Debate contribution: Relationships and Sexuality Education

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 2 November 2026.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

2 November 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Relationships and Sexuality Education

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5807201

Read the official Assembly record

Text

My central concerns with the report, and reasons for opposing it, relate mainly to recommendations 7 and 16. Recommendation 7 is:

"The right to withdrawal from RSE should be gradually phased out".

Recommendation 24 is:

"There should be no ... withdrawal" —

from content —

"that is directly concerned with safeguarding ... children ... from sexual abuse and exploitation".

Those recommendations are not the same: one is about establishing a safeguarding limit, and the other is about phasing out withdrawal more broadly. The report does not say who decides when its conditions have been met. It sets out no timescale and gives no clear account of how parents could challenge a decision that a particular programme is sufficiently age appropriate or, indeed, balanced.

I will come to that in my comments. What we have seen in the report and heard in the Chamber today would be a significant expansion of the state's role in deciding what children must be taught and a reduction in parents' ability to act according to their convictions. The report's recommendations go beyond a narrow safeguarding curriculum. Recommendation 23 is age-appropriate teaching on child sexual exploitation and online safety, but also on pornography, toxic masculinity and the risk of criminalisation when indecent images are shared. Some of those subjects clearly require attention, but the labels and the teaching materials that are used to address them matter. They matter to me as a parent. Parents should be able to see what is being taught, by whom it is being taught and how different moral views are treated. The report makes it clear that this is not simply a technical disagreement about lesson plans. It gives considerable space to organisations that openly advocate particular approaches to sexuality, gender identity and abortion. HERe NI and the Rainbow Project argued for LGBTQIA+ relationships and sexuality to be included across all content areas. The report also includes calls from HERe NI, the Rainbow Project, Women's Platform and Faith Voices for Reproductive Justice for schools to address changing gender stereotypes and transgenderism and to represent same-sex attraction and diverse families. Those organisations are entitled to submit evidence, but they are advocacy organisations with clear policy commitments. Their recommendations should not be treated as politically neutral simply because they appear in the report of a Committee's mini-inquiry. In fact, that whole world view is one with which I, as a parent, have profound problems. I note that the Committee did not think that it was worth its time to even mention the fact that the Christian Institute engaged with the mini-inquiry. If you were not on the Committee, you would not even know from reading the report that the Christian Institute had engaged with the mini-inquiry. Important facts, such as those about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman and the stability that marriage brings, are airbrushed from the report. Abstinence from sex as an empowering choice that protects young people from sexual coercion, STIs and emotional trauma is simply ignored. Frankly, I find it profoundly concerning that groups such as the Rainbow Project have been permitted to exercise such influence on the report.

In response to the report, the Christian Institute had this to say:

"The Committee recommends mandating that abortion is taught as a fundamental right, yet makes no provision for evidence-based teaching on the biological reality of foetal development or positive alternatives, such as adoption and state support for young mothers. Presenting abortion without acknowledging its profound moral weight or the sanctity of human life violates the state's duty to provide balanced and pluralistic education."

Frankly, the report before us this evening is about driving the ideology of the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP. I believe that it is out of touch with the views and feelings of many who vote for those parties. The Committee clearly thought that it was worthwhile to give space in the report to the Rainbow Project, but it chose to exclude the comments of the Christian Institute. As a Christian parent, I have a right to protect my children from the dangerous world views of others being forced upon them. That has been completely airbrushed and completely overlooked in this mini-inquiry. The Committee could not even bring itself to put down the fact that the Christian Institute took part in the inquiry.

723 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Flagged Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 4 November 2026 at 04:41 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

A second, larger AI model can read this record again, without being told the MLA’s name or party, against the same published rubric. It also asks whether the activity mainly serves the public interest or mainly advances division. Its verdict replaces the current one, whichever way it goes, and its reasons are published here. Each record can have one second assessment.

If you still think the record or its classification is wrong after that, or the record itself has a factual error, you can challenge it. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.