Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are joined by Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief commissioner, and Colin Caughey and Emma Osborne from the commission. You are all welcome. I do not need to rehearse the drill, but I ask that your opening remarks or presentation be up to 10 minutes. We will then move to members' questions. We will aim to keep each line of questioning from each member to a five-minute engagement. I hand over to you, Alyson.

Ms Alyson Kilpatrick (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): I will make a few opening remarks. The Committee will be better served by us answering your questions rather than my saying too much at this stage.

Thank you for the invitation. We have been invited to add to our written evidence, which you got most recently by way of a letter, regarding the right for children — girl children — to choose to wear trousers to school or, as we put it in our letter, "not to wear skirts". When you look at it that way, it takes on a different perspective. I do not think that there is any serious disagreement on the principle that girls should be entitled to ask to wear trousers instead of skirts. The issue is whether they should have a right to choose — a right that is enforced for them, not by them. The Minister of Education refers to the legal right of a girl to petition a school in answer to the issue, but we say that that is more theoretical and illusory than practical.

We advise that if it is right that girls are given a choice — we say that it is — it is not right to place a burden on them to secure it. There are risks associated with challenging one's school that a child should not be burdened by. It is also likely to lead to inconsistency across Northern Ireland and create more distraction for teachers and pupils. It is the responsibility of the Department to ensure that all children enjoy the right to be educated without discrimination and to receive that education in clothing that is comfortable, practical and not discriminatory.

Earlier, we were asked to consider the pros and cons of making such provision by a stand-alone Bill or by amendment to the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act. An amendment is likely to be a quicker process, although we know that it does not necessarily mean that. A stand-alone Bill allows for more comprehensive consideration of the issues. Law should be clear, accessible and predictable. It is not for us to advise on the appropriate legislative process, but, ultimately, the process must ensure that those principles are adhered to.

In our written evidence, we offered three key considerations for requiring choice to be offered: the potential for discrimination if it is not offered; its impact on and interrelationship with violence against women and girls; and the associated cost of uniform skirts compared with most standard uniform trousers. That is not meant to be an exhaustive list. We encourage the Committee to engage widely with children and young people to hear why it matters to them. I know that you have just concluded a session with two very impressive girls who are making the point for themselves.

There is no specific right to which we can direct you to choose to wear trousers to school, but that is not surprising. It is not how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) works.

In our view, such a right is, however, clearly established. If one looks at the interplay between the various ECHR rights, one sees that they include the right to personal autonomy, the right to privacy and physical integrity, the right not to be discriminated against, the right to full gender equality and the right to be free from violence and the threat of violence and abuse. The right of a child to education is reflected across several human rights instruments to which the UK, and, by extension, Northern Ireland, is bound. Most notably, the principle that the best interests of the child are paramount runs through human rights internationally but has also been enshrined in domestic law for many decades.

The absence of choice for girls to wear trousers to school has gendered implications. For example, it has implications for girls' ability to manage menstruation comfortably. It can lead to gender stereotyping and the sexualisation of girls. It can leave girls exposed to the elements and to unwanted intrusions such as upskirting. That is now so common that a criminal offence had to be created for it. It is not a minor problem but a severe one. I am sure that I do not need to tell the Committee that the perpetrator of crimes against Gisèle Pelicot was caught not because of what he did to her but because he was caught upskirting in public, which had just been made a criminal offence in France.

The gendered nature of dress creates anxiety for transgender and gender-nonconforming people who might otherwise choose not to wear a skirt. Article 14 of the ECHR protects against discrimination on multiple grounds, including "other status". That goes beyond domestic employment and other equality laws. "Other status" is taken to have a wide meaning and to be inclusive of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The commission raised the issue of school uniform costs. School skirts in secondary-level education are often specific to the individual school and are more expensive to purchase than the generic school trousers that are readily available in most supermarkets. It is therefore an additional uniform cost incurred by the families of girls. Again, that is not a minor point. Girls' uniforms are more expensive, making the families of girls face a higher financial burden when sending their daughters to school. That has an obvious direct impact on their ability to access education. Some parents whom I have spoken to said that a few extra pounds can make all the difference and that it does affect their choice of school.

If there is to be legislation on the issue, an equality impact assessment (EQIA) is likely to be required. It is also a requirement that legislation does not conflict with the Human Rights Act 1998, so a human rights impact assessment is necessary. Our advice notes that any legislation should consider its impact on the state's obligation to prevent violence against women and girls. We repeat what we stated in writing: allowing girls to wear trousers will not prevent violence against women and girls. If only it were that easy. Girls should be able to wear skirts without being concerned about victimisation. The onus should never be on policing girls' dress but on recognising that girls are more vulnerable to certain types of violence, including upskirting, and therefore should be allowed to choose what they wear. The ability to choose to wear trousers may alleviate concerns that many girls have, thus allowing them to feel more comfortable and confident on the journey to and from school and in school.

In its development of forthcoming legislation, we encourage the Committee to engage with children and young people, as it has been doing, their parents and representative organisations and to monitor the application of the law. Ultimately, uniforms can serve an important purpose. They are important to many schools, parents and children . This is not about that, however. Rather, it is about the requirement for girls in some schools to wear a uniform that exposes them, makes some feel vulnerable, is not practical and is stereotyping. Times change, and we know more now than we used to. What was once considered traditional is no longer recognised as such.

If there is a balancing exercise to be conducted, the balance should come down clearly in favour of girls not being forced to wear skirts if they do not want to. Many experts recommend gender-neutral uniforms in schools. We encourage Northern Ireland to consider that option, but we cannot advise that it is a human rights standard that must be applied yet. I will finish there.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. I will pick up on specific elements of your evidence in a moment, but I want to flag an issue to start. If it is something that you have not had an opportunity to consider, there is no pressure on you to answer the question. We received correspondence on the proposed Bill from the Free Presbyterian Church specifically requesting that the Committee consider not extending any legislation that we introduce to independent schools, on the basis that they may have uniform policies that are informed by particular religious beliefs. It highlighted the right of the parent to have their child educated in keeping with their religious and philosophical beliefs. I may not have quoted that totally accurately. If I did not, I am sure that you will be able to correct me.

Do you have a view on whether that is an appropriate approach for the Committee to take? Are there are any potential implications that we have not considered? I would welcome your views on that. You may need time to come back to us in writing on that, but I will put it out there as a starter.

Ms Kilpatrick: I will respond briefly, but we can come back to you with further information. Quite a bit could be said about it. The first important thing to say is that we value, respect and will protect the right of people to express their religion. That right is as fundamental as any other right in the ECHR. It is not, however, a right to the exclusion of everything else. That is why I said in my opening remarks that a balancing exercise may need to be conducted.

Lots of religious expressions are curtailed in schools already, for the best interests of children and for consistency across Northern Ireland. We dictate to schools in many different ways what can and cannot be done with children, usually for their best interests but sometimes just for good regulation in schools. I would not say that there is a justified exemption for something such as that. A very cogent argument would need to be made on why an exemption is reasonable and necessary and why it is a demonstration of religion that cannot be expressed in any way other than by preventing a child from choosing not to wear a skirt. I have not heard the rationale for why it is a religious expression for a girl to wear a skirt to school. If there is such an argument, it will feature in the balancing exercise, but it would be wrong to think that a school's individual ethos can dictate what society determines, through legislation, to be appropriate for schools.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for that. If members are agreed, we can potentially share the correspondence with you at the end of the session to get your response from a rights perspective, because the correspondence was framed in those terms.

Ms Kilpatrick: I can go into more detail. There are some cases, not on the right of girls to wear trousers or not to wear trousers in religious schools but on the right to wear religious items, such as jewellery. It will therefore be helpful if we analyse those cases and give you a summary of them.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That would be helpful evidence. We will get the Committee's consensus on that. We may need to seek advice from the Assembly's Legal Services on other aspects. Those schools do not receive state funding, so there may be an argument for an exemption on that basis.

At the outset, you mentioned language, calling it the right not to wear skirts rather than the right to choose to wear trousers. Will you comment on that? Should we consider that when framing the legislation?

Ms Kilpatrick: That language adds a different sense to what we are talking about. I am sure that you heard that from the girls. I did not hear their evidence, but I have heard them before. The right to choose to wear a particular item of clothing is not really what it is about for girls. Rather, it is about their being able to wear something that covers them and that looks the same as what everybody else in the school is wearing, even the boys. It is about their not being exposed to the weather and not feeling exposed to threats or risk from boys, or from men on the way home.

I was a girl many decades ago, and I know that it is not a trivial matter. Girls grow up knowing why it is important. Unfortunately, most girls will be able to give you an example of why wearing a skirt or a pair of trousers has made a difference to them. If a girl wants to wear a skirt, that is also her choice to make. That is why we framed it as "the right to choose" in our written evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is helpful. We can reflect that when we engage with the drafter to determine where the language might land.

Finally, you referenced article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which states:

The School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 does not address the issue of the wearing of trousers. Do you think that all necessary, appropriate measures were taken in the Act, or will the Committee's Bill enhance it and take it a step further in that direction?

Ms Kilpatrick: In our view, the proposed Bill will enhance the legislation. It would be a positive development. The right to choose could have been included in the original Act, but that does not mean that we identified a breach as such. Experts across the world, and certainly in Europe, seem to agree that it does make a difference, because the requirement for girls to wear a skirt is gender stereotyping and can result in their exposure to violence and abuse. That being the case, where there is the possibility to take a step to make such a difference, the state has an obligation to take that step. We say that it is one step: it is not the only one, but it is one step.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. I may have a further question, but I will see where other members go with theirs.

Ms Kilpatrick: The final point that I will make on that is that we are talking not just about the threat of violence or abuse but about people who may have already been subjected to violence or abuse. If you have spoken to women or girls who have been subjected to any sort of assault, you will know that the choice to wear a pair of trousers is not a trivial one. It is not a fashion choice.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): That is very helpful.

Mr Sheehan: Thanks, Alyson, for your contribution so far. I will ask a similar question to the one that I asked the two girls when they were in earlier. Can you think of any reason whatsoever why girls should be required or forced to wear a skirt rather than any other sort of attire?

Ms Kilpatrick: Speaking as the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and as a lawyer, I have to say that the answer is no. If somebody can give a reason that is not a legal reason or a human rights-based one is for them, but I cannot see a reason that justifies the requirement. Not any more, certainly.

Mr Sheehan: That is straightforward, and it is the same answer that we got from the witnesses in the previous session. For the life of me, I cannot think of any reason.

The Assembly gets lots of bad press, much of which may be deserved. I will not ask you to comment on that.

Ms Kilpatrick: We get it as well. [Laughter.]

Some of it is deserved.

Mr Sheehan: There is support in the Assembly for the proposed legislation. If we get a fair wind and have enough time, the Committee's Bill will become law. What annoys me about the process, however, is that the Minister could stop the need for our Bill by issuing a statutory guideline under the legislation that passed into law recently. I will not ask you to comment on that unless you want to. I suppose that I am making a political point. The Assembly gets bad press. MLAs are accused of not doing enough, yet we are trying to introduce legislation that the Minister could remove the need for right now by issuing a statutory guideline to schools to give girls the right to wear trousers. I will leave it there. If you want to comment, go ahead. If not, that is good enough.

Ms Kilpatrick: We would still say that the Bill should proceed for reasons of certainty and consistency. In the meantime, though, if there were statutory guidance that had to be complied with, that would be an answer.

Mr Burrows: Thanks. What you have said is really useful. You state in your evidence:

To me, there is a danger that we are losing common sense when discussing schools. I agree that if a girl wants to wear trousers, she can, but we then get into the question of whether a boy can wear a skirt. In your expression of support for a girl being able to wear trousers, you mentioned the risk of upskirting. If someone were to say that a boy should have the right to wear a skirt, that boy would clearly be at an increased risk of upskirting if he were wearing a skirt, logically speaking.

Ms Kilpatrick: We are not calling for boys to be allowed to wear skirts at school. There is a lot of evidence that gender-neutral uniforms benefit everyone, not just trans or gender-nonconforming children. The risk to boys is simply not the same. The history is simply not the same. If it were to end up being the case that boys were at risk of upskirting, we would probably say that they should not be wearing skirts either if their doing so were magnifying the risk.

We do not see that as being the issue here, and we are not calling for boys to be allowed to wear skirts. There will, I think, come a time wholly gender-neutral uniforms will be par for the course. That certainly seems to be what is working its across GB and other parts of Europe. We are not saying —.

Mr Burrows: Is that the Human Rights Commission's view or your own ideological view? Are you giving us a legal view or your view from reading the politics?

Ms Kilpatrick: No, what I am saying is that it seems likely, because that is the direction of travel. Right back to about 2016, a lot of UK state schools were mandating gender-neutral uniforms. More and more are taking up that option, so I am simply making the statement that it is likely that that is the direction in which school uniform policy will go. As I said, however, in my opening remarks, at the minute, we are not telling anybody that that is a standard that must be complied with.

Mr Burrows: I will make an observation and then ask a final question. Some of the talk about gender-neutral uniforms and all those other things has built up hostility in some to what is the very straightforward proposal that all girls, just like women in the workplace, can wear trousers. We would be aghast if someone were to say that a woman had to wear a dress or skirt to work. That would not be accepted. We can sometimes lose the common-sense argument when we start getting into this gender-neutral thing.

Ms Kilpatrick: We cannot pretend that there are not transgender or gender-neutral people, nor can we pretend that there are not children at school who are expressing that view to teachers. The Gender Recognition Act 2004, which came into law long before my time as chief commissioner, gives a person the right to change their identity for all legal purposes. It is therefore not a construction of mine or ours. Rather, it is about recognising that people come in many different forms. If something as simple as wearing trousers, which you accept would help girls, or, at least, you are saying that they should be allowed to choose, also helps trans and non-binary children, where is the harm in that? The very nature of the argument proves the point in a sense, because it proves that skirts are gendered and are about telling girls to dress in a certain way and that they are not supposed to do physical activity in the same way as boys. Many years ago, modesty — not showing a silhouette — used to be the reason why girls had to wear long skirts. Times change. We are not pressing the issue, but it is a fact that transgender and gender-nonconforming children are expressing that stress.

Mr Burrows: I just think that there is a common-sense argument that people are making at the minute that some bodies need to catch up with. We will agree to disagree on that.

You mentioned taking a positive step to prevent upskirting. I agree with that. Are you in support of the smartphone-free schools campaign, whereby children would not have access to their phone in school? That would prevent upskirting.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I ask for a brief response before I bring in the next member.

Ms Kilpatrick: That is a completely different thing.

Mr Burrows: It offers the same protection, so what onus do you have? What is your view, as the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission?

Ms Kilpatrick: I do not have a view on that as the chief commissioner, because there is not a human rights standard that requires it. The violence and assault involved there is not simply as a result of the fact that someone has a phone in their hand. If phones in schools are got rid of, there will, unfortunately, still be boys taking advantage of the fact that some of their girl colleagues are wearing skirts. There is a —.

Mr Burrows: When you mentioned upskirting, that was therefore just a red herring. It is not really the issue at all. The issue is the individuals involved.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, it is entirely —.

Mr Burrows: You introduced phones into the argument.

Ms Kilpatrick: It is a big part of the issue. The fact of the matter is that girls have to go into school and do everything that they have to do at school while wearing something that does not cover their legs or necessarily conceal their underwear.

Mr Burrows: If upskirting is to be defined by the use of a phone —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Final point, Jon.

Mr Burrows: — to record an image —.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, but upskirting is a different thing.

Mr Burrows: You mentioned upskirting. You introduced it.

Ms Kilpatrick: Upskirting is simply one of the things to which girls are subjected.

Mr Burrows: A very significant one. You said that it is a rising issue.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Jon, I said that that was to be your final point, because we —.

Mr Burrows: I can read what you said into the record.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Jon, excuse me. I am chairing the meeting. It is not for a member to put up their hand to say that their line of enquiry will continue.

Mr Burrows: OK, Chair. That is fine.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are well over time. The commissioner can make a final point in response to your question, after which we will move on.

Ms Kilpatrick: If something that I said is to be misinterpreted, I will say that upskirting is simply one of the most obvious things to which I can point. It is a matter of fact that wearing a skirt or wearing a pair of trousers makes a difference.

Mr Burrows: Absolutely.

Ms Kilpatrick: That a boy has a phone in his hand will make it easier for him to upskirt and take photographs. That is part of the offence, but not allowing phones in school does not stop assaults in other ways. There were no mobile phones in my time at school, but assaults still happened because girls were wearing skirts and boys were wearing trousers.

Mr Burrows: I want to stamp out upskirting totally. Upskirting should result in a suspension, extreme discipline and, potentially, criminal charges. That is why we need to be careful about lowering the age of digital consent for children are allowing them to have phones in school, because it would result in a free-for-all. I note that you do not have a view on that.

Ms Kilpatrick: My view is what I have said. I am here to point to recognised human rights standards. There is no standard for children having phones in school, and that is why I am not going to stray into giving my personal view.

Mr Burrows: They do not have a right to have a mobile phone in school.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am going to draw a line under that now.

Mr Burrows: Thank you, Chair. I apologise for cutting across you. I was in full flow.

Mr Sheehan: On a point of information, Chair. Jon said that people would be aghast if women were told that they had to wear a skirt to work. The letter from the independent Free Presbyterian schools states that their female teachers have to wear a skirt to work.

Mr Burrows: I am aghast at that, and I go to church. I would be aghast if any woman were asked to go into a workplace in a skirt.

Mr Sheehan: I thought that I would let you know, because you did not know about it.

Mr Burrows: I am aware of some of the letter.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you, Deputy Chair. If we are to conduct our meetings in good order, I remind members that —

Mr Burrows: Apologies. Apologies.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — if I ask a member to draw their remarks to a close, it is not appropriate to raise their hand to say that they are going to continue speaking.

Mr Burrows: It was inadvertent, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is not about my trying to exert control but about my trying to maintain good order in the meeting.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming along, folks. I am not going to get into the debate on trousers and whether girls should be allowed to wear them or not. I will take you to something in your evidence, which Jon started with. At the bottom of page 3, it is stated:

I do not even want to get into the aspects of that, but you have stated it in your evidence. Are you happy to stand by that?

Ms Kilpatrick: Is that in the letter or in our previous written submission?

Mr Martin: Right.

Ms Kilpatrick: It is in the most recent letter.

Mr Martin: It is page 3. Are you happy enough?

Ms Kilpatrick: Yes.

Mr Martin: You made the contention, and you reinforced twice to Jon that there is a lot of evidence for it and that it is a fact. Footnote reference number 13 is to a paper by the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe). You will not have it in front of you, but I have a copy here. I will read out the reference for you: NIAR 158-21. The piece that you cited is in the section titled, "Impact of school uniform policies on transgender children and gender non-conforming youth". The researcher cited a paper to come to their conclusions. It is a paper by McBride and Schubotz, which is well known to the Committee, and it is titled 'Living a fairy tale: the educational experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming youth in Northern Ireland'. Are you OK so far? Are you happy enough?

I have here the paper by McBride and Schubotz on which you based your initial statement. It is a 14-page academic paper that is based on the experiences of transgender children. For context, when, say, LucidTalk does a survey in Northern Ireland, it will look at a sample of between 1,000 and 3,000 people to get reliable and valid data. Commissioner, do you know on how many people that academic research, which you then based your contention in the evidence to us, was based?

Ms Kilpatrick: We do not base our contention on that paper. If I had never read that piece of research, I would say exactly the same thing to you today, based on my analysis of the ECHR, other international treaties and many other reports and evidence from people who know more about what trans people think than I do.

Mr Martin: It is not how you cited the paper. From our evidence, it is pretty clear that you based your statement on it. I can read it to you again.

Ms Kilpatrick: No. It is in our evidence because it is referenced. It is a reference. I am not going —.

Mr Martin: Yes. That is from where you got it. I have taken you through the stages of how the evidence was created, on which you based your statement. I ask you this again: how many people were surveyed in that academic paper? Do you have any idea? Do you want to have a guess for me?

Ms Kilpatrick: I have no idea. I am here to assist with human rights compliance with the proposed legislation, not to speak about what appears to be a wholly different issue. What we do is reference. You asked me about that particular piece of research. We do not base our evidence on it. If you want to scratch out that reference, what we say will still be exactly the same. It just happens to be a place where one can see that a reference is made.

Mr Martin: You provided written evidence to the Committee. You have just used the phrase, "You could scratch that out", despite the fact that your written evidence to the Committee is based on the trail that I have just explained to you, and this paper. That is where your evidence comes from, because you referenced it.

Ms Kilpatrick: Where I disagree with you is that you say that my evidence to the Committee is based on that piece of research: it is simply not. I am saying that, if we took that piece of research out of the equation, we would still be saying exactly the same thing on the basis of the human rights standards and the case law to date. I cannot take it any further than that.

Mr Martin: It is astounding that you are back-pedalling on that. I will give you the answer: it was five.

Ms Kilpatrick: Bear in mind that we are here to give assistance, not to be held to account. It does not seem —

Mr Martin: I am just questioning the validity of the research in your evidence.

Ms Kilpatrick: Perhaps you could explain to me what was a back-pedal, so that I can answer. That is fair.

Mr Martin: You just said about rubbing out the reference.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, I said, "you could", as in, "one could". You said that our evidence is based on that research.

Mr Martin: Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: It is not. I am saying that, if we had never read that research, on the basis of everything else, we would still be giving the same evidence.

Mr Martin: I am not asking about everything else; I am simply following the evidence that you have submitted to the Committee and looking through the paper trail, which leads me to this paper, which is based on the experiences of five individuals. I do not know whether it is commonplace for your office to make an assertion, which is what this evidence to us is, and then, when somebody spends time to look back on where it came from, they find that is based on five individuals — actually, three individuals. Researchers use something called "snowballing", which is where you ask three individuals whether they have some friends who will give evidence on an issue. It is called "snowballing" in research.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Peter, it is time to bring your point to a conclusion.

Mr Martin: This is my only question, Chair, so I am finishing here. It is astonishing and poor that it took me 45 minutes to find out that an assertion by your office is, when you trail it back, based on the experiences of three individuals — five if you count the snowballing. Frankly, that is astounding.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We are short on time, but it is appropriate to give you the opportunity to respond.

Mr Martin: I am happy to leave it there, Chair.

Ms Kilpatrick: To say that I made an assertion based on research is simply not correct. That is simply not what we are doing here. I will let my colleagues go back to that piece of research. We can point to research all over. I am sure that you can point to research as well.

Mr Martin: I appreciate that, commissioner, but —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): In the interests of time —

Ms Kilpatrick: Can Colin have an opportunity to —?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): — I will allow a response, and we will then have to draw this one to a close.

Dr Colin Caughey (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): The advice that we are providing to the Committee is based on international human rights, so, as we do in that paragraph, we draw on a number of reports from international human rights treaty bodies. The UN independent expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity highlighted the fact that trans and gender non-conforming students can face humiliation through gendered uniforms. In the sentence that you refer to, we say "Research ... indicates". We are not basing it entirely on that. We have a number of sources that we cite when it comes to the impact that that may have, and we then apply the international human rights framework.

Mr Martin: As a Committee member, I can go only on what is in front of me, and —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have to draw a line, because we are way over time. You have made your points clear, and the commissioners have had the opportunity to respond.

Mrs Guy: We have just had a wonderful evidence session with some young people about what is a really simple and straightforward legislative proposal. That this has descended into an absolute spectacle in which some members have tried to score culture war points is beyond depressing. I needed to say that before I can even form a question.

Thank you for coming here and giving us serious evidence. I have a question that is pertinent to the legislation that we are discussing, rather than for a TikTok video or internet points. I am not really clear about what any of that was about.

Will you speak to how girls' ability to engage with their education is compromised if their uniform makes them uncomfortable, perhaps even to the extent that they do not want to attend school? I am sorry: that is a poorly framed question.

Ms Kilpatrick: We touch on it. I am sure that the girls spoke to you about their experience. I know that they will be watching this evidence session. If this were turned into an issue simply about trans and non-binary, they would be very disappointed. They made it very clear that it is not about that. However, having said that, there are lots of reasons why wearing a skirt can make a significant difference to a child. One concerns a post-pubescent child who may be menstruating. I can spare you the graphics of that, but I do not know any boys who understand what a difference that could make, because they have never had to. If the vast majority of girls and women are telling you that that makes a difference because it is a very difficult thing to manage if you are wearing a skirt, I would simply take their word for it. I am not going to ask them to prove to me what it is, and I am not going to go into the graphics of that today. I do not think that that is appropriate.

I remember playing in the playground — I know that the girls said something along these lines to you — doing cartwheels and playing rounders. There were all sorts of things that we could not do because it was immodest. No boy was at risk of being immodest, because they were wearing trousers. It affected the way in which we sat in the classroom as well. I am talking personally because I happen to have personal experience of wearing a skirt to school. My personal experience is not the be-all and end-all: it is about standards, but the standards align with personal experience. There are all sorts of reasons why girls simply want to cover themselves and do not want to have to be exposed. The question is this: why should a girl expose her legs and not have the protection of a pair of trousers, which covers everything, should she choose? I do not know what the answer to that is.

Ms Emma Osborne (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission): I think that we have cited in our evidence that the UN CEDAW Committee has identified girls managing menstruation as a barrier to education. If wearing a pair of trousers helps girls to better manage that, that would go some way to removing or, at least, minimising that barrier as much as possible. That would be a good example of removing a barrier.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. These are genuine questions for my understanding. I asked the Northern Ireland Children's Commissioner the same question. If there is a rights engagement, or if there is a breach of rights, as such, in any of that, can you take any action on that front if we run out of time and are unable to legislate for that, or is it really our jurisdiction to create that legislation in the absence of the Minister's taking action? Is there a legal proceeding, a complaint or anything such as that that can be engaged?

Ms Kilpatrick: I have to return to my being asked to give evidence for assistance as the chief commissioner. There is no standard or case that I can point to in the ECHR and say, "Go along to court and tell the judge that this is what you're also entitled to". I think that it would be possible to mount a challenge. It would be probably for a girl, although it does not have to be a girl, to mount that challenge. The question of whether a school should be required to do it, as opposed to whether a girl should be allowed to petition a school, is a different issue. We have not chosen to bring a case such as that. We do not think that the law is advanced enough for us to bring such a case. However, if you look at all the rights together, you see that there is clearly an entitlement there. Breach, proving a breach and getting a remedy are much more technical things than just applying a rights standard to it.

Mrs Guy: Thank you. I appreciate the clarity.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Danny, did you indicate that you want to come in? I have no other indications. I think that you did earlier, perhaps, during the previous exchange. I am just checking that you still want in.

Mr Baker: Yes. I was not planning to come in, to be honest. You are here for a specific reason, and I thank you for that. I find it difficult to listen to people saying to you, "Are you still with me here?" and talking about common sense. I am trying to refrain from saying things. It is not professional. On behalf of those of us who are sitting here, I apologise. That is completely wrong. It shows how very important it is that we put things in legislation to protect the rights of our young people — all young people. Clearly, there is a certain minority that is under attack and will continue to come under attack from all different parts of the world, particularly from politicians, which makes it even more dangerous. I am sorry: that was not a question. I am just frustrated after listening to that. I apologise.

Mr Brooks: I will not go into that debate again. However, following on from what Danny said, I will say, as, I think, I have mentioned previously, that, sometimes, when it comes to the appointment of commissioners and different individuals whom the Assembly has chosen to appoint over time to do various pieces of work, there is a degree of outsourcing things that should be decided and done by politicians.

When people who hold such grand offices come before us, their evidence is usually — maybe not unduly — given significant weight. However, when evidence comes before us that contains references to academic work that is not referred to by us but chosen by the witness, it is right for there to be accountability. That shows —.

Mr Baker: You laughed, you smirked, and you said, "Are you still with me?".

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Through the Chair, please, Danny.

Mr Baker: That is terrible behaviour, particularly from three men.

Mr Brooks: I know that Danny would never laugh or smirk during a meeting of the Committee, right enough.

Mr Baker: At you, but not at the witnesses.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): This is it: David's —.

Mr Brooks: Danny's apology is not on our behalf.

Mr Baker: Of course it is not.

Mr Brooks: We are holding people to account, and it is absolutely appropriate for the Committee to scrutinise the evidence that witnesses bring to it.

I will return to an issue that I had not planned to discuss in one of these sessions: the independent Christian schools' ask for an exemption. There is a very small number of such schools, and, indeed, of independent schools in general, in Northern Ireland. Is there an acceptance that those who choose to send their children to those schools very much align with their ethos and that of the Church that is associated with them? I declare an interest: I am not a "Free P", but a member of my wife's family is employed by the Free Presbyterian Church. Those who send their children to those schools are aligned with the faith of the Church that is aligned with the schools.

Ms Kilpatrick: I will clarify two things. First, I cannot make the Committee or anybody else do anything. We are here to offer our advice.

Mr Brooks: I know.

Ms Kilpatrick: We are appointed to give advice; you can ignore it.

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: You frequently do so, which you are quite right to do if you disagree with it. You are the legislators, which is why I have put the evidence before you in the way in which I have.

Secondly, we are saying not that schools have to mandate trousers for everybody but that girls should be given a choice. That is where our evidence stops.

As I said, you have overstated the importance of that research. I do not discredit it, however. If you do, maybe you have other research that says something different. The quality of research does not depend solely on the number of people interviewed. Two young girls have been before you today; their evidence is not discredited by there being only two of them. If there is another reason to discredit the research —.

Mr Brooks: It is right —.

Ms Kilpatrick: As I said, and as Colin made clear, we draw from all sorts of sources. We put it forward not because we expect you to accept it but because it is what is out there. We draw from different standards. Colin, Emma and I might all have different personal views on this, but we are united on the standards, and that is what is important when we are before the Committee.

Mr Brooks: It is appropriate to have shown what weight we should give it. You and Peter had an exchange of views on that, and you just have spoken to it.

Do you think —?

Ms Kilpatrick: You said that the weight to be given —.

Mr Brooks: If you do not mind, I have a set amount of time, and I would like to return to the substantive issue of my question. I have issues, as I have said, with the overbearingness of the UN when it comes to the affairs of sovereign states. Do you really think that dictating uniform policy to small religious schools is an appropriate application of human rights legislation?

Ms Kilpatrick: We are saying not that there is a right to dictate but that children should be given a choice, which is different.

Mr Brooks: You advised that an exemption would not be appropriate.

Ms Kilpatrick: I said that, once you make the decision that it is the right thing to do, it is difficult to justify an exemption. I also said —.

Mr Brooks: You also said that you do not think that it is currently a human right.

Ms Kilpatrick: No, I did not. It is —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): The commissioner had not quite finished her point. If you ask a question, it is appropriate to hear the answer.

Ms Kilpatrick: If you are going to parse what I say by putting together a few words, rather than sentences, you have to let me return to it, because that is not what I said. That is not the full nature of what we said.

We said that there would have to be arguments as to why certain schools should have exemptions. Otherwise, why would we regulate anything to do with schools, or the care of children? The fact is that some of it is regulated for the best interests of the child. Take international standards out of the equation if you wish. The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which has been around for a lot longer, also requires the best interests of the child to be put first. You weigh up all of those things. That is exactly what I said. I invited a balancing exercise to be conducted for Presbyterian schools to explain why it was important to them. I also said that the commission would, if necessary, and if the schools brought it to us, support their right to freedom of expression of religion. However, in this instance, I would have to see evidence before we expressed our view on whether that was justified.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): If members are content, we can come to an agreement to seek further evidence on that. David, do you have anything to add? We are over time, so there will not be time for a further question.

Mr Brooks: No, that is fine.

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

Mr Burrows: I will make an observation, Chair. It is entirely right that there is probing and scrutinising in this institution, including in Committees. I distance myself from those who do not want us to ask tough, probing questions. I am glad to know that there were only five people involved, because that informs me about the weight that I can attach to it. That is objective decision-making. It should have been flagged that it was such a tiny number, because it was not presented as the lived experience of two witnesses; it was presented as a research paper. The definition of "research" is very clear.

Ms Kilpatrick: I am not going to —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I think that we have rehearsed the issue in some detail.

Ms Kilpatrick: I will clarify in writing what we said, and what we rely on as our evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): It is entirely appropriate that you get the right to clarify, but, other than that, we will draw a line.

Ms Kilpatrick: May I respond to one last point?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Yes.

Ms Kilpatrick: I did not have to come here — none of us did. We came here hoping that we could answer your questions, and to be questioned by you and for you to disagree with us. That is why we came here. We are scrutinised by the Assembly, and I am answerable to Westminster. I was appointed by the Secretary of State, and I am scrutinised regularly at Westminster through its Committees. There is not a lack of scrutiny. I do not disagree with your right to say anything that you say, but I ask that, when we come here, your questions be based on what we have actually said, rather than on what you think that we may have said.

Mr Martin: Chair, I read out to the witness —

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Peter, if I could —.

Mr Martin: — what they said. They sent it to us in written evidence.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): We have had a lot of back and forth on one particular issue that is on the periphery of what the Committee is trying to do in the Bill. I do not want to take up a huge amount of time with anything further on that. It is appropriate that you have a short right of response, and then I will draw this issue to a close.

Mr Martin: It will take only a short time. I read out to Alyson what was submitted in written evidence to the Committee. In answer to Danny, it would not have mattered what the issue was —.

Mr Baker: "Are you still with me?", was how you put it.

Mr Martin: It would not have mattered what the issue was; you are framing it in a certain way. It could have been any issue. A statement was presented in evidence, but, when you drill down two levels, you find out that it was based on the experiences of three individuals. It was not represented as such. It is nothing to do with the people who were involved in the research. I was just stating a fact.

Mr Baker: I will go back and watch.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I am going to draw that to a close. The Deputy Chair wants to be brought in. Is this on another issue, Deputy Chair? I am not interested in relitigating the matter.

Mr Sheehan: It is an observation. We are here to discuss proposed legislation about giving girls the right to wear trousers, or the right not to wear skirts — whichever way we end up framing it. The debate has gone off on a tangent. I have said this before, and I say it again: I do not understand unionism's obsession with transgender young people and boys wearing skirts. I do not understand what that is about.

Ms Kilpatrick: May I have one last chance to correct the record, please?

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Yes. If I can be clear, it is appropriate that you have —.

Mr Brooks: There are many issues for me as well.

Ms Kilpatrick: I will read out what our evidence says.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): I want to be fair to everybody in the Committee. I am also conscious of the fact that we have strayed very far from the scope of the evidence session, which was specifically on the Committee Bill. It seems that we have become fixated on a footnote in a letter. I am not convinced that that is a great use of Committee time, but members can use their time on the Committee as they see fit; they have the right to do so. Do you wish to correct the record, Alyson? I think that every member has had the opportunity to speak to that issue.

Mr Brooks: On the right to reply, there was an insinuation about my contribution as well. If you are going to allow my colleague to come in, my request —.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): There will be a right to reply. We will give the commissioner the right to correct the record, and then I will draw this evidence session to a close.

Ms Kilpatrick: It was simply to say that there are lots of sentences in between what was quoted at me, one of which is:

The footnote is:

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you. David, I ask you again to be brief.

Mr Brooks: This is not even on the issue that Peter raised. The whole point of my question about the independent Christian schools was to allow the commissioner — she was suggesting that I was putting words in her mouth — to articulate what she believed in that regard, and how that should be used. That is the whole point of the evidence session, and my questions. I get it that passions were raised, but there was no attempt to try to infer that she was saying something that she was not. It was a question to allow you to articulate that, and that is what we are here for.

Mr Sheehan: She articulated it very clearly.

Ms Kilpatrick: For clarification, my passions are not raised. This is a very professional and important debate for us to have. I will stay here for as long as it takes, and I will answer any question that is put to me. I did not suggest that you were putting words in my mouth. What I was suggesting was that, when you ask me about things that I have said, it sometimes needs be about the full context of what I have said, not just bits of it. I am not suggesting that you were being dishonest in any way at all. I am saying that you were giving me bits of what I said, which lacked the context and the full sentence.

Mr Brooks: I hope that you had the opportunity to articulate the bits that you felt that I left out.

Ms Kilpatrick: I absolutely did, and I thank you for allowing me to do that.

The Chairperson (Mr Mathison): Thank you for your evidence. The Committee will make a decision collectively about how we follow up on the issue of independent schools. I put on record my thanks for the work that you do, and for the evidence that was provided today. It has been very helpful. Thank you.