Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I welcome Judith Cairns, chief executive officer at Love for Life, and Heather-Joy Wallace, school and community lead at Love for Life. You are very welcome to the Committee today, and thank you for your time. I have learned to say that, if I have got any of your titles wrong, please feel free to correct anything that is not accurate. There is no need for a big preamble; we are coming to the conclusion of our inquiry, so it is great to hear your evidence today. You will be one of the last organisations to give evidence to the inquiry. We will begin with an initial presentation or opening remarks of up to 10 minutes, and then we will move to questions and answers.

Ms Judith Cairns (Love for Life): Thank you. You did such a good job of introducing us, we do not need to do it for ourselves.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Not a given. [Laughter.]

Ms Cairns: Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this afternoon. You have received our written evidence, and we welcome the opportunity to present an overview of our work and our approach to relationships and sexuality education (RSE).

Formed in 2002, Love for Life is a Christian charity with a long-standing reputation for delivering holistic relationships and sexuality education in schools and in a variety of other settings, including community groups, church groups and higher education institutions. However, the focus of this presentation will refer specifically to our work in schools. In the 2023-24 academic year, we delivered a total of 752 programmes to 47,792 pupils. In the same year, working regionally, we partnered with 48% of our primary schools and 54% of our post-primary schools. We also offer a range of programmes that are developed specifically for the SEN context, and we have been delighted to partner with a range of schools to deliver those programmes.

We partner with all school types, offering a range of programmes from P1 to year 14. In each of those programmes, we create a storyline to help us to share our information effectively throughout each Key Stage. That creates an opportunity for the pupils to consider the information objectively. Each of our programmes is accompanied by a suite of lesson plans for the teacher to use before or after our visit. In agreement and partnership with the school, young people complete an anonymous evaluation form at the end of our post-primary programmes, if they are comfortable and happy to do so. Information collated from the forms gives us a helpful insight into young people's attitudes and behaviours and allows us to measure the effectiveness of our programmes. A report is then sent to the school to allow it to review the needs and responses of its pupils. Throughout the presentation, we will share some of the findings gathered from the 7,500 year 10 to year 14 pupils who took part in our programmes last year.

Ms Heather-Joy Wallace (Love for Life): Love For Life advocates a partnership approach to RSE. RSE begins in the home. Parents and carers have the most significant influence in shaping children and young people's attitudes, values and beliefs, as well as their habits and practices around healthy relationships. That is evidenced in our evaluations. When we asked pupils to indicate who or what were the major influences on their choices, young people consistently said that family had the strongest influence on their choice. Love For Life is committed to supporting, resourcing and partnering with parents and carers to secure the well-being of all children and young people. A positive, proactive approach to partnership includes providing information on programmes in advance of delivery and offering workshops that enable everyone to have important and ongoing conversations.

Ms Cairns: As an external agency that supports schools in their delivery of RSE, we appreciate the importance of operating within and respecting the ethos of the school and of adhering to school policies. We believe that effective, high-quality RSE teaching and learning provide young people with the opportunity to examine their values and beliefs in light of those held by others. Doing so can contribute to a more tolerant, inclusive society by fostering respect, understanding of difference and empathy for the views, emotions and feelings of others. We work hard to create an environment of welcome, safety, inclusion and respect. The knowledge, skills and values presented are important for all young people, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender, and help them to make healthy choices and build strong, healthy relationships. We are sensitive to the sexual feelings and identity dilemmas that young people experience around sexual orientation and gender in particular. In acknowledging them, we want all young people to carefully consider what they deliver and deserve in a relationship, recognising the qualities that constitute a healthy relationship.

Ms Wallace: Our teams use creative animation to illustrate the fact that people may use many characteristics and aspects to describe their identity. We emphasise that behind each identity is a person of value who deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. We state that, although we might not agree with someone else's beliefs and values, it is important that we listen to and respect each other. As we create an environment of inclusion and respect, our aspiration is that young people can explore their differences as well as the values that they hold in common. In all our programmes, we acknowledge the diversity of family life. We acknowledge with the pupils that families can look different. We say that, at home, they may have a mum and dad, just mum or just dad; that they may live with their granny or a carer; or that they may have two mums or two dads. Each family is different, and no family is perfect.

Ms Cairns: It may be presumed that, because we are a Christian organisation, we present children and young people with Bible and verse on Christian teaching and expound on what Christians believe around sexuality. That is incorrect and is not the approach that we adopt in schools. When it comes to healthy relationships, the attributes and values that we identify in our programmes are inspired by our Christian world view, but they are shared across a range of world views and a diversity of beliefs in our society. We ground RSE in an understanding of the value and worth of every child and young person. No person loses their intrinsic value and worth, irrespective of any choices that they make. In light of that, all forms of bullying are challenged. We also challenge over-sexualised cultural norms, such as the impact of pornography on a pupil's development and view of relationships.

RSE should be grounded in a vision of healthy relationships, and that is what young people consistently say that they want to learn about. We believe that educating the whole person in RSE provides young people with the opportunity to question the overall meaning and purpose of relationships and sexuality in human life. This is consistent with the curriculum objectives and the key elements of moral character and spiritual awareness. We know that education is more than just taking on board knowledge and information. It plays a formative role in character-building and shaping citizens for the future. In exploring pupils' sexual development and choices, our programmes prioritise a "delaying sex" message. Young people need time to develop and mature without the expectation to act on sexual feelings or to respond to the cultural pressure and expectation to be sexually active. Where there may be social expectations to be sexually active, we want young people to be reassured that resisting such pressure and saying no is a valid and possible choice. That is still the case even if they have already made the choice to be sexually active in the past. We enable young people to understand the reasons why someone might choose to wait, even until marriage, before engaging in a sexual relationship.

Ms Wallace: In view of the preventative focus of the curriculum around sexual choices, the age of consent and the other laws around sexual behaviour should be upheld as protected legal standards. When teaching on consent, we give pupils the opportunity to reflect on the respect that consent confers on another person, as well as exploring the importance of clarifying and communicating sexual boundaries. We take five As to help structure the conversation. Age: are they old enough? Able: can they give consent? Alcohol: has it been consumed? Agreed: have they talked about it? Always: has it been given this time? We encourage young people to set the bar high when it comes to their choices in light of their own values and what they deserve from a relationship.

Our programmes incorporate messages around healthy relationships, skills development and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health information. We provide age-appropriate, reliable, scientifically accurate and up-to-date information on contraception and STIs. That demonstrates a holistic concern for their overall well-being and current and future sexual health. Provision of such information is not to encourage or endorse sexual activity. Following our programme, 84% of young people had an increased understanding of the various methods of contraception. In addressing the topic of unplanned pregnancy, we give pupils the opportunity to consider the options presented in wider society: parenting, adoption and abortion. We recognise that there will be a diversity of beliefs and values within society surrounding such controversial issues as abortion and the important ethical questions that are raised when exploring sexual health topics. We present that information, recognising that a young person's cultural context, faith, upbringing and many other factors will shape how they respond, just as they do for each one of us. Ultimately, our approach in advancing holistic sexual health and well-being is more than just the absence of an unplanned pregnancy or STI. It is also concerned with physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and social well-being.

Ms Cairns: To conclude, we will highlight some of the additional feedback that we have received through our evaluations. Some 81% of the young people said that the programme was helpful; 75% agreed that they would find it easier to make healthy choices in the future, even if their friends or peers were making different choices; 87% were more confident in knowing how the law on consent impacts on any future relationships; and 100% of our teachers rated the appropriateness of the information and the performance of the team as very good or excellent. Teachers state that our programmes complement what they already do. It is also of note that they say that pupils learn more effectively as a result of our input.

Thank you once again for your interest in this subject and for the time that you have taken and allocated to meet us today.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you both, and thank you again for your time. There is a range of things that I could ask about, but one thing that I want to note at this stage — I mean this positively — is that, as we have gone through the inquiry, we have learned that often the evidence is not new. Common themes come through every time and, in many ways, that has been one of the reassuring aspects of this. A lot of organisations come in with a range of perspectives, but there are also common themes. Clearly, though, there are points of friction, and those have been aired in Committee. I will go to one of those, but there are other things that I want to ask about.

In your opening remarks, you addressed the tension that exists around the extent to which whoever is delivering the RSE material has a directive role to express a view on what they might think about abstinence or sex before marriage, or whatever the issue might be, or the extent to which the role is to set out the choices that are available to young people and let the young people examine them critically. You have set that out in your opening presentation. Can I get clarity on how you see that being delivered in the context of a lesson and what that looks like? You have, in some parts of your presentation, emphasised that there is a value base to what you do, and, in others, emphasised that it is objective. How is that balance struck in delivering a lesson?

Ms Cairns: That is a lovely question to start with. We are very clear and open about the fact that we are a Christian organisation, but our vision for excellent RSE is that we can hold those values and beliefs but that, when we are in a class situation with pupils, it is not for us to teach what we believe. It is for us to present the options and the information to make it as clear as possible for young people to explore how their own values and beliefs, whatever those are, will allow them to take on board the information that they receive. To be clear, we do not teach what Christians believe. To be clear, our programmes are developed with those values in mind, and those values are shared across many of us in the room. I am sure that most of us in the room will share the values that we are championing in our programme, such as respect, love, patience, kindness and all those things. We are not teaching what the Bible says in the schools. It is for a young person to explore this for themselves and to take the information away and think about how they might choose to interpret that in their relationships.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. I am reflecting back to one of our informal evening sessions that we had with a number of stakeholders, where we had another group that presents in schools, Informing Choices. It delivers programmes in the same sort of context, but its approach is to do so from a more secular context. In its evidence to the Committee, it articulated that it does not consider RSE to be about changing anybody's mind but rather facilitating objective critical reflection on what choices are available. As an organisation, are you in a similar space to that, in that the job is not to change minds but to facilitate reflection on the issues?

Ms Cairns: It probably depends on the starting point. With some people, if they have an unhealthy view of relationships or an unhealthy view of how to treat each other, I will want to challenge that, but I do not think that it is our role to tell young people what to do. However, there are situations where we are very clear. I think that we are all clear here that we want young people to understand the role of consent in a relationship. If they do not think that that is important, I will want to change their mind. I also understand the view that it is not necessarily about enforcing but about helping them to —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Yes, to contextualise that. It was specifically around the issue of abortion that Informing Choices was making the point. It was saying that it is not its job to persuade someone that they should be having an abortion. Its view was that it is about setting out choices and options and letting young people reflect. That was the context of that comment.

Ms Cairns: To take that specific example, that is what we do. It is up to the young person to reflect and to think, but we set the options that society presents before the young people. It is not for us to say "you should" or "you should not". That is not the role that we believe that we have in the school. It is to set before them the options that society presents and allow them to consider them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful, and I think that your opening answer reflects some of the tensions that we have had in the Committee around navigating "age-appropriate" and "scientifically accurate" with values. Obviously, if there are values that are being shared that are deeply unhealthy around toxic masculinity, you want those to be challenged, but we also want to avoid instructional models of telling young people how to think. I am very conscious of those tensions.

I will ask one other question and then open it up to members. We have heard from a lot of academics in the inquiry. You are coming at the end of the inquiry, so we have all this material available to us. Academics have repeatedly emphasised and used the specific phrase that "abstinence education does not work" — that very formal message of "Just say no" and "Wait until marriage". You have been very clear, in your evidence, that you have an emphasis on delaying sexual activity. The evidence from academics was clear that the data shows that comprehensive, age-appropriate, scientifically accurate RSE has the effect of delaying sexual activity. Can I just ask, on that continuum of what would be classed as quite rigid abstinence education through to that comprehensive model of RSE, where does your provision sit? What are your views on that?

Ms Cairns: As we have explained, it is delaying sex. It is giving young people the opportunity to consider whether they want to be, whether or not they have been in the past, and what their views are on it. Culture is putting pressure on young people. There are messages that young people can even presume that more of their peers are sexually active than actually are. Our role in that is to say, "Pause. Think this through. Understand what you want". I do not want a young person having sex because they think everybody else around them is. If they are choosing to engage in sexual activity, I want that to be something that they are stepping into, that they are choosing.

We are delaying sex. Sometimes labels are not helpful because they put you in a box, but we are definitely saying more than "Just say no". We want to give young people the information that allows them to think those decisions through for themselves and to consider how they will respond. The delaying sex message is consistent with the most recent sexual health promotion strategy, which wants all young people up to the age of 16 — 92% of them — not to be sexually active. Therefore, it is a message that is consistent across various Departments. We champion that. We are saying, "Let us pause. Let us give space. There is no hurry. Let us consider the messages and think how you might want to respond". We are also providing information. We could get criticism that we are providing information about contraception to endorse sexual activity, and that is not the case. It could be for the future, but we recognise that it can also be for the present, and we want young people to have the information that they need in whatever context they are in.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): You have answered the question that I was going to follow up with around that supplementary information on options for contraception as well. That is fine. I have nothing else to ask. Thank you for your presentation and for those answers.

Mr Sheehan: Thank you both for coming. A lot of the evidence that we have heard during the inquiry tells us that, in jurisdictions where there are comprehensive RSE curriculums, that has led to a delay in sexual activity, fewer teenage pregnancies, fewer STIs and so on. Does your experience concur with that evidence that has been presented here?

Ms Cairns: Can you define what you mean by "comprehensive"? I ask so that I can answer from the same perspective.

Mr Sheehan: What do you think it means? What do you consider to be comprehensive?

Ms Cairns: You are asking me the question, so what are you asking me there by "comprehensive"?

Mr Sheehan: I am talking about a scientific, fact-based curriculum that gives people information about all aspects of sexuality.

Ms Cairns: You are asking me whether I believe that that is helpful. Our experience has shown that, over the years, the stats of young people being sexually active are decreasing. We have gathered stats from over the years, and there is a decrease. Is that because they are getting this information? There are so many more factors to that, are there not? Our vision for young people is that they be given the information that might be helpful to them now or in the future. Young people deserve that: they deserve the information to help them make the choices that they might make, now or in the future.

Mr Sheehan: Just picking up on the point that the Chair made, in promoting abstinence, the evidence that we have heard is that that particular approach does not help to delay the age of sexual activity among young people. Do you agree with that?

Ms Cairns: To only promote abstinence is not a helpful message. It is one perspective that is in amongst lots of others, but to only present an abstinence message is not helpful. My goodness, in anything, to just say to a young person "Do not do this" is not helpful. Giving them the reasons why someone might choose not to is a helpful message for young people to consider, because I do not know that they are getting that anywhere else. I would want that alongside the other information that we have already discussed.

Mr Sheehan: Fair enough.

Ms Cairns: Does that answer your question?

Mr Sheehan: Yes, it does indeed.

You make no secret of the fact that you are a Christian organisation. We have had others from Christian organisations and the Churches, and some have said that, in the delivery of RSE, they want to overlay it with their own ethos. My difficulty with that is that there is sometimes conflict between a particular ethos and what some of us would like to see delivered in an RSE curriculum. For example, most of the Christian Churches see same-sex relationships as sinful. I think that, in the Bible, it is described as an abomination. If you are delivering a curriculum or a course on RSE, presumably you touch on same-sex relationships, so how can you, as a Christian, give information to young people about same-sex relationships and not bring your particular philosophical or religious viewpoint to that discussion?

Ms Cairns: We are delivering a message that is consistent across all the contexts that we are in, and although we are a Christian organisation, we have stated that we do not present Bible and verse of Christian teaching around that. We accept that there are many views in a room, and we respect that. We acknowledge that there will be a variety of relationships represented in a year group, and we are not there to condone or criticise anything of that nature. Our role is to affirm all young people and encourage them to consider what they want in a relationship, whatever that relationship is, and to make sure that they understand what constitutes a healthy relationship. Those are the values. We want healthy relationships for our young people, and that is consistent with our Christian world view, but we are not going to get into the specifics of affirming or otherwise. We just want all young people to know their value, their worth and that they deserve to be treated with respect — all those things — and, regardless of the type of relationship that they are in, those are qualities that we will address and the content that we will bring into the room.

Mr Sheehan: Just one final question. Would your organisation introduce the issue of conversion therapy into any of the discussions?

Ms Cairns: No.

Mr Sheehan: OK. Fair enough. Thank you.

Mrs Guy: Thank you very much for the presentation. One thing that you highlighted in your briefing was the importance of parental engagement, and we have heard that a number of times from other people who have presented to the Committee. Can you talk me through how that works when you agree to deliver a course in a school?

Ms Wallace: The school invites us in, and we offer to engage with parents face to face and run a workshop to explain what we will cover in the programme, if that is helpful. Some schools take us up on that, and some schools do not. Sometimes, when there is a trusted relationship, the teachers are able to articulate what is in our programmes to the parents in the room. It is hit or miss how engaged parents will be on that. We have delivered it at 9.00 am, and we have delivered it at 7.00 pm — you still get about four or five. It depends on where the school is and how it engages with parents on other topics, including whether they come into the school, but the workshop is received well by anyone who comes to it. It is helpful for us to facilitate a conversation amongst the other parents, and there is that feeling of, "Actually, I am not alone in this". That is as helpful as the content that we bring.

Ms Cairns: We also make the information on exactly what we are covering available on our website. We want parents and teachers to know. We are not hiding what we cover. We want them to be able to explore it and have a heads-up as to the exact subjects that we are going to raise so that they can continue the conversation.

Nobody is policing that. Nobody knows whether those conversations continue or how awkward they become. Our role is to give them the best opportunity to navigate it with their young people.

Mrs Guy: That is reassuring. Whether they take up the opportunity for a workshop or not, you make the information on what you will cover available so that parents can access it themselves if they need to. That is good. The briefing mentioned, and it is also reassuring, that you:

Can you tell me how you approach those challenges when they emerge?

Ms Cairns: Throughout the programmes, from the get-go, we establish that every single person in the room has value and worth. You will probably hear that a number of times because it is core that people know that they deserve to be treated with respect. We will create various scenarios where that might jar, and we want young people to know that bullying is unacceptable regardless of what it is about. We want young people to seek support if they are experiencing bullying on any issues. The identity illustration and the animation name some of the labels that can cause friction, but we also encourage young people not to put people in boxes or treat each other differently because of some of the labels and identities that they might hold. That is specific, is there anything further?

Mrs Guy: Have you any examples or a specific incident that has come up that you have had to deal with?

Ms Wallace: I can give you an example of how we bring it out in the programme, if that is helpful. If you imagine that you are a year 8 or 9 pupil, we open the banter clinic. We bring up Dr Banter, the person who aims to have the most banter in year 8, and they are often self-proclaimed. They come up, and we present scenarios that might happen. The idea is to discuss whether it is banter. One incident is when someone drops a plate in the canteen and everyone cheers. Is that banter or is it bullying? It helps them to make the distinction about what moves something from a bit of banter into the category of bullying. Some of the definition is if it is a repeated occurrence or to look at how the person in the scenario is reacting. It is often received very well, and it is funny because Dr Banter often starts with a big "Yeeooh!", but by the end, he or she is pulling the whole year group with them. They are stepping up to the mark and saying "I can do this". It is a good moment.

Mrs Guy: Your briefing refers to being sensitive to young people who are exploring their sexual identity and gender. You commented that additional pastoral support may be required. What do you mean by "additional pastoral support"?

Ms Cairns: We cover a lot of ground in the presentations, and it can raise a lot of things for a young person. I would want our programme to be the start of a conversation if it has not already started. A young person may need extra support to work through their feelings and explore their relationships, and it is as wide as it comes, but it needs to be done in a relationship setting. Throughout the programme, we encourage all young people that if they need help or support for any reason, including their sexual orientation or gender, to seek pastoral support from somebody they know and trust.

We want to open the conversations up. We do not want to close them down. We constantly talk about this as an ongoing conversation that we are part of and enter into, and the narrative exists around the young people culturally, in the classroom and in how they engage with each other. There are times when, for a variety of reasons, a young person needs extra support and help for a specific need. We want to make sure that they know the help is available and who they can turn to.

Mrs Guy: Would you signpost them specifically to anybody?

Ms Cairns: We tend to signpost to their pastoral care in school. Throughout the programme, we also signpost to the health trust website in their area because it is full of resources and access to various support. There is such a range of ways to access support. Something might just trigger the help that is needed for a young person, so we signpost the health trust website, which then offers the support that they might want.

I just do not want any young person to go through something challenging on their own, so you want them to plug into a relationship with a trusted adult. That is key. That exists from the youngest child in one of our programmes right through. We all need people in our lives who can journey with us. Young people who are navigating the complexity of life across these subjects deserve that, so we encourage them to take that up, in school or outside school. It is a trusted adult, recognising that many schools, in our experience, have excellent pastoral care that can help them individually.

Mrs Guy: If they, maybe, have a conversation with you, you will suggest where they might get additional support. You are not, perhaps, going to the school identifying a particular individual who has a concern. It is the child who will self-refer to the person from whom they need support.

Ms Cairns: In our approach to this, and in our methodology, it is rare that we would have an individual conversation. We recognise the limitations of that, but there is a role for it. In us bringing the information in, we very much recognise that we want that conversation to be continued. That is why we provide lesson plans, and we also recognise the limitations of that. At each point we are doing what we can, but we understand the limitations. However, we are absolutely committed to seeing this area prioritised and that young people have the support that, for whatever reason, they need to develop strong, healthy relationships.

Mr Baker: We have listened and talked to young people to get their perspective, and they are telling us that they are not getting adequate RSE. What evidence do you have for that? Are young people getting enough?

Ms Cairns: Are they getting enough? No. We want to see RSE prioritised more. What is enough? I agree; I do not think that they are getting enough. I want to recognise, however, that when we do not say, "Here's the sign that says this is relationships and sexuality education", sometimes young people do not even realise that they are learning RSE. I just want to acknowledge that. They are learning about relationships from when they walk through the door.

Mr Baker: That is a good point. We have heard that from young people. Groups have come in to us and said that they did not know that they were getting RSE. I do not know if that is a good thing to hear from young people. They talked about learning through the 'Cup of Tea' video. I had never seen that video playing, but it was raised in one of our working groups. They said that it was about consent; they did not really know what that meant. If you are shy and not getting it, you are not getting that scientific-based RSE, and that is a failure.

Ms Cairns: Totally. There is a recognition that, to me, there is a formal setting and that we do need to name things, and that needs to be done more. Adults need to step forward more confidently in a variety of settings to have those conversations. Absolutely. Young people need to know that this what we are teaching. Alongside that, though, I want to recognise that we are teaching young people about relationships without being in a classroom. Young people are learning how to be a good friend and what is acceptable or not in a variety of settings across the board. That is not formal education, but it has its place, does it not?

Mr Baker: Yes.

Ms Cairns: To come back to your question, though, I would love to see them getting more.

Mr Baker: What is your view on the parental opt-out? Again, I ask that from the perspective of young people. In one of the workshops that we were in, a young person who had been abused at home did not recognise that they were being abused until later in life. If you have to get permission from your abuser to get RSE, that is an issue, and that is where I struggle with the opt-out option.

Ms Cairns: I want to see RSE delivered in a way that parents do not need to opt out, and that they trust what is happening. There can be suspicion, which is why we want to be open about what we are covering, and we want parents to be able to opt in.

You mentioned a specific situation, and that is horrendous. I want young people to have the support that they need to be able to recognise those unhealthy relationships and what was happening there. Equally, however, and as you will have discovered, and probably knew before these conversations, is that there is tension throughout, and if you say "yes", what is the "no", and all those things. I want parents to be respected in their role as parents, and I want to give them their place, but, equally, there are unhealthy situations that need to be challenged; that is the tension.

My ultimate vision is of the vast majority of amazing parents looking in and saying, "There is no reason for us to opt out. These are great conversations, so let us embrace them".

Mr Baker: I agree, but, again, the option is there. The question that you have to ask is this: why even put in the option to opt-out if that is the case? The great parents should not be worried. It is about the most vulnerable children in society.

Ms Cairns: That is the challenge.

Mr Baker: Thank you.

Mr Crawford: Thank you both for your presentation, which was really informative and helpful. I had two questions, but Danny asked one of them. [Laughter.]

Have you, as an organisation, faced any particular challenges or had any particular successes in delivering RSE in schools in Northern Ireland?

Ms Cairns: I imagine that you will understand that we have experienced challenges in delivering RSE. We live in a culture in which there is a variety of views, and this stuff is sometimes really hard to articulate and gain an understanding, across those views, of what we are actually saying and delivering. I describe the challenge as like being on a little tightrope. You are trying to give young people an amazing vision for their relationships. I will give an example. In reality, if young people are sexually active and they engage in a number of sexual relationships with different people, they increase their risk of sexually transmitted infections. That is a scientific fact. There are ways of reducing the risk, but it is still there. How do we teach that information without making sex seem dirty, awful and like something that should be avoided forever? That is a challenge. We want young people to have a great vision for their sexual lives, and we want to give them information that might help to protect them, but we do not want to make it seem dirty or awful. Do you know what I mean? That is a challenge. There is an incredible opportunity and a desperate need to teach this, but the challenges are there. That is just one example.

There was a second part to your question.

Ms Wallace: Successes.

Ms Cairns: I knew that there was something to add. I will celebrate, for a moment, the fact that, as an organisation, we started off with one programme for year 10 and year 11 pupils and that there has been the opportunity to extend, grow and develop that so that our programmes now range from P1 to year 14. With the themes that we embed and see, we want young people to recognise inappropriate touch in P1. We do not use that phrase, but we want them to understand and know what good relationships look like and what healthy relationships are. Schools are welcoming that. I have been in post for 14 years, and I have seen a big change in the taboo, so to speak. Could there be more change? Yes. Do we need to challenge the taboo? Yes. However, I am encouraged to see more schools bring in the conversation earlier so that we can build and develop young people from P1 and before right through to understanding what a healthy relationship looks like, so that — down here — if something happens, they recognise it. That is one success of many. The fact that young people tell us, "This is helpful", is a success. Do they need more? Yes. Could we do more? Yes, but what we bring is helpful. That is a success.

Ms Wallace: I will add to that. A success is when they tell us that discussing puberty is fun. In discussing a subject that could be awkward, they have enjoyed themselves and have not realised that they are learning, when that is what they are doing. The other wee example that stood out was that we have a storyline that goes from P1 to year 14, and sometimes they come up at the end and ask, "What happens next?". Again, we have engaged them in a conversation and they want to know more, and the fact that they have asked about it feels like a success.

Mr Crawford: Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you for your presentation this afternoon. I want to touch on a couple of figures that you mentioned on the way through. As part of the inquiry, we have heard significant evidence — Danny touched on some of it in his earlier question — about the problems with RSE provision and the fact that some children feel that it is really poor or, perhaps, non-existent. Academics have come here and affirmed that, although, to be fair, some of them had carried out very small or qualitative studies. The general picture that the Committee has been left with is that RSE provision is pretty poor here and, to a degree, pretty poor on the mainland, where some of those academics came from.

I looked at some of the figures in your report. At paragraph 3.6, it says:

and

Any MLA would take an 82% approval rating. Four out of five young people who are going through your programmes are reflecting that they are positive. Are these figures anonymous? Did you say on the way through that they are anonymous?

Ms Wallace: Yes.

Mr Martin: OK. I was quite stunned, to be honest, when I saw those figures. Can you give any reason for that dichotomy, where the young people to whom you are delivering your programmes are finding benefit from them and possibly — I do not know — enjoying them? I am not going to jump to there, but they are certainly finding a significant benefit from your programmes. Meanwhile, the Committee has been left with an overwhelming sense that RSE provision is either poor or non-existent. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Ms Cairns: We could probably sit for the rest of the afternoon musing on that. [Laughter.]

Mr Martin: We now have space in our forward work plan.

Ms Cairns: As I look in, we are responsible for what we are delivering, and there are positive results. That goes back to the question: "Could there be more?" Yes, there could. Perhaps even in some settings, young people are not receiving what others are. I want to see all young people receiving this information. I do not know why there is such a difference. All I know is what we are responsible for, and what we are hearing from young people and experiencing in the schools and the other settings is that they are engaged and involved. However, I wonder whether that comes down to the question of whether there could be more provision. Yes, there could.

There are potential pressures within that. I recognise that we are asking a lot of our schools and our teachers — fairly, in many ways — but we need to recognise the challenges that teachers face, such as timetable challenges and all of that. Does this matter? Yes. It is our whole existence to make sure that young people receive this information and receive the best that we can offer. However, I wonder whether that reflects the wider cultural pressures that they are under. Things change constantly, so as soon as you have one thing sorted, there is something else comes in that puts pressure on them. I do not think that we can underestimate that. I am not sure whether that answers the question effectively.

Mr Martin: That is OK, Judith. I just wanted to reflect that when you give children the chance to answer an anonymous questionnaire and you ask, "How good was that?", they can be quite critical. I just wanted to reflect that the stats that you presented were very impressive from a large number — I think it was 7,600 — of respondents, which is a chunky sample.

I want to make one more comment rather than ask a question. At paragraph 3.26 of your paper, there is another quite noteworthy figure:

That is pivotal. We have heard a lot about consent and it has been talked about a lot in this Committee. It leads into other areas, including domestic violence and violence against women and girls. I wanted to highlight that, because I thought that that was really positive, if those are the outcomes that you are getting and if we are talking about linking some of those seams together that we talk a lot about in the Assembly and in this Committee. If you have a programme that is delivering four out of five 11- to 13-year-olds and that they are being empowered to discuss these matters, that is incredibly positive. That is more of a comment rather than anything else, Chair.

Mr Brooks: Thank you for your presentation. It has been a very useful session. When it comes to the particular issues on which there is division, both sides have a tendency to view each other or their organisations with a degree of scepticism. I have talked about that before at Committee. You do not represent a school, but you have done an excellent job of speaking to how I view the Christian ethos in schools: it is there in the background, influencing and inspiring what we teach but not necessarily trying to indoctrinate anyone. I understand that those whose view is similar to mine sometimes view other organisations sceptically. You have done an excellent job of explaining what I try to get across sometimes, so thank you for that.

We talked about opt-outs. Have you experienced many opt-outs from your programmes? If so, what is the rate? How often does it happen? Is it in every school? Does it happen only in exceptional circumstances?

Ms Cairns: From our understanding, opt-outs happen in exceptional circumstances. We base that on the evidence that, when a school books us, it gives us the estimated numbers for the presentation. When we go in, we literally count the pupils. We know that a few pupils might not have made it into school that day, but there is not a massive difference between those figures.

Mr Brooks: You are not furnished with that information. If someone has opted out, you are not necessarily told that.

Ms Cairns: Not necessarily. It builds on the point about our communication with parents. We receive regular phone calls and emails from parents. We really want to engage parents in the conversation and help them to understand what we will cover and reassure them about what will happen and how the conversation will go. Sometimes, a parent may be about to opt out a student, but, after that conversation, they are reassured.

I guess that, again, that is where that tension exists. We recognise that a parent might be really engaged for the wrong reason, as discussed earlier, but we want to give parents that ownership. We certainly have not experienced a massive level of opt-outs, but they can sometimes come from a variety of perspectives.

Mr Brooks: Of course, yes.

Ms Cairns: Among the beautiful world views that we all hold, there could be a variety of reasons for that. It is not just because of one perspective or the other.

Mr Brooks: In advocating for an opt-out, I am not advocating only for people who think like me. It is the parents' right to parent their child. That is where I am coming from. There is, however, a tension for us all, and I recognise that. I recognise the example that Danny laid out.

Peter laid out one set of stats, but I thought that the stats from the parents were remarkable:

There is not an organisation out there that would not want stats like that, to be fair, so you must be doing something right.

My next question was originally close to Michelle's question. We have heard this from a range of organisations from a range of perspectives but do you believe that getting parents on board is key to making sure that those discussions continue? As a pre-requisite to some of that, should resources that are used for RSE be available to parents in schools in order to build that trust?

Ms Cairns: You will have to keep me right, because there were quite a few questions. [Laughter.]

Mr Brooks: Sorry, I am known for rambling on, as the Chair will tell you.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Never ask one question when five will do. [Laughter.]

Ms Cairns: I have now distracted myself from the questions I need to answer. For parents who want to opt out, that choice is there. The conversations need to happen at home. Young people tell us that their family is the strongest influence. We recognise, in our parents' talk, that our influence as parents is not always good, but it is there. We have influence as parents. I am now speaking as a parent in the room. The question is this: how are we using that influence? I want parents to engage in those conversations.

I want parents to engage in those conversations. Sometimes, you hear messages about wanting a conversation to start, and then you wish that it would stop because it is unhelpful. You want helpful conversations. You want the young person to feel that they can open up the conversation at home and work through it in a very similar way to what we do. Equally, the role of parents is to help their child to navigate this world and navigate how they interpret the information before them in a way that is positive for their context.

Mr Brooks: I have one more question, Chair. Is that all right?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Very quickly. A quick question and a quick answer, and then we will draw it to a close.

Mr Brooks: One of the things that has come up routinely, and perhaps unsurprisingly, due to the conversations in the public sphere at the moment, is toxic masculinity. When I was younger, everything from lads' mags to music videos pushed sexualised images. We have heard more talk recently about Andrew Tate, who is probably one of the more quoted ones. Have you seen a change in some of those who influence social media and in how that is affecting the minds of young men in particular? Have you encountered that rise, and how do you respond to it?

Ms Cairns: Yes. One of the major concerns that we have, as an organisation, is the prevalence of pornography. It affects men and women. It affects how a woman is viewed and how men are viewed. It affects how everybody relates to one another and their view of each other. That concerns me greatly. Although there is sometimes a hesitancy to challenge behaviours in society, that is one that we all need to get behind. We need to be consistent and persistent with young people to help them to understand what they are seeing, how it is impacting their view of themselves and each other and, ultimately, their view of sex, because it is not healthy. The stats that we gather show the prevalence and enormity of the issue: 30% of young people have viewed pornography, but if you start to dig into that and unpack it and break it down by age, you discover that half of our 15-year-old boys are viewing pornography every week or every day. What is that doing to their view of themselves, relationships and sex? I also do not want to lose the females in that regard, or the impact that that has on them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are coming a close, but thank you for the time that you have given us today.

I will finish with one question. I try to draw this out from anyone who is involved in delivery of RSE in schools. We are thinking about what is in the curriculum. That is one of the things that we really want to get to in any final report. Consent and coercive control are two issues that have come up repeatedly during evidence sessions, but they are markedly absent from the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007. As regards your organisation's interactions with young people in schools, would you recommend that the Department ensure that those clear messages, in terms of the legal framework and the relationship framework, are consistently delivered?

Ms Cairns: We have taken the minimum content and included those subjects because we believe that the minimum content currently provides the vehicle for those subjects to be taught. If you are asking whether we think that those subjects should be taught, the answer is yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I will be direct: should the phrases "consent" and "coercive control" be explicitly referenced in the minimum content order?

Ms Cairns: Potentially. You then start to think, "Oh, my goodness, where do you draw the line with the phrases?". I am absolutely not averse to those subjects being taught; it is about how we include without excluding. We have looked at the minimum content order and at culture and everything that is going on with young people and used it to shape a programme that is fit for purpose.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is very clear from your presentation that you cover those issues. The issue is that there is still the potential that a young person could leave education and not have had that covered. That is of concern to me.

Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it.