Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Good afternoon. It is great to have you here. Thank you for giving of your time to the Committee and its inquiry. Presenting today we have Elaine Crory, good relations coordinator at the Women's Resource and Development Agency (WRDA). You attended one of our stakeholder events as well, Elaine, which is much appreciated. We also have Meghan Hoyt, women's sector lobbyist with the Women's Resource and Development Agency, and Joanna Monaghan, project coordinator with Northern Ireland Women's Platform. You are all welcome.

If you want to provide any more background information on your roles, please feel free to do so. We received your briefing material in advance, so it is over to you to deliver your initial presentation. I ask that it be up to 10 minutes — after which we will move on to questions and answers. I should have said this to the witnesses at the previous evidence session as well, but we are grateful to have Hansard here for the inquiry evidence sessions. There will be a complete record of the evidence sessions for the Committee to consider for our final report.

Ms Elaine Crory (Women's Resource and Development Agency): Thank you for having us. I will start by correcting some titles, if that is OK. I am the women's sector lobbyist, not the good relations coordinator. That is a five-year-old title, so I am not sure where that came from. Meghan is the women's sector lobbyist policy assistant. Finally, this is Jonna, rather than "Joanna".

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Apologies.

Ms Crory: Sorry about the multiple corrections to start with.

I will start with a presentation, but I will keep it really brief. First, I will outline what the women's policy group is. Meg and I work at the WRDA, and we coordinate and are the secretariat for the women's policy group. The women's policy group is a collection of women working in policy roles. There are policy experts and practitioners, and we advocate collectively for women and girls by promoting gender equality through an intersectional feminist lens. Our whole role is to challenge systemic injustice and discrimination affecting women and girls by informing society and influencing policy and law. Our work is informed by women and girls' lived experiences and is rooted in international human rights law. We are made up of women from trade unions, grassroots women's organisations, women's networks, feminist campaigning organisations, LGBTQ+ organisations, migrant groups, support service providers, NGOs, human rights and equality organisations, and individuals who are unconnected to any of the aforementioned. Over the years, we have ensured that there is good communication among politicians, policymakers and women's organisations on the ground. As I mentioned, the women's policy group is chaired by me at WRDA. We are really acting as a coalition of expert voices advocating for women in Northern Ireland on a policy level.

Our position on relationships and sexuality education (RSE) is clear-cut. We have been lobbying on the issue for many years, and that is articulated in our written response to the Committee's inquiry, in our response to the Department of Education's consultation in 2023, in our contributions to the draft gender equality strategy, in our lobbying of previous Ministers of Education and in assorted research reports that we have produced over the years. There are three main takeaways. I will not labour them. We do all of it, but there are three main takeaways.

One is that RSE is the most vital building block of the work that is needed to tackle violence against women and girls. We have carried out extensive research over the years, and one of our main reports, from 2022, which had over 1,000 respondents, found that 92% of the people who had attended school in Northern Ireland said that they did not feel that they had received adequate RSE. Eighty-seven per cent of the women in Northern Ireland who responded had experienced some form of violence against women and girls. There is a breakdown of all the different forms in the report. When we asked women what, they thought, would address the levels of violence against women and girls, 95% said that we should focus on changing men and boys' behaviours and actions through education. It is not just our view, as professionals; we are reflecting the views of the people whom we work to represent.

The importance of education in tackling violence against women and girls emerged as a key theme in that primary research into the scope, scale and prevalence of violence against women and girls. Looking at both our qualitative and quantitative findings, we found that the importance of education stood out as a key recurring theme. That was particularly the case when looking specifically at questions relating to culture in attitudes and beliefs around violence against women and girls, and, specifically, a high level of respondents felt that sexism, misogyny, victim blaming, rape myths and rape culture are caused by a lack of education. A lack of education on violence against women and girls has perpetuated the existence of stigma around issues related to violence. In order to change men and boys' actions and address men's violence, it is necessary to educate men and boys on issues relating to violence against women and girls. Many respondents specified that that education should begin at a young age in schools and other learning environments, such as youth clubs.

Our second main takeaway is that RSE is a children's rights issue and that that right must not be blocked or denied by any body, be it the Assembly or any other. Throughout the public debate that occurred on the 2023 Department of Education consultation on RSE and, indeed, on the phrasing and scope of the consultation itself, children's rights were framed as something to be contextualised alongside parents' rights or to be balanced with them somehow.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), specifically children's article 5 rights. In the text of the article, parents or carers have a responsibility to provide guidance to their children so that they fully enjoy their rights. The right or responsibility of a parent or carer is not designed to be used to frustrate or limit the child's rights. It is also important to note that article 29 of the UNCRC makes it clear that the purpose of education is both the development of the child in all of their unique personality and:

That does not need balancing against a parent or carer's right. Children are unique persons in themselves, and they hold that right fully. There is a reason that we have extensive apparatus to protect children in the event that a parent is violating their rights.

Finally, the third takeaway is that comprehensive, scientifically accurate RSE, including RSE specifically on abortion or contraception, is legally required under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. Specifically, it is the requirement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to implement paragraphs 85 and 86 of the relevant Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) report. Paragraph 86(d) reads:

It is therefore a legal requirement, and failure to implement it fully could be challenged in court, and it likely will be. As such, it was unnecessary and unhelpful for the Department of Education to consult on the issue of providing appropriate education on abortion in schools specifically, as it did in autumn 2023. That approach not only generated a huge amount of controversy on an issue that does not need to be controversial but created the false impression that objections from members of the public could stop the legislation from proceeding, when it had in fact already passed at Westminster.

Separately, the fact that the legislation allows for parents to exclude their child or children from parts of the curriculum, in particular those parts that address abortion care and contraception, is an issue, because, in effect, it deprives some children of their right to that apparently compulsory part of the curriculum. That is per the phrasing in the legislation. That is our submission. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you very much. First, apologies for the inaccurate titles and my mispronouncing of the name. That was entirely my error, so I apologise.

The first question that I want to ask — I asked the previous witness this as well — concerns the three takeaways that you set out on the issue of tackling violence against women and girls and the role that RSE plays in that. That is prevalent in your evidence. What is your assessment of where the Department is at on enacting the Gillen recommendations? How effectively have we followed up on them in the education space?

Ms Crory: Honestly, as far as I am aware, they have not been followed up on, or at least not as thoroughly as they should have been. The curriculum was meant to be ready by January of last year, so a year ago now. Suddenly, the Department of Education produced its outcome of the consultation and all the other things in a timely fashion. It did not have an awful lot of time, but it produced that. Whether it has been rolled out to schools is a different question, and, to my knowledge, the curriculum has not been fully implemented. Do all children have access to that high-quality education right now? I do not believe that they do.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): With minimum content orders, I am not aware of anything having been changed. Other material may have been made available. We had a debate on RSE in the Chamber yesterday, specifically on the issue of gender-based violence. The Minister's response suggested that he felt that the Gillen recommendations were well progressed , but we did not get any detail. It is therefore important that we try to nail him down to see what has been done, because I absolutely agree that it is critical that education on all the issues that arose out of Gillen be delivered in schools consistently.

I will pick up on your final point. That is not to say that, from my perspective, the rights issue is any less important, but we have discussed it at length during our inquiry, and to say that there is not a meeting of minds on the Committee on its being a rights issue is perhaps an understatement. On the new minimum content order, you referenced some of your concerns about the consultation process and about parental opt-out, but you have set out the content that schools must now deliver on sexual and reproductive health, including prevention of early pregnancy and access to abortion. Similar to my previous question, since that law change came in, what is your perception of how effectively that content is being delivered in schools? What more needs to be done to ensure that we have consistent and effective provision of the new minimum content?

Ms Crory: My colleagues may wish to come in on that, but, to my knowledge, it is not as good as it could be. The Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has worked on some resources that include abortion in a way in which it has not been included before. That is positive. Whether it is as thorough as it needs to be is a different question, however, and I would say that it does need some more work. Whether it is reaching all children in all schools is another thing. There is then the separate issue of those children who are opted out, and, indeed, the issue of the opt-out process itself, for which safeguards are needed. Our view would be that there should not be an opt-out option, but there is in law. In dealing with that reality, that opt-out should be safeguarded a little more carefully. To my knowledge, however, the new minimum content is not yet at where it needs to be. We have it in legislation that all children should be receiving that education, but they are not, so we are failing to meet our legal duties.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The Department has produced guidance on how schools should operate the opt-out. There is a pro forma letter that can be signed. I have expressed concerns in Committee that schools just rubber-stamp it and it is done. I am not sure that meaningful engagement takes place with the young person involved. Do you have any suggestions or proposals for how the opt-out process could be made more robust in order to ensure that the voice of the young person is heard in the discussion?

Ms Crory: We should have concerns that parents could sign and submit the letter without young people having seen it or being made aware that they are being opted out. It is important that, if they are, young people know that they are being opted out. Moreover, there is a provision within that whereby children at a certain stage in their education and of a certain age can override the parental opt-out. That works only if people cannot tick a box to say, "My child is OK with this", because a person could do that dishonestly, and the child might not even be aware. It is a burden on schools, I suppose, but there is a way of doing it. That would require the schools to check with children that they know that and are OK with it, especially after the age at which children are allowed in law to override the parental opt-out.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Speaking from my own perspective, I would have liked to see in the provisions something that provided clear guidance to schools on how to have those conversations. If the Department were serious that that material is important — not just important but compulsory — it would have been encouraging schools to have those conversations in order to try to maximise participation. I am not sure that that has happened, but it is something for us to pursue with the Department.

Thank you for your answers. I will now open up the discussion to members.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks for your presentation and for your answers so far, Elaine. I will stay on the issue of the opt-out. The question, given that opt-out is part of the legislation, is this: how do we maximise the number of children who receive RSE? Do you have any ideas for how that should be done? The Department should be monitoring the number of opt-outs and determining whether there are particular reasons for them. That means that there needs to be clear communication between schools and parents. Fake news on social media about RSE content means that parents may be afraid, so there is a need for communication anyway so that they can be informed about what is on the RSE curriculum.

Where parents want to opt out of teaching about abortion or contraception, which you mentioned, can you make a suggestion on how to convince them that their children should stay? Let us be clear: it is mostly people from a faith-based background who do not want their children to learn about abortion or contraception. How can those fears be overcome? Can they be circumvented in any way?

Ms Crory: The Department and the Minister could lead from the front a bit more vigorously. In the summer of 2023, a furore started to bubble up. That was during the school holidays, and the Department took the initiative to write to the schools with information. I had a child in primary school at the time, and I got a copy of the Department's letter, which said that a lot of what was being said was misinformation and would not affect primary-school children. That was positive and welcome, but the Department could be doing more. It could talk more about what is in the RSE curriculum rather than what is not in it. Instead of just tackling fires, there could be prevention by providing information on what is covered and the way in which it is covered, and stating the fact that RSE is not directive; it does not direct people to take a certain course of action should they find themselves pregnant, for example. It is just gives pupils information about the services that are available and legal.

RSE probably seems a lot more frightening when you do not know what is in it. When you do, you start to realise that a lot of the culture war stuff that happens on the internet is exactly that, and it does not serve my child for me or anyone else in my community to get drawn into it. I can only make a recommendation for what the Department should do — I cannot speak for other bodies — but, personally speaking, it would be positive to see Churches stepping into the space. If they find that there is a lot of pushback from their congregations, they should speak to them to allay some fears. That is my view, but it is not in our document because we do not make recommendations to Churches.

We have been critical of the Department, in public and in our consultation response, for doing a positive thing at the start and then letting the situation be. The letter went to primary-school principals to disseminate to parents, which was all well and good, but nothing positive went to the principals of post-primary schools to say to those parents, "Your child is going to receive this curriculum. It's not the curriculum that you are reading about online" and outline its contents. That would have been really positive. It was very much left to the schools to fill that gap. The schools might also appreciate that guidance.

Mr Sheehan: You mentioned the Churches, and we have heard evidence from some of them and other faith-based groups. Some have said that they are happy to deliver RSE, but they want to overlay it with their moral framework. How do you feel about that?

Ms Crory: That would be directive. RSE is supposed to be non-directive: it gives you the information, and you are free to do with that as you choose. I am uncomfortable with anything that is excessively directive. For example, the message that abortion is legally available but is wrong would be excessively directive and potentially shaming.

Mr Sheehan: Are schools capable of delivering RSE in a non-directive way?

Ms Crory: It is probably easier to deliver it in a non-directive way than in a directive way. I am not a teacher.

Mr Sheehan: Take a Catholic school. Catholics are opposed to abortion, as are many other religions. Usually, the chair of the board of governors of a Catholic school is the parish priest. Is it possible for a school leader to say, "This is the RSE curriculum. We are going to be delivering information about abortion"? Do you think that the parish priest will say, "That is OK", or will he say, "Make sure that the children are told that abortion is wrong, sinful and the wilful murder of a child", or whatever? Is that not the situation?

Ms Crory: That might be the situation. In that case, the problem is with board of governors interfering excessively in the curriculum. I do not think that they do that with the geography curriculum or the maths curriculum. Pick a subject, any subject: I do not think that they try to say —.

Mr Sheehan: They do not say that they will overlay the delivery of geography classes with a moral standpoint.

Ms Crory: That is what I am saying. They just say, "That is the geography curriculum. Off you go. You're the professionals; you deliver it".

Ms Jonna Monaghan (Northern Ireland Women's Platform): May I comment? I am also not a teacher, but one way of looking at RSE is as something that can be delivered through a number of curricula rather as a singular subject. The non-directive stuff can be part of biology or science, for example, but there should be an opportunity to look at the other elements in RE. In a Catholic school, that is relatively straightforward, because it has a clear ethos. That way, you can have separate conversations on what the legal situation is and how one might look at it morally.

Ms Crory: Even CCEA's draft version of the curriculum, from what I saw most recently — it was a while back, in the spring of last year — discussed abortion. It discussed what it is and how it might entail taking pills or having an operation and various things like that. It also said that a person might have a number of different reactions to choosing to have an abortion, and it asked what a person might consider when they are in that situation. It is about putting it out there that abortion is a complex thing for every individual who chooses it. Some people do not struggle with the decision, but some people do, and the draft curriculum puts that out there as part of the issue. It describes what it is and how a person might go about accessing it, be that through medication or an operation. There is then room for you to have a discussion. It is not about the teacher directing you to believe a certain thing about it but about opening up the conversation to the class on what might be going on in the mind of a person who is considering an abortion.

Mr Brooks: I suspect that my position will be poles apart from yours on some of the more controversial issues, but I do not intend to give in to that. We may discuss elements of those issues and there may be questions around them, but it is not my intention to have an emotive conversation. Everyone is probably shaped by their experience of education. My experience of going to a school with a Christian ethos was that the overlay that Pat mentioned had a much softer touch than, for instance, religious instruction in the Church. We have to draw that distinction. I agree on engagement with parents. We may be on different sides at times, but engagement with parents on whatever is in the curriculum — we have heard from a spectrum of organisations that have come to the Committee — is key to building trust with parents so that they understand what their kids are being taught.

I have gleaned something from putting this question a few times to different people at the Committee. You said that the abortion issue does not need to be controversial, but, surely, if we are preparing children for the world ahead, there needs to be recognition that it is controversial. My opinion on abortion will be strongly different from yours, and that is true not just in Northern Ireland but across the world: there are varying views on it. Do you not think that some kind of discussion that listens to and respects the different views in the room on that kind of thing helps a child to understand the world around them, which they are going into?

Ms Crory: Yes, to some degree. I may not have been clear due to the way in which I phrased my point: I do not mean that abortion is not controversial for lots of people around the world. Some people are campaigning to change laws, others are campaigning to keep laws, and there is push and pull. I did not mean to deny that. That is a fact.

I meant that it is not controversial to state that we now have abortion in Northern Ireland — it is decriminalised — and that the law says that we must teach children about abortion. That is not controversial; it is what the law says. People are not saying — I do not think that you are saying this — "No, the law does not say that" or "No, it is still criminalised". That is what I meant by "controversial". When the Department of Education opened that question, it made it seem as though, if enough people responded by saying, "I do not want that on the curriculum", it would not have to be there, but it has to be there. It is in the law. That is what I meant. That issue is not controversial. Abortion can be controversial, and lots of people will feel that the law should be changed back to what it was. Other people will feel that the law should be changed to whatever a midpoint would be for them. There are all sorts of feelings about abortion, but that conversation is separate from what should or must, by law, be in the education curriculum.

Mr Brooks: If we are going to discuss abortion with children, it is probably important that they understand the social context in which it sits.

Ms Meghan Hoyt (Women's Resource and Development Agency): With respect, those conversations are already happening in schools. I have six children —.

Mr Brooks: A lot of the RSE discussions are already happening in schools.

Ms Hoyt: Children are not being made aware of what they are able to access and what is legally available in Northern Ireland. In any post-primary school in Northern Ireland, children sit in an RE class — that is how schools deliver a sort of ethical programme to students — and those conversations, I can assure you, are happening in that context. While those conversations are happening, the conversation that is not happening is about the factual information on what students are able to access here. Those ethical conversations — that overlay that you talk about — are happening in schools, and nothing in the RSE curriculum would change that.

Mr Brooks: I imagine that there would be differences of opinion on what that should include. People on the opposite side of the argument to you often use the mechanics of abortion as part of their pro-life argument. Is there a reason why schools should not go into the factual and scientifically accurate information that is used in different ways on different sides of the argument? If schools are going to have abortion discussed, is there a reason why they should not go into that?

Ms Crory: What do you mean by "the mechanics of abortion"?

Mr Brooks: The procedures in which the —.

Ms Crory: I think that I received some of that education, for want of a better word.

Mr Brooks: It is not necessarily an approach that I would use, but you can see how that could be used in different ways.

Ms Crory: It is important that accuracy is at the heart of this. The vast majority of people who have abortions take a pill and have a non-spontaneous or assisted miscarriage. Experientially, after they take the pill, it is identical to a miscarriage. Some of the gruesome images that I was shown when I was a teenager — we are talking about a while ago — are not scientifically accurate or representative of the vast majority of abortions. We do not show people what happens during treatments for lots of other medical conditions. A lot of medical treatments are gruesome to look at, and it is not necessarily educational to see them, unless it is in a medical context. For example, medical students probably need to see them.

Mr Brooks: I have never used them, but I am aware of them. I am just saying that, if we are talking about scientific information, there are different ways in which that is used, and I am asking about that in the context of schools.

I want to get a question in on something that is slightly away from that issue, which, again, touches on something that we dealt with in the previous session. You, like others, talk about the ineffectiveness of abstinence education in RSE. Someone pointed to that and critiqued it, but in the previous session, we said that — I think that most people would agree — there is an age at which an encouragement of abstinence is appropriate. At what age should we stop that approach to kids and take what others refer to as a "sex-positive" approach? Some parents would be alarmed at younger children being taught in that way or what they perceive that way to be. When should that kind of education start, if we are going to do it in that way? That is not necessarily something that I would argue for, but, for those who advocate it, when would it start?

Ms Crory: We have not referred to a sex-positive approach to education, but there are two questions there. We have a law with the age of consent in it, and I would certainly not argue in any way, shape or form for that age to be lowered. Nobody is encouraging teachers to tell students to have sex at any age below or above the age of consent.

Abstinence-based education is a little different. I suppose that that approach is directive in that you are directing children that it is wrong to do something. That is not very effective, however, because when children are raised that way — this also applies to adolescents, teenagers and those who are moving into young adulthood — they tend not to understand a lot of the important things that good RSE would give them an understanding of, such as contraception and STIs. You therefore get higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, teen pregnancy, crisis pregnancy, STIs and all the things that nobody wants high rates of. There is, therefore, a very practical reason why abstinence-based education does not work; evidence from around the world has shown that to be the case.

There is also evidence from countries that have had robust RSE for decades — since I was a teenager, which, again, was a while ago — that shows that young people who go through that system wait longer to have sex for the first time. They have very few teenagers having sex underage, very few teen pregnancies and lower rates of STIs. It is important to give young people that information, without directing them one way or the other, before the incident happens or before they reach an age at which they may consider embarking on a physical relationship.

Mr Brooks: I personally think that they should have a lot of the information on contraception and so on. I am, however, strongly in favour of the parental opt-out, which allows parents to parent their children. We may differ on that. We have heard evidence that the rate of opt-out is very low, even among those from faith-based backgrounds and people who may challenge some of the things that are being discussed, but we believe that the option should be there. A lot of people see the world that their child is growing up in and think that they should have that information. I know that you have a different opinion to me on the issue of parental opt-out but that does not necessarily mean that people would not take the decision to allow their children to be informed on some of those things. We will have a difference of opinion on abortion, but that is —.

Ms Crory: Absolutely. I see what you are saying, but I will say this, quickly, before —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We need to draw a line under this question, but that is fine: please finish.

Ms Crory: I will finish extremely quickly. None of this prevents parents from parenting their children. I have a teenager who will get this education in school, but I have been talking with her about such issues. I have not been talking in detail about them, because she is not at that age yet, but you build it up over years. My worry is not for her; she will be fine, because she has her school and her parents at home. My worry is about the first boy that she goes out with and the second boy that she goes out with. Do you know what I mean? They might not have had those conversations.

Mr Brooks: There is a tension —

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

Mr Brooks: — between parent and state on where the line is. My line is in slightly different place from yours. I suspect that we have different motivations, but one thing I will —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I have to ask you to draw this to a close. I have given you quite a bit of time.

Mr Brooks: We were talking about Churches and such spaces. Churches need to step up and make sure that they talk to young people about these issues in those environments. That is right.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am conscious that time could beat us. Cara, you wanted to come in.

Ms Hunter: Thank you so much for being here. I have a quick question. In your submission, you touch on the importance of RSE including emerging issues. We know that technology is becoming more advanced. In yesterday's plenary session, we talked about deepfake legislation, looking at violence against women and girls and things such as new apps. Young people use apps such as Snapchat, which has many secretive loopholes. The topic of sexually explicit images being shared without consent is massive. We hear that from teachers and principals. Do you think that, in general and in its mini RSE inquiry, the Committee is focusing enough on things such as online misogyny and image-based sexual abuse? Do you have any recommendations in those areas?

Ms Crory: I do not want to criticise the Committee, but I would love to hear you focusing on it more. It is a huge issue. I watched the debate yesterday and heard the contributions. I am aware of some of the things that have been experienced by people in this room. That is the tip of the iceberg. There are 14- and 15-year-olds who probably know more about what is happening than any of us adults, and another thing will come along next year.

Emerging issues are a huge concern. That was something that we spoke about a lot when the violence against women and girls strategy was being written. For example, in a couple of years' time, Andrew Tate will be out of date and possibly in jail, but there will be somebody else coming behind him. There already is: there are loads of them. They know how to speak to young men, and they are dripping the most dangerous poison into their ears. There will be more of them. It is a profitable endeavour. Their narratives are driving the behaviours that we see with the AI images and the deepfake images. They are also driving the behaviours that we see with real images, which they get by manipulating and pressuring the girls before holding them over their heads. That is a crime now, but something being a crime is not enough to stop it traumatising the victim before there is a prosecution or any other kind of resolution.

The problem is huge, and we do not have a clue about its scale. We carry out training at WRDA through our Raise Your Voice workshops. I have been in with groups of young women, and they do not even know about some of the laws that exist in this area. At one of the workshops, we mentioned that image-based sexual abuse or what people sometimes call "revenge pornography", is now illegal and no one under the age of 18 should be taking, receiving or sending such messages. Every face in the room dropped: they were shocked and had no idea. They had all received such images, and many of them had been pressured into sending them. It is a huge problem, and we do not have a clue about its scale. I would love to hear more from young people about what, they think, would protect them. We need to keep doing this. I know that this is a mini inquiry, but, as I said, in five years' time, there will be a different set of problems, so we need to be hearing from young people all of the time.

Ms Monaghan: I will add to that briefly. In our response to the inquiry, we emphasised that it is "relationships" and sexuality education. From a young age, the relationship part cannot be forgotten, because it is about working with all young people from a very young age on what a healthy relationship is and what decent behaviour towards other human beings looks like. Evidence from across the world shows that there are issues with rising levels of misogyny among young men and so on. Unless we take action now, the problem will get worse.

Ms Hunter: The minimum content order, which we looked at previously, is so outdated, and now we are having social issues. There is technological advancement like we have never seen before, and some algorithms, particularly in apps such as TikTok, reward certain activities or certain types of dances, and young people feel pressured, as you say, to replicate that behaviour, do well and gain views. We are really up against it with our young people. That is something that we, as a Committee, need to be mindful of, because we know that teenagers never have their phones out of their hands.

That is helpful. Thank you for your work here today.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, again, for your time. A Hansard report of the evidence session will be published. In our work, it is important that we note the points on the technological challenges that exist in this space. There are, undoubtedly, such challenges that we are not ahead of in the educational space. That is a helpful note on which to close. Thank you for your time.