Debate contribution: Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
Debate contribution by Ms Kate Nicholl on .
- MLA
- Ms Kate Nicholl
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 14 January 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4736684
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the proposer of the motion. I think that we all welcome any opportunity to talk about tackling violence against women and girls, and RSE is such an important part of that. I start by paying tribute to my colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP, who made such a personal and moving speech in the House of Commons earlier this week about her experience of domestic abuse. It takes so much bravery to talk about those experiences, and what she has faced since, on social media in particular, has been vile. I have moved from the Education Committee to the Economy Committee, but I have always been really passionate about RSE. I have spoken in the House about how educating our young people is safeguarding and will play such an important role in changing the toxic attitudes that make Northern Ireland the most dangerous place in Europe to be a woman. The sentiment of the motion is good, and we welcome it, but the Alliance amendment is concerned more with the how. We were surprised to see an RSE motion in the Order Paper in light of the fact that the Education Committee is just weeks away from wrapping up the inquiry on this very topic. The inquiry has heard from a wide range of experts — I have been watching — including the excellent healthy young adult relationships project, which is referenced in the motion, and has received a huge number of reports and submissions.
My party's amendment challenges what additional benefit would be yielded by requesting yet another task force when we have the Gillen review, the Committee's ongoing work, the ETI report on preventative curriculum and the Executive's strategy and action plan on ending violence against women and girls. Whilst we agree that we cannot afford to wait, we are concerned that another task force would risk disrupting and possibly delaying actions that should be well under way. Ultimately, policy around RSE reform is a matter for the Education Minister. The inquiry has heard from a diverse range of stakeholders who agree on the pivotal role that RSE plays in challenging dangerous mindsets and also in safeguarding, as I mentioned, so that our young people are able to recognise the signs of abuse. It is that latter point, in particular, that galvanises support from organisations such as the NSPCC, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Children's Law Centre, to name a few, that a standardised and mandatory RSE curriculum is necessary to protect our children and young people from harm. Acknowledging the specific duties of the Education Minister on RSE is not to abdicate the Justice Minister from any role in that space when talking about violence against women and girls. On the contrary, the Justice Minister has been extremely proactive in that regard. For example, she brought forward the first stand-alone domestic abuse legislation in Northern Ireland, which included criminalising coercive control. Of course, it is vital to prevent behaviours that result in convictions. I remember that, in 2021, in recognition of that fact, Minister Long met the then Education Minister, Peter Weir, to understand how the RSE minimum content order could better support work to prevent offending and tackle the toxic ideas that some people have around sexual relationships and that can be promoted online. Minister Weir agreed that the Department of Education would take the lead on the subgroup of the Gillen education and awareness group to look at the provision of RSE in schools, including a review of the minimum content order. Unfortunately, neither Minister Weir nor his successor took that forward. That was partly due to the collapse of these institutions, which, inevitably, set back vital work across a range of priorities. That having been said, I am encouraged by the current Minister's responses to questions for written answer. He has said that his Department is considering how the curriculum and specifically RSE can support the ending violence against women and girls strategy. Therefore, my party's amendment requests an update from the Education Minister on completed and planned actions on the Gillen review, as well as responsibilities under the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. I hope that Members will endorse our amendment, which welcomes the spirit of the motion and its original intention, but seeks to ensure that the motion's focus on RSE is directed appropriately. The time for task forces and reports has passed. Our focus must now be on delivery of a fit-for-purpose RSE regime. That includes necessary support and training for teachers and schools. Ultimately, that is how we will deliver societal change. That is what is needed to grapple with the issue, which is not only ruining the lives of many young women and girls but is, ultimately, costing lives. My party hopes that you will support our amendment. We support the motion's intention.
814 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.05 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.05 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.77 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.23 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:50 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.