Relationships and Sexuality Education (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Grand Committee

Today’s regulations are a major interference in the lives of the people of Northern Ireland and should be the responsibility of a devolved Administration. The Secretary of State cannot do anything about those other things, but this is put above them all. In my opinion, that is such hypocrisy. The more he forces on the Northern Ireland community legislation like this, the further he hinders the pathway to the restoration of an Executive. There is no more important issue than that of life and death of the unborn. This legislation is being forced on Northern Ireland by a Government who have not one Member of Parliament elected by the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is good to remember that, as my noble friend Lord Morrow said, not one Northern Ireland Member of Parliament who takes their seat in the democratically elected House of Commons voted for Section 9 of the executive formation Act of 2019.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way and I agree with what he is saying and with what the noble Baroness said earlier. He says that there is no elected Member from Northern Ireland in the government party. Is it not even worse, in that we could end up in a year’s time with a Labour Government who do not even allow their party members in Northern Ireland to stand for election, yet profess strongly to be interested in Northern Ireland?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

The noble Baroness makes her point very clearly. It is beyond challenge. The Labour Party does not permit its members to stand in Northern Ireland, so it could not have an elected representative in the other Chamber, yet it wants to impose its will on the people of Northern Ireland.

The insertion of Section 9 was deeply controversial. I believe that a majority of the people of Northern Ireland find it an offensive amendment, for which there was no prior consultation or proper scrutiny. It was added to a Bill that was supposed to be subject- narrow to the formation of an Executive, yet that legislation was brought through. In fact, not only did the Government bring it through but they did so having presented it on that narrow basis, and it was then deemed appropriate to be granted accelerated passage.

As my noble friend Lord Morrow said, the situation with these regulations is even more anti-democratic and intolerable. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the Secretary of State decided that these regulations, on education provision regarding abortion and reducing teen pregnancy, were not even worthy of consultation. What kind of democratic society are we living in where even the people are not worthy of consultation? These regulations are being imposed over the heads of parents without being preceded by any primary legislative debate at all, in terms of the regulation-making powers as they applied to education. Indeed, the Secretary of State has not bothered to consult or even give himself the semblance of democratic cover before forcing this legislation through. That is arrogance.

As I said, the democratic deficit in relation to these regulations is even worse than that relating to abortion. That is in spite of the fact that, when the abortion regulations were taken to court, the point was made that the Secretary of State had consulted on them and the court stated that,

“in the event that Regulations or Directions are made in the future to deal with those issues”

of education and sexual and reproductive health and so on,

“there will be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation”.

Whenever the NIO was asked about consultation and whether it was necessary, the response was, “No, it’s not. Why would you talk to those people?” It said that it was not necessary because each school must have a written policy on how it will deliver regulations and sexuality education, and that this policy should be subject to consultation with parents. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that,

“school policies will only be able to operate within the already-established government guidance, meaning that such consultation is too late to affect the framework of RSE delivery”.

However, the committee also noted that,

“when comparable regulations were introduced in England”,

a full consultation was carried out. I wonder whether that was because the elected Members in the other place would have to answer to their electorate. Maybe that was the reason: the electorate had the power to change them or remove them—but not in Northern Ireland. Our Secretary of State feels that parents in Northern Ireland are too far down the pecking order to be worthy of being heard or consulted. That is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall”—


not might—

“respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

Notice the word “shall”. But it has not been done.

We are witnessing a deliberate abuse of parliamentary procedure in the development of these regulations. As the Minister listens to the debate today, in the light of what he is hearing, I ask him what he will do to stop any Secretary of State abusing the powers that they feel they have over the people of Northern Ireland.

The Northern Ireland Secretary of State and CEDAW have demonstrated a total lack of respect for faith, which is very important to many in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 43 of the CEDAW report states:

“The designated members observed that young people in Northern Ireland were denied the education necessary to enjoy their sexual and reproductive health and rights. Most children in Northern Ireland attend denominational schools, either Catholic or Protestant”,


but that is not true. It is not true. Of course, does truth really matter? It seemingly does not, because that statement is totally false.

It goes on:

“Church representatives play active roles in school management boards, and the result is that relationship and sexuality education, although a recommended part of the primary and post-primary statutory curriculum of the Department of Education, is underdeveloped or non-existent since it is at the school’s discretion to implement the contents of the curriculum according to its values and ethos”.


On the one hand, it is saying that schools are either Catholic or Protestant. It goes on to tell us that the contents of the curriculum are at the school’s discretion and accord with its values and ethos. It goes on:

“Where relationship and sexuality education is delivered, it is frequently provided by third parties and based on anti-abortion and abstinence ethos”.


This attack on Northern Ireland’s Churches, at the heart of the educational problem, lacks any sense of human rights balance or cognisance that religious freedom is also a human right, let alone any appreciation of the important and constructive role that Churches have played in education, including RSE.

Just because CEDAW is supposed to be a human rights body, it does not excuse its lack of concern for religious liberty. Religious liberty and freedom were hard fought for and obtained—and cost many a life. On the right to religious freedom, this stunning failure to attempt to understand the faith ethos beggars belief.

It seems that the NIO and CEDAW are unaware of Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which states:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


There has certainly been no attempt to respect these rights, when one considers the lack of consultation with parents.

The attitude of the department in the Explanatory Memorandum exposes its ignorance to its human rights obligation under Article 2 of Protocol 1. It says:

“Timing for the Department to make regulations about the circumstances in which a pupil may be excused from receiving education on the updated curriculum is a matter for the Department. There is no guarantee this will be in place by January 2024, the point at which the Department is under a duty to issue guidance to schools on the content and delivery of the updated curriculum. This may attract criticism from faith-based schools, and some teachers and parents”.


It seems to say, “So let it be. Who are they?”