and the child's safety may depend on being able to access a trusted adult who is not their parent.

Sometimes, in the work that we have been doing for decades, we, unfortunately, encounter young people whose pregnancy is because of a family member. We are doing that work for those young people. They are the people whom we are trying to keep safe.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): OK. Thank you.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you for coming in. The Chair has covered most of the ground that I wanted to cover, but I will pick up on one issue that he raised. We have heard worrying evidence from some witnesses who agree with RSE being comprehensive and scientifically based but want to overlay that with their moral framework. It concerns me that people with a particular ideological view of some of the issues that are important in RSE, such as contraception, abortion, same-sex relationships and so on, will somehow overlay their view on a scientifically based curriculum. How do we prevent that?

Dr Campbell: I do not know — by changing the entire education system? Having the places that parents desperately want in schools that are not run by only a religious ethos would be a good start, but, unfortunately, that is not in my remit. We need to guard against that and remember that lots of parents send their children to schools with a religious ethos simply because that is the school that they could get their child into. They do not choose the school on the basis of its religious ethos. That is one of the main reasons why I guard against putting a moral framework on top of scientifically based information.

Ms Roberts: There being a minimum content order for what is delivered in schools does not preclude other teachings in the home or other institutions. People also engage in Sunday schools or other religious institutions. That can happen outside a formal education setting. What we are talking about is what is delivered in a curriculum in our schools to all children and young people.

Mr Sheehan: What evidence do you have on the delivery of RSE currently? We have spoken to quite a number of young people in the course of our mini inquiry. It is fair to say — I am open to contradiction — that the evidence that we have heard is that delivery has been inconsistent. Do you hear something similar?

Dr Campbell: Yes. We quite often work with students in particular. I am shocked every year by how little an awful lot of those students know about contraception. One of them thought that we had made up the implant. They are generally ill-equipped: they are at university and are fully fledged adults, but they have so little knowledge about what they can do to protect themselves. That is our anecdotal evidence. Evidence from our activists who come from that younger student population is that RSE is still not up to par. Quite a lot of them have concerning stories about misogynistic teachings — a girl who has sex too often somehow reduces her personal value; women are custodians or guardians of sexual behaviour and sexual purity — that we should have left behind a long time ago.

It should also be noted that the CEDAW report, as well as being about relationships and sex education, is about moving towards greater equality for men and women in Northern Irish society. RSE should be a critical part of that. It is about giving people the power to know whether they are in a healthy relationship or an unhealthy relationship, but that is not happening. That is the main problem.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Thank you for that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Are there any other indications?

Mr Martin: Thanks for your evidence this afternoon. I will pick up on something that the Chair asked you about: talking about the provision of RSE, you mentioned that there are some excellent organisations, including Informing Choices and Common Youth. Do you accept that their view is similar to yours on this subject area?

Ms Roberts: They have a similar view in that it is based on minimum international human rights standards and best practice.

Mr Martin: That is OK. When you answered the question about a religious provider, you were not so enthusiastic about it, if I can put it in those terms. Who is that religious provider of RSE?

Dr Campbell: It is not always the same provider. Our view on the provision comes from the direct experiences that we hear from the young people whom we talk to weekly. Sometimes, it is religious members of the community who come in, and sometimes it is organisations, so that will depend.

Mr Martin: In the documentation that you provided for the Department of Education's RSE consultation, which was the one that you talked about, you state:

but also evidence of why Churches cannot be

That is also on your website. Given that you state in your written evidence that you are not neutral on the subject, is it not a little hypocritical to criticise others whose view differs from yours?

Dr Campbell: We are not trying to prevent access to widely available health treatments that are currently available on the NHS and in every health trust in Northern Ireland. We are not trying to prevent people from accessing things like contraception, which is their human right. There is nothing in our evidence that is trying to prevent people from accessing and realising their full spectrum of human rights, whereas many of the ideas and frameworks that have been put forward by the religious organisations are doing that. They are trying to breach people's access to the full range of information and the full realisation of their human rights.

Mr Martin: OK. Do you accept that, given the answer that you have just given me, it sounds a wee bit like you are right and everyone else is wrong, if they come from a faith background? Am I badly characterising your answer there?

Dr Campbell: We do not have a problem with faith backgrounds per se. In fact, we have done work with an organisation called Faith Voices for Reproductive Justice and with different organisations that are LGBT-affirming and abortion healthcare-affirming, but they are not the people who are going into schools and talking about relationships and sex education, nor are they the people whom young people are complaining about and voicing concerns about the level of their relationships and sex education.

Mr Martin: Do you accept that all three groups that you just mentioned would affirm your particular view?

Dr Campbell: Sorry, my particular view on what?

Mr Martin: I made the point to you that, actually, in your answer to the previous question, it sounded like you were saying that your view is right and everyone else is wrong in some way. Then, you cited three organisations that had some religious element to them. Do you accept that the three organisations that you just mentioned have the same view on this area as you have?

Dr Campbell: I am not talking about my personal opinion or Danielle's.

Mr Martin: Alliance for Choice. No, I appreciate that.

Dr Campbell: We are talking about a framework that has been provided by a UN human rights organisation, CEDAW, and by the Committee for the Rights of the Child. The UN, especially CEDAW, has been ratified by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In effect, the Assembly has also ratified that committee. Those are human rights frameworks and obligations; they are not opinions.

Mr Martin: I accept that. Let me ask it this way: do you accept that there are other opinions out there, or do you just think that everyone else is wrong? When it comes to CEDAW and the human rights framework, I accept, for example, that paragraphs 85 and 86 of CEDAW are the law in Northern Ireland. I do not dispute that. It does not mean that I have to agree with it.

What I am trying to get at is that it sounds like your beliefs trump everything else because you are right. Do you accept that there are other beliefs out there? I will ask you the question in a different way. You state in your written evidence:

You referred to abstinence as "failed" in your oral evidence this afternoon. Do you accept that deciding not to have sex before marriage is the teaching of all world faiths, which include a lot of people around the world? It sounds like you are saying that everyone else is wrong and you are right.

Dr Campbell: There will be multiple denominations and faiths in every single school in Northern Ireland. Those multiple denominations and faiths will interpret the issues differently, and they are free to do so. Outside the curriculum and the schools, they have their own churches and institutions where they can teach whatever they want. When we are talking about schools that will have multiple people of multiple faiths, we need to go by the law and the minimum human rights standards by global best practice. We are not even asking Northern Ireland Assembly Members to go above and beyond; we are asking them to do the minimum.

Mr Martin: Right.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are running out of time, and I am not sure that the line of questioning is getting anywhere.

Mr Martin: Nobody else has any questions, Chair. David might have one.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David has indicated.

Mr Martin: In your last statement, Dr Campbell, you said there are a lot of faiths and religions. I contend that they all have, more or less, the same belief on the "harmful and outdated" topic of abstinence. I am not saying that abstinence is a magic drug that will solve teenage pregnancy; it is not. However, your evidence said that abstinence was "harmful and outdated" and "failed", but it is there as a topic. I contend that your evidence is contrary to the views of a lot of people with faith beliefs. As far as I know, they are entitled to that faith belief, and it is a human right. Do you have any respect for that?

Dr Campbell: I have already said that they are entitled to practice their faith in their faith institutions, and there will be many faiths and denominations in the schools. Abstinence has repeatedly been shown to be a failed method of safe sex practice teaching for children.

Mr Martin: I did not say that it was safe sex practice.

Dr Campbell: There is a good example in Texas, where an order was given to roll back relationships and sex education on a scientific basis, and it was changed to teaching abstinence only. The number of STIs and teenage pregnancies rose afterwards. It is a very clear-cut case of the failure of abstinence as a teaching method, which is what we are talking about. We are not talking about whether I agree or disagree with it personally on a moral level. We are talking about whether it fits in the curriculum. When we put stuff into the curriculum, we must put it in on an evidence basis. Does it work to deliver the outcome that we want, which is safer young people with fewer STIs and unwanted pregnancies? No, it does not.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will come in because we are way over time for your questions, Peter. The two positions have been set out very clearly. I will bring in David.

Mr Brooks: I will follow on from Peter. Your submission said:

It may be a legal requirement, but it is a nonsense to suggest that it is not up for debate. When the law was different in Northern Ireland, pro-abortion lobby groups were not so keen to accept that the law of the land should settle the debate. Indeed, organisations came here, such as Marie Stopes, which is not internationally renowned for adhering to the law. Danielle, you mentioned that there are people in schools teaching that LGBT people and abortion do not exist. Who are those people? I am not aware of anyone in the Churches who teaches that LGBT and abortion do not exist. Certainly, if they are out there, they are in a very small minority. Even the fact that you are arguing against groups that have a particular position on this issue —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Sorry, but could you answer the question? Who are those people? I am just conscious of everybody's time.

Ms Roberts: First of all, the issue that is not up for debate is the inclusion of abortion in RSE. That is the issue that is not up for debate. It is part of the legal requirement that abortion is taught as part of RSE. So, that is not up for debate; that is in the law.

Mr Brooks: It is in the law, but —

Ms Roberts: Not the issue of abortion.

Mr Brooks: — it does not mean that the debate ends. That is the point that I was drawing out. However, who are the people who are teaching that LGBT people and abortion do not exist?

Ms Roberts: We are not saying that about a debate on abortion. We are saying that abortion is included in RSE.

Mr Brooks: Yes, OK. I was making that clear. Who, then, are the people teaching that LGBT people and abortion do not exist?

Ms Roberts: Look at reports such as those from the Belfast City Youth Council and the Secondary Students' Union. The Department of Education's own research shows that 60%-plus of young LGBT+ people do not feel safe or welcome in schools.

Mr Brooks: I hear what you are saying, and we have heard evidence that is not dissimilar to that. I am not arguing that. You may argue that there needs to be a greater aspect of that in RSE. We have heard in evidence different views on that as well. That is fine, but you made a specific comment during your evidence that people are teaching that LGBT people and abortion do not exist. Where is an example of that?

Ms Roberts: No, I said, I think, that such people exist, and they exist in our schools, and we need to ensure that young people know how to access their rights.

Mr Brooks: I am happy to look back if I am incorrectly characterising what you said. So, you are not arguing that there is anyone out there arguing that LGBT people and abortion do not exist, just to be clear?

Ms Roberts: Not that abortion does not exist. There are certainly people who suggest that LGBT people do not exist and that trans people, in particular, do not exist or that they are confused in some way. There certainly are people who suggest that sexual orientations and gender identities other than cisgender and heterosexual do not exist. From reviewing the evidence from young people, who are much closer to being in school than I am, it is clear that LGBTQI+ young people in particular do not feel safe and welcome. They have told the Department that they do not feel safe and welcome, and that is not new information.

Let us look at guidance on uniforms. If we try to even talk about guidance on uniforms or facilities for trans young people, we see that, in Chambers not far from here, the comments made are often not affirming of trans young people. Just yesterday, we had the decision to extend the puberty blocker ban. I do not think it incorrect to say that there are those who deny the existence of LGBT young people.

Mr Brooks: If yesterday's decision is the parameter that you are using, I will clarify that it was the decision of every party in the Executive.

Ms Roberts: No, no.

Mr Brooks: Well, yes.

Ms Roberts: I did not say that banning puberty blockers was the same as denying the existence of trans young people.

Mr Brooks: OK. If you were moving straight from the example of the decision yesterday to that, I was just making it clear that that was a decision that was made at the Executive table.

Ms Roberts: OK. For clarity, my point is that there are plenty of examples of the denial of the existence of LGBTQI+ young people, and there are plenty of examples of policies that are harmful to LGBTQI+ young people coming from this Building and further afield. It is important that we affirm our LGBTQI+ young people and that we do so as part of mandatory, comprehensive, evidence-based RSE that includes teaching about consent, healthy relationships and different types of relationships; not simply the mechanics of reproduction.

Mr Brooks: I certainly do not deny the existence of LGBT people or abortion, and I am on the record here as saying that no child should feel isolated from the class in that regard. However, I do not believe that, at large, that is the teaching of those whose position is opposite to yours.

May I move on to —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Very briefly, David.

Mr Brooks: — spiritual abuse? I completely accept that there are cranks out there, and there are examples of people doing things that they should not be doing in the name of religion. I absolutely accept that. What are your parameters for spiritual abuse? You could talk about religious instruction from the Churches. You can talk about ethos in schools. Those will have slightly different levels, I guess. For you, where does religious instruction or ethos end and spiritual abuse begin?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask for a brief answer so that I can bring other members in.

Ms Roberts: Emma gave a particular example of spiritual abuse, but I recommend the report on conversion practices by Danielle Mackle and Fidelma Ashe as a starting point for exploring that issue.

Dr Campbell: The example that I was talking about was of an individual who was under extreme coercive control and abuse.

Mr Brooks: I do not doubt for a second that there are people who have those experiences. You can imagine that there is probably a blurred line that we have to identify —.

Dr Campbell: We are not trying to conflate these issues; you are.

Mr Brooks: I am not. I am actually asking you to tell me where it begins.

Dr Campbell: In both of your lines of questioning, you have been trying to conflate issues that we have not said, and I ask you —.

Mr Brooks: I am giving you the opportunity to say where, in your view, it begins.

Dr Campbell: I ask you to refrain from trying to put words in our mouths that we have not said.

Mr Brooks: I am asking you to identify and clarify.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): David, I think that the witnesses have expressed their view that they do not want to continue with that line of questioning, and that is reasonable.

Mr Brooks: I will just put on record, Chair, that I was asking them to identify where their line is. That is an opportunity for them to articulate their view. It is not me putting any words in their mouth, but thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): If a witness has said that they —

Mr Brooks: That is fair enough, but I am putting my position on record.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — do not like a line of questioning, it is reasonable that we extend that courtesy.

Mr Baker: This shows the problem that we have in our schools, and, when people have so many different opinions, information is key. I say that as a father of a daughter who is 14. I like to think that she would come to me and her mummy with any issue, but it is so important that she has all the information, for whatever happens in her life, so that she can make an informed decision. The more this inquiry goes on, the more it proves to me how important RSE is. That is particularly from listening to our young people, and, as a Committee, we would do well to remember that when we come to the end of the inquiry, because our young people are telling us that they are being failed. We need to be working for them. They have to be the outworking of whatever it says in our report.

Thank you for coming in today. I think that you answered all the questions from the Chair and Pat, but I just want to say that it is challenging. All the work that you are doing is challenging, including the crisis cases that come to you. It is a particularly hard time for our young people from the LGBTQ and trans community, and I hope that, if any of them are watching, they see that they have allies and people who support them and see that we will do our best for everybody going forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Danny.

Mr Baker: Sorry, that was not a question.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There are no other indications at this stage, so that brings our evidence session to a close. As with all our sessions on the inquiry, there will be a Hansard report, and that will then be fed in for consideration when we produce our final report. Thank you for your time this afternoon. Again, apologies for keeping you waiting.