Debate contribution: Relationships and Sexuality Education and Healthy Young Adult Relationships
Debate contribution by Mr Nick Mathison on .
- MLA
- Mr Nick Mathison
- 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 4736719
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very conscious that my time is short, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible. I probably will not have the opportunity to refer to individual Members' points. I will refer to the Minister's points briefly before I go any further. I welcome the Minister's confirmation that he considers RSE to be a crucial part of the curriculum in Northern Ireland. That is certainly a very different tone from the previous time that we debated RSE, when, I think, he referred to sex education as "the Alliance Party's pet project". It is good to see that the Minister has moved on from that, and the debate in the Chamber has reflected that RSE is certainly much more than that. I will emphasise a couple of things. First, while the motion is welcome, its timing is odd. The Education Committee is very close to concluding its inquiry. Some Members have suggested that the inquiry has run for longer than they would like, but we have heard evidence from those who are involved in the healthy young adult relationships project and from a whole range of expert witnesses. While many of the recommendations in the report that was referenced are very welcome, it would be good to deal with the issue in the round and bring some recommendations to the Assembly and to the Minister that take into account all the evidence that was heard by the Committee. I also want to make it very clear, as my colleague Kate Nicholl did, that the Justice Minister is very keen to work with all Departments in the space of promoting healthy relationships and tackling violence against women and girls. The motion's stated purpose, however, was about enhancing RSE, and it is very clear that the responsibility for that lies with the Education Minister. We definitely do not need another task force to do that; we simply need an Education Minister who will listen to young people and ensure that we have an RSE curriculum that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of young people rather than the inconsistent and patchy provision that we see across Northern Ireland. It is very clear from the Minister's contribution that dealing with violence against women and girls is a whole-Executive challenge. It is a whole-society challenge. I do not argue with that at all, but RSE is critical to that, and it lies with his Department. It is important that that is not pushed aside by saying, "Well, look, it is for everybody". Delivering the right curriculum is for the Minister. On that basis, I hope that our amendment receives support. It lets the Committee process run its course and deliver a full suite of recommendations on RSE in due course. It further asks that the Minister sets out updates on his work on the Gillen review and the strategic framework. We have heard a little bit today about that, but I would have liked to hear a bit more detail on it. I will turn very briefly to the DUP amendment. Regrettably, it fails to acknowledge something really crucial, which is the fact that RSE is failing our young people. That amendment does not acknowledge that RSE is not fit for purpose, so, in light of that starting point, we cannot support it. We need to see change in that space. We do not need to focus our energy on a new task force. We need to sort out the reform of the curriculum and the RSE delivery that we all know are so desperately needed.
601 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: 0.07 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.99).
- 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 | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.07 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.99 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.02 |
| Education structures, integration and community division | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.